Are we going to spending too much money on FELEX?

[aesop081]

or theres the other way, the one nobody wants (almost) mandatory service age 18-20 like a fair number of european countries

And you will note that some of those same countries are moving away from conscripts.  Bad idea altogether, IMHO, to employ people who have no desire to be there.....

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

no contest there

 

[Cloud Cover]

There seems to be a general state of confusion in many navies about how to proceed so FELEX is actually a good fit within that state of confusion. Even the Type 45 Daring is now being produced with the weapons fit seeming to be a shifting package all the time. The USN LCS program is in some disarray due to cost and a fair bit of mission confusion. DDX, on the other hand, seems pretty much squared away. There's a reason for that with DDX- a large powerful warship is required to project real sea power in a hostile world. Canada is not going to be in that game from a naval perspective, both for reasons of cost and politics.  

Totally wild prediction for Canadian Navy over next 10-15 years

- cancellation of SCTF and BHS in late 2007;
- reduction in JSS from 3 to 2 in 2008;
- reduction in MCDV from 12 to 7 in 2009;

-2009 will bring a liberal majority government and will be a bad year for the armed forces, particularly the Navy:
- scrapping of SSK's by 2011;
- pay off of remaining DDH's without replacement;
- reduction of FFH from 12 to 8 no later than 2011;  
- 2011 RFP for new build fleet proposal for large sized, small crew, multi-purpose, lightly armed warship;
- vessels will probably be along the lines of the cancelled RN Type 45 global mini cruiser at around 9000t, with some mild arctic weather capabilities; very limited basic defensive weapons fit; some Ro-Ro sealift capability; large flight deck; room to comfortably transport rescued evacuee's short distances;      
- 2013 first JSS commissions
- 2015 second JSS commissions
-2017, the first steel will be cut for new large surface warship as the remains of the FFH and MCDV fleet start to pay off;
- 2024 the Canadian Navy will consist of just 5 of these newer ships and 2 JSS.  

It will be a Navy capable of transporting marine commando's and baby formula to the arctic; delivering aid and rescuing/removing civilians from trouble spots and disaster areas under limited threat environments; and doing nothing more without the USN/RN/ RAN providing cover.  It will be a Navy more relevant to Canadians because Canadians will be told this is what they need. It will also be a Navy less relevant to our real enemies, who will be thankful for what Canadians have been told.

 

[aesop081]

Rather dark prediction but, IMHO, not far off the mark......

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I hope its far off the mark....

 

[geo]

Disenchanted
Build two ships per year - one on each coast?....
soo - after 10 years we'd have 20 new-ish ships?
we'd we planning on decomissionning 10 yr old ships at year 10? sounds a little silly to me...

1 new ship per year, each year - alternating east/west coast
1 ship major refit per year on the opposing coast

Would help develop and maintain warship design, fabrication and support skills - but again, only on the assumption that we "desire" to develop and maintain such an ability (and with such a large coastline, it would be silly not to IMHO).

Also - what the H are we supposed to do with a cruiser? - esp if we are supposed to be looking at "litoral" warfighting skills.  While most nations are packing more and more punch in smaller and smaller packages, today's frigates have more of a punch than some of the major warships of WW2... so why look towards "capital" (big bucks $$) ships.

 

[NCS_Eng]

As I understand it the current line of thinking within DGMEPM is to adopt a more american style procurement model; ie one ship a year for 18 years. This will allow us to gradually pay off our older ships while ensuring that canada maintains a ship building industry. This is following the lessons learned from the CPF project, in which the industry collapsed soon after the last ship was made. The Single Class Surface Combatant is an interesting concept - the ship itself will be build in batches or flights, much like the Arliegh Burke DDGs. Thus the first 6 may have Area Air Defence capabilities while the next 12 may not - or the last 6 may take advantage of computer technology that was not in place for the first 6.

This is surely the case with the Burkes south of the border. The difference between DDG-51 and DDG-92 is night-and-day in regards to combat capabilities.

As for FELEX, I won't comment on the project as I'm not directly involved but the last briefings I had on the topic lead me to believe it is a very ambitious time frame, and I hope it works out correctly. Ultimately it is a stop-gap until the SCSC project gets up and running.

Whiskey601 has created an interesting work of fiction but thats all it is.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Whiskey601 has created an interesting work of fiction but thats all it is.

Thats right, just pure speculation. [hopefully]

 

[Kirkhill]

should the Navy be telling the Gov't what they need or should it be the Gov't telling the navy what it needs?

The army (thanks to the CDS) was able to go out and get what was needed, right this second - with a fair bit of hoopla and a fair bit of contreversy .... but there are C17s on the production line, M777s are deployed (with more on the way), Chinooks and Hercs are coming up next.....

1. The Navy has to tell the Government what it can do with what it has.
    Day 1 Familiarization Briefing

2. The Government has to tell the Navy what it would like done.
  Day 1 Familiarization Briefing

3. The Navy then has to tell the Government how much it will cost to make up the difference.
  Many hours of staff work and dollars of studies by contractors

4. The Government then gets to decide how much of what it wants done is really important.
  Many hours of discussions with Navy, CF, Fisheries and Oceans, RCMP, Foreign Affairs, US, ABCA, NATO, UN various allies, domestic partners, Provinces, Treasury Board, Industry, Suppliers.

5. The Government then gets to decide on needs, wants and budget and inform Navy.

6. Navy then gets to tell Government that the budget is too small.

7. Government then gets to say, "Carry on regardless".

Beyond that it becomes a case of the Government making sure that the money is spent wisely.

But then there are elections....and economic crises and booms.

 

[FredDaHead]

Also - what the H are we supposed to do with a cruiser? - esp if we are supposed to be looking at "litoral" warfighting skills.  While most nations are packing more and more punch in smaller and smaller packages, today's frigates have more of a punch than some of the major warships of WW2... so why look towards "capital" (big bucks $$) ships.

Ever hear of a nifty thing called command and control?

It was, if one is to believe the semi-official Op Apollo book, one of the major problems with taking out the Destroyers--the command and staff crew had to move to a Frigate, which meant they had a lot less space and ressources to work with. They managed to do the job admirably well, but one can't deny that a big ship with C&C capabilities would be useful if we ever want to take control of operations, or even of an area.

I'm not saying we need battleships or anything of the sort, but ships larger than frigates are definately needed--and the BHS might not fit the billet.

 

[aesop081]

Ever hear of a nifty thing called command and control?

It was, if one is to believe the semi-official Op Apollo book, one of the major problems with taking out the Destroyers--the command and staff crew had to move to a Frigate, which meant they had a lot less space and ressources to work with. They managed to do the job admirably well, but one can't deny that a big ship with C&C capabilities would be useful if we ever want to take control of operations, or even of an area.

I'm not saying we need battleships or anything of the sort, but ships larger than frigates are definately needed--and the BHS might not fit the billet.

Fred.....areed that the FFHs are too small for C&C, thats why we normaly used the DDHs.

IMHO, in this Navy, CGs are too large...plain and simple.....too much ship, too much expense, too much crew

 

[NCS_Eng]

Ever hear of a nifty thing called command and control?

It was, if one is to believe the semi-official Op Apollo book, one of the major problems with taking out the Destroyers--the command and staff crew had to move to a Frigate, which meant they had a lot less space and ressources to work with. They managed to do the job admirably well, but one can't deny that a big ship with C&C capabilities would be useful if we ever want to take control of operations, or even of an area.

I'm not saying we need battleships or anything of the sort, but ships larger than frigates are definately needed--and the BHS might not fit the billet.

Yeah, ask anyone who's ever sailed with fleet staff on board a CPF - its not a pleasant experience. Its bad enough on the 280's. With staff, air crew, riders and some trainees you can have close to 60 officers on board. They aren't keeping the 280's around for their Area Air Defense, I can tell you that - its their role as a command platform that they are used for, and its the reason (in my opinion) you will start to see them all payed-off the minute the first JSS gets its keel wet.

It needn't be a "cruiser" (which is largely an academic/political classification now anyway), the JSS will do fine; all you need is the space for the people and as much coms as you can jam on there. In the future you will see all ships (including the SCSC) designed from the ground up for command capability. The current wisdom is that "steel is cheap", in comparison to the big-ticket combat systems, so the ships are being made larger and with more bunk space than before simply to give that extra capability.

 

[Kirkhill]

I notice that all the new "Frigates" being produced by the Dutch, Spanish, Germans and Danes displace over 6000 tonnes now.  The Daring Type 45 is over 7000 tonnes.  Even the Norwegian Ice-Breaker/Arctic Patrol Vessel (also a deployable C&C asset) is over 6000 tonnes.

Anything wrong with going the route of the Danes and Norwegians and building big "empty" ships?  Stuff them full for the Air Defence role - leave some extra "space" for other duties like C&C, or support or transport?  Common hull and machinery with minimal ship handling crew.

Add people and systems for more complex vessels - build in modules.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

What is the budget for FELEX at this time?


Matthew. 

 

[JasonSkald]

Also - what the H are we supposed to do with a cruiser? - esp if we are supposed to be looking at "litoral" warfighting skills.  While most nations are packing more and more punch in smaller and smaller packages, today's frigates have more of a punch than some of the major warships of WW2... so why look towards "capital" (big bucks $$) ships.

Don't forget the Ticonderoga class is a cruiser in name only... I believe it's built on a Spruance hull - it's the radar and AEGIS weapon system that makes it a 'cruiser'.

 

[Navy_Blue]

For the Ops types among us.  When we fuel and go RADHAZ safe how much contact with the outside world do we maintain.  This is a tricky question and if you feel it is OPSPEC shoot it down.  I'm asking because a ship like the JSS would/might spend considerable time fueling.  Trying to see if JSS would be as an effective C&C platform all the time like  a Destroyer would.

If a ship (CPF) sails with staff would it not make sense to pull every possible training billet and place a staff officer in there bunk.  I know training is essential but we have Baby(everything)O's.  In some cases I've seen EmbryO's.  I've sailed with staff and its no fun for the lower deck folks either.  If they ever get serious about manning 2 deck should be the place to start.

 

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

For the Ops types among us.  When we fuel and go RADHAZ safe how much contact with the outside world do we maintain.  This is a tricky question and if you feel it is OPSPEC shoot it down.  I'm asking because a ship like the JSS would/might spend considerable time fueling.  Trying to see if JSS would be as an effective C&C platform all the time like  a Destroyer would.

If a ship (CPF) sails with staff would it not make sense to pull every possible training billet and place a staff officer in there bunk.  I know training is essential but we have Baby(everything)O's.  In some cases I've seen EmbryO's.  I've sailed with staff and its no fun for the lower deck folks either.  If they ever get serious about manning 2 deck should be the place to start.

 

Maybe we should bring back the Training Sqn concept. FELEX 8 of the ships for ops and make all the billets onboard operational...no training billets at all. Take four of the ships and forget about FELEX and make them strictly training platforms. Ah the good old days....4 Squadron will live again!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

NB we have no problem of maintaining communications with the outside world to answer your question.

I think using either of BHS or JSS for a flagship is not the right way to go, especially if the mission does not require an amphib or an auxillary. For warfare duties you want command and control to be on the platform that does warfighting not an high value unit that has to rely on escorts to provide for its defence. Talk about painting a more attractive bullseye for a ship.....gee lets take out one of their AORs/LPDs and fleet flagship....

I personally think reducing the numbers of CPFs for FELEX would harm our Navy. You would cause higher crew and equipment burnout if you reduce to 8 deployable CPFs.

 

[aesop081]

You would cause higher crew and equipment burnout if you reduce to 8 deployable CPFs.

How about having 2 crews for each ship......

Sort of like american SSBNs have "gold" and "blue" crew.......We could call ours "Red" and "white" crews

 

[Disenchantedsailor]

NB we have no problem of maintaining communications with the outside world to answer your question.

I think using either of BHS or JSS for a flagship is not the right way to go, especially if the mission does not require an amphib or an auxillary. For warfare duties you want command and control to be on the platform that does warfighting not an high value unit that has to rely on escorts to provide for its defence. Talk about painting a more attractive bullseye for a ship.....gee lets take out one of their AORs/LPDs and fleet flagship....

I personally think reducing the numbers of CPFs for FELEX would harm our Navy. You would cause higher crew and equipment burnout if you reduce to 8 deployable CPFs.

1. this should be we have not problem maintaining short-range communications. as soon as we make our approach the HF (our long range stuff) goes bye bye for the duration.

2. I agree with you on this point the place for the warfare commanders place is on a priciple warship, the last thing you want to lose is both the HVU and the CTG.

3. Exactly, were allready dealing with burnout forces wide without re-rolling the navy