• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

A Dream Navy?

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
237
Points
680
Well, it is now official, after almost 35 years as a naval officer, I have now been released from the Supplementary Reserve as my 10 years have run out.

To celebrate, I thought I could start a little game here. "Leadmark" mentioned (I don't know how manny times) the need for general purpose naval forces. I do not believe that's what we have now. So here is the game: The current fleet of 33 vessels accounts for 4402 seaman (I'm leaving out the air dets -  source: DND website). If you had your "druthers", using current ships from around the world, what dream fleet would you have using the same number of seaman (plus or minus 100)? Not perfect but, the gauge for crew size will be Wikepedia. And the air departments are excluded.

I'll go first: My Dream fleet would be:


Type : Class : Quantity : Crew Size : Total Crew :
SSK Type 212 6 27 162
DDG Daring 12 180 2160
Command Absalon 2 169 338
LHD Mistral 2 160 320
LPD(A) Largs Bay 2 59 118
Aops Aops 4 40 160
MCM Lerici 6 47 282
AOR Berlin (Type 702) 3 139 417
CVL Cavour 1 450 450

Grand Total: 4407 personnel manning 38 ships.

I look forward to reading other people's point of view.
 

Neill McKay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If all your numbers are correct, it seems to suggest that we're not a very efficient navy in terms of tonne of ship per sailor.  The fleet you've described has capabilities that we don't have at all now, obviously.

Is the small size of the Daring-class crew entirely a result of automation (etc.) in the ship, or is there a capability gap compared to a CPF or 280?
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
:) I did something similar back in 2005, but if we are using those numbers I will think of something. I did not realize we were down to 4400 sailors, that seems a little low.

http://Forums.Army.ca/forums/threads/28345.0.html
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
237
Points
680
All of the ships I describe have a much higher level of automation than our current ships, which explains most of the lower manning levels.

The gap in capability in the Daring class destroyers favours the Daring class.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
237
Points
680
Ex-D: The number of seaman is for those actually on commissioned ships, not the whole Navy. I included the MCDV's even though manned by reservists. And the numbers are for all the 33 serving ships being fully manned with the number of seaman they should have according to the DND web site.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Here is my take on OGBs Dream Navy.

Type :      Class :      Quantity :      Crew Size :      Total Crew :
DDG            Hobart      5                  180                  900
FFG              Nansen      12                120                  1440
FFL              Thetis        2                  60                    120
Flag            Absalon      2                  170                  340
SSK            U214          6                  27                    162
OPV            Svalbard    6                  70                      420
AOR            Wave          4                  102                    408
MCM          Styrso        7                  16                      112
LPD            Galicia        2                  115                    230
HOSP        Argus          2                  130                    260
                                  [48]                                        [4392]

Data used was from: http://www.naval-technology.com/     

Updated to correct math.
My reasoning for several of these classes is they provide a nice backup for other ships I chose. Nansen has AAD capability in case Hobart unavailable. Absalon has some amphib capability as well asa secondary frigate role, so it can backstop the Galicia class, Nansen and Thetis classes.
 
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Unfortunately, I simply do not know enough to come up with a ideal fleet for the Canadian Navy.

I was, however, fortunate enough to have a look around the HDMS Absalon this summer with some far more knowledgeable friends and I was very impressed. Given the modular nature of the vessel, could we not just replace our Halifax frigates with that class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Absalon_%28L16%29
 

Lex Parsimoniae

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Well, it is now official, after almost 35 years as a naval officer, I have now been released from the Supplementary Reserve as my 10 years have run out.
BZ on completing a substantial period of service.  Fair winds and following seas!

Oldgateboatdriver said:
Type : Class : Quantity : Crew Size : Total Crew :
SSK Type 212 6 27 162
DDG Daring 12 180 2160
Command Absalon 2 169 338
LHD Mistral 2 160 320
LPD(A) Largs Bay 2 59 118
Aops Aops 4 40 160
MCM Lerici 6 47 282
AOR Berlin (Type 702) 3 139 417
CVL Cavour 1 450 450
Grand Total: 4407 personnel manning 38 ships.

I look forward to reading other people's point of view.
An interesting list.  Using a ceiling of 4407 personnel and aiming for a general purpose fleet, I would make the following amendments:

- Swap the Type 212 (albeit a fine design, just a bit small for the Pacific and lacking robust AIO crewing) for six Soryu class @ 65 crew. 
- The Type 45 has been plagued by problems and is still just a gun platform with a good radar.  I would swap it for ten DDG 51 Flight IIA ships @ 281 crew. 

These two substitutions will drive the numbers up by 872.  To balance the equation:

- I would eliminate the Absalon class and CVL
- Reduce the AOR fleet to two
- Add one AOP for a savings of 15 overall.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
237
Points
680
Don't cheat on your numbers Ex-D. Svalbard: 4 x 284 is 1156, not 992.

This said, I think that 284 is the maximum number of embarked people on the Svalbard, including the troop transport berths. The crew is closer to 65-70 range as a rule if I remember well. This is definitely one of those situations where Wiki fails us.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
237
Points
680
Thank you for your good wishes Lex.

Good choice of submarine, but do you think the Japanese - who to my mind currently have the best long range patrol subs - are willing to enter the market, or even can under their constitution? That is the only thing that made me ignore them.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,857
Points
890
What we really need is two or three of these:

PUB_DDG-1000_Next-war-itis_lg.jpg
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Don't cheat on your numbers Ex-D. Svalbard: 4 x 284 is 1156, not 992.

This said, I think that 284 is the maximum number of embarked people on the Svalbard, including the troop transport berths. The crew is closer to 65-70 range as a rule if I remember well. This is definitely one of those situations where Wiki fails us.

Actually we both screwed it up as its 1136
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Tetragrammaton said:
Unfortunately, I simply do not know enough to come up with a ideal fleet for the Canadian Navy.

I was, however, fortunate enough to have a look around the HDMS Absalon this summer with some far more knowledgeable friends and I was very impressed. Given the modular nature of the vessel, could we not just replace our Halifax frigates with that class?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMS_Absalon_%28L16%29

Their main role is that of command and support with a secondary frigate role.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
In the spirit of how this was intended rather then slam a posters choices come up with your own "Dream Navy"

Milnet.Ca Staff
 

Neill McKay

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ex-Dragoon said:
FFL              Thetis        2                  60                    120

I'm curious as to what role you had in mind for these?
 

Lex Parsimoniae

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Good choice of submarine, but do you think the Japanese - who to my mind currently have the best long range patrol subs - are willing to enter the market, or even can under their constitution? That is the only thing that made me ignore them.
I'm not sure - I don't know enough about their politics to know one way or the other.  Article 9 of the Japanese Constitution is the clause in their constitution that prohibits an act of war by the state.  Through this article, Japan formally renounces war as a sovereign right and bans settlement of international disputes through the use of force.  Article 9 also states that armed forces with war potential will not be maintained.  However, their creative use of words such as helicopter destroyers (DDH) to comply with constitutional limitations makes me think that they might sell them, especially to an allied navy.
 

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1
Points
0
I seem to remember being told that the Japanese don't export weapons due to their Constitution. And since they seem to be the only ones using their kit then it stands to reason something along those lines.
 

Klinkaroo

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
My Choices

TypeClassQuantityComplementTotal
AORWave398294
Artic PatrolSvalbard3248744
SubmarineTodara Class727189
Littoral PatrolFreedom Class950450
Command/DestroyerDe Zeven Provincien Frigate3202606
FrigateF-125 Class Frigate101901900
Coastal PatrolArmidale Class7 (12 crews)21252

Few arguments to my points.

AOR : Royal Navy runs them 72 Auxiliary personnel and 26 Naval personnel (for the weapons systems), I assumed here that they would be fully manned by Navy Personel

AOPS : 3 to Patrol the North based out of Iqaluit

Submarine : Yes they may be a little small for the Pacific, but Diesel Electric does not have the capacity to go under the ice for a decent amount of time. The type 212 also known as the Todara class to the Italians, can sustain 3 weeks of operations before requiring to surface. Also carries mines, torpedoes and what is known as an IDAS that can be fired out of the torpedo tubes and take out anti-submarine helicopters.

De Zeven Provincien Frigate : Can remain at the center of a battle group, performs primarily anti-aircraft roles, can cover a large area of either ocean in a self defense type role in consort with other assets. Also acts as a command platform.

Littoral Combat Ship : Small crew, capable of very fast speeds (+45 knots), could run up and down the coast quickly, carries two helicopters, modular capability includes 3 modules that can be switched out in 24 hours. Mine Warfare package that brings on extra sonar gear for Minehunting. Anti-submarine and an Anti-surface package.

F-125 class Frigate : Currently still under development for the Germans, would be the primary long range deployable asset. Has the capability of being away from homeport for up to 2 years without major maintenance. Carries two helicopters and many multi-role sensors.

Armidale Class : Small vessel, 4 on the east coast, 3 on the west coast. Assist with training, fisheries patrols, inland patrols, summer northern patrols. Ships multi-crewed, 7 crews on the east coast, 5 on the west coast.

Interested in seeing your opinions
 

Lex Parsimoniae

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ex-Dragoon said:
I seem to remember being told that the Japanese don't export weapons due to their Constitution. And since they seem to be the only ones using their kit then it stands to reason something along those lines.
It would appear that it currently the case although it may change soon.
 
Top