Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I can still recall being told for years that Navy up until the 2000 or so required at a minimum of 24 frigate/destroyer type of vessels.
The only thing that seems to have changed is the Navy has settled for what it can get as opposed to what it may actually need.

Until the early 90's.

But it wasn't a "Navy" requirement. It was a NATO commitment during the Cold War: Canada undertook to maintain and provide four escort groups, and each escort group - at strength - needed six escorts, thus a total of 24.

That was even then just a paper exercice for the CAF. We had that strenght by having 16 steamers and four IRO's active and keeping COLUMBIA and CHAUDIERE in reserve on the West coast and ST-LAURENT ans ST. CROIX in same on the East coast. None of those four ships was really in any shape that would have made them re-activable. Moreover, the four MAC's in training squadron, with a couple of old Limbo mortars only and no VDS or tail would have been about as useful as using a jewel thieve to look after your jewlery store. The IRE's were barely better, but at least had VDS, torpedoes and ASROC.

 

[Maxman1]

My proposal was to increase our manned combatant fleet from 15 to 24 by cutting back the CSCs from 15 to 12 and use the reduced manning there to partially offset the additional requirements of replacing the 12 x Kingston's with 12 x more capable Frigate/Corvette-type combatants.

How about keep the 15 CSC, build ten Type 31s and replace the Kingstons with 12 to 20 River class batch 2 OPVs with a Bofors 57mm instead of the 30mm gun.

 

[suffolkowner]

How about keep the 15 CSC, build ten Type 31s and replace the Kingstons with 12 to 20 River class batch 2 OPVs with a Bofors 57mm instead of the 30mm gun.

conscription needed?

 

[Lumber]

How about keep the 15 CSC, build ten Type 31s and replace the Kingstons with 12 to 20 River class batch 2 OPVs with a Bofors 57mm instead of the 30mm gun.

Unless you lead with a very clear 'this is fantasy' caveat, it doesn't really make any sense to debate what an ideal Canadian navy would look like.

As I've stated in other posts, the public and political appetite for Canada's navy stops at a dozen or so major and a dozen or so minor warships. That's it. We're far better debating what sort of mix and capabilities that finite fleet should consist of.

 

[Lumber]

conscription needed?

Would we ever.

 

[GR66]

Unless you lead with a very clear 'this is fantasy' caveat, it doesn't really make any sense to debate what an ideal Canadian navy would look like.

As I've stated in other posts, the public and political appetite for Canada's navy stops at a dozen or so major and a dozen or so minor warships. That's it. We're far better debating what sort of mix and capabilities that finite fleet should consist of.

Times and situations change. What works in peacetime doesn't necessarily work when conflict looks like a serious possibility.

Look at the US Army's Force 2030 changes. The USMC's complete restructuring. Britain's Integrated Review. AUKUS. NATO enlargement and re-investments. Notice any countries that are notably absent from the list of nations gearing up for potential conflict? Maybe we just need politicians and CAF leaders that speak out and try to inform the public of the risks and requirements?

You say "the public and political appetite for Canada's navy stops at a dozen or so major and a dozen or so minor warships". So is 12 x CSCs and 12 x Frigates/Corvettes so wildly outside the realm of possibility?

 

[Lumber]

Times and situations change. What works in peacetime doesn't necessarily work when conflict looks like a serious possibility.

Look at the US Army's Force 2030 changes. The USMC's complete restructuring. Britain's Integrated Review. AUKUS. NATO enlargement and re-investments. Notice any countries that are notably absent from the list of nations gearing up for potential conflict? Maybe we just need politicians and CAF leaders that speak out and try to inform the public of the risks and requirements?

You say "the public and political appetite for Canada's navy stops at a dozen or so major and a dozen or so minor warships". So is 12 x CSCs and 12 x Frigates/Corvettes so wildly outside the realm of possibility?

Restructuring and changing priorities (both from an internal perspective as well as from a external geo-political perspective) is very different from drastically enlarging the entire size of your military. All the things you mention above have more to do with how they're going to use what they have already budgeted for.

Frigates are not minor warships. Even corvettes, depending on your size threshold and what you are arming them with, are not minor warships. I've see corvettes with as many weapons as a CPF. What I was referring to was 12-15 CSC and/or CPFs, with 12-15 Kingston/AOPS/River-Class (one can dream). Basically, what we have now.

 

[KevinB]

I’d prefer 24 CSC and 3 Mistrals plus 4 JSS, and 12 Virginia SSN’s

But hey that’s me

 

[GR66]

Restructuring and changing priorities (both from an internal perspective as well as from a external geo-political perspective) is very different from drastically enlarging the entire size of your military. All the things you mention above have more to do with how they're going to use what they have already budgeted for.

Frigates are not minor warships. Even corvettes, depending on your size threshold and what you are arming them with, are not minor warships. I've see corvettes with as many weapons as a CPF. What I was referring to was 12-15 CSC and/or CPFs, with 12-15 Kingston/AOPS/River-Class (one can dream). Basically, what we have now.

Well the 12-15 Kingston/AOPS/River-Class are non-combatants so I guess if the missiles start flying we'll have to do with our 12-15 CSCs (if the war waits long enough for us to build them).

Frankly I'm glad I'm not in the navy. We as a nation seem to prefer to learn our lessons the hard way (and repeatedly).

 

[Lumber]

Well the 12-15 Kingston/AOPS/River-Class are non-combatants so I guess if the missiles start flying we'll have to do with our 12-15 CSCs (if the war waits long enough for us to build them).

Frankly I'm glad I'm not in the navy. We as a nation seem to prefer to learn our lessons the hard way (and repeatedly).

Kingston/AOPS/River-Class are not "non-combatants".

 

[Navy_Pete]

Kingston/AOPS/River-Class are not "non-combatants".

Uh, what?

MCDVs and AOPs are very clearly non-combatants. Their class desk is called 'Non-Combatants and Auxiliaries'. They are built to commercial standards and have no survivability beyond what you'd find on a fishing boat.

They are non-combatants, painted grey, with a few extras bolted on.

Easiest way to tell is look at the watertight divisions; AOPs has 3, MCDVs have 2. I think the old River class has 8 or 9 for comparison, and is smaller then AOPs by a fair bit. They also go all the way to the weather deck and up into the superstructure; the commercial ships seem to go to around the water line so stops around 2 deck..

 

[Lumber]

Uh, what?

MCDVs and AOPs are very clearly non-combatants. Their class desk is called 'Non-Combatants and Auxiliaries'. They are built to commercial standards and have no survivability beyond what you'd find on a fishing boat.

They are non-combatants, painted grey, with a few extras bolted on.

Easiest way to tell is look at the watertight divisions; AOPs has 3, MCDVs have 2. I think the old River class has 8 or 9 for comparison, and is smaller then AOPs by a fair bit. They also go all the way to the weather deck and up into the superstructure; the commercial ships seem to go to around the water line so stops around 2 deck..

Ok, we're into semantics here. Legally speaking, they are armed warships, ergo not non-combatants.

Also, MCDVs make perfect Chaff. I'd take one with me to an ASM fight any day.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Ok, we're into semantics here. Legally speaking, they are armed warships, ergo not non-combatants.

Also, MCDVs make perfect Chaff. I'd take one with me to an ASM fight any day.

Nope, that's not how it works. Under Canadian Shipping act, any vessel that belongs to DND is a 'military vessel'. There is no distinction legally. That's the same under international treaties; they are all lumped under military vessels, and why even our auxiliaries and tugs are self regulated (vice falling under TC). We have started to get class societies involves but we can just tell them to get wrecked and sail regardless of what they say (just like the RCN does with it's own technical SMEs)

They are definitely non-combatants by every definition that matters, including the RCNs.

 

[Lumber]

Nope, that's not how it works. Under Canadian Shipping act, any vessel that belongs to DND is a 'military vessel'. There is no distinction legally. That's the same under international treaties; they are all lumped under military vessels, and why even our auxiliaries and tugs are self regulated (vice falling under TC). We have started to get class societies involves but we can just tell them to get wrecked and sail regardless of what they say (just like the RCN does with it's own technical SMEs)

They are definitely non-combatants by every definition that matters, including the RCNs.

Look! It says right here that they ARE non-combatants!

Under this framework similar services will be provided to the remaining RCN fleet of non-combatant ships including the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, Joint Support Ships, Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels, Orca-class Patrol Craft training vessels, selected Auxiliaries, and smaller vessels.

Ensuring the safety of Canada’s non-combatant Navy fleet - Canada.ca

The Government is focused on ensuring our public dollars go farther and are used smarter, as we make investments to create middle class jobs today and sustainable economic growth for years to come.

www.canada.ca

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If it's gray, it's floating it is a combatant whether we say it is or not. Any adversary will consider them as such. so unless you plan to keep them unmanned and tied to the dock in a conflict, expect them to be treated as a combatant. They may not be primary target, but they may be a target of opportunity.

 

[KevinB]

Kingston/AOPS/River-Class are not "non-combatants".

Uhm

Look! It says right here that they ARE non-combatants!

Ensuring the safety of Canada’s non-combatant Navy fleet - Canada.ca

The Government is focused on ensuring our public dollars go farther and are used smarter, as we make investments to create middle class jobs today and sustainable economic growth for years to come.

www.canada.ca

I think you missed your double negative in my first quote above the second.


However @Colin Parkinson nailed it. As any Naval vessel of a nation will be a combatant like it or not if things go pear shaped.

 

[Halifax Tar]

If it's gray, it's floating it is a combatant whether we say it is or not. Any adversary will consider them as such. so unless you plan to keep them unmanned and tied to the dock in a conflict, expect them to be treated as a combatant. They may not be primary target, but they may be a target of opportunity.

You're only a non combatant until the enemy decides otherwise.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Uhm

I think you missed your double negative in my first quote above the second.


However @Colin Parkinson nailed it. As any Naval vessel of a nation will be a combatant like it or not if things go pear shaped.

I wouldn't link the two together; they aren't meant for combat, but are still legitimate targets. Bit like a tank and a pickup truck painted green; both are used by the army and could be attacked, but only the tank is hardened against attack.

We don't have armour on ships, but there is a lot of major fundamental differences in the design to allow it to take a lot more hits and keep floating. If you look at how much damage the Huron took for a deliberate sink, even with all the doors and hatches removed, it was because there was still a lot of watertight divisions with holes in it to slow the flooding. And key systems have a lot more redundancy and the ability to be reconfigurable compared to a commercial ship. Making the firemain a ring instead of a single pipe adds a lot of weight and cost, but when you add a lot of extra pumps it means you can split it and keep feeding things even if a bit gets blasted out. Similarly shock hardened equipment costs a lot, but will keep running if you take a hit, vice breaking on you.

 

[Kirkhill]

I’d prefer 24 CSC and 3 Mistrals plus 4 JSS, and 12 Virginia SSN’s

But hey that’s me

To heck with them all. Ditch the Army and the Navy and put all the money in the RCAF. Attach the Rangers to the Mounties.

Put it all on black and let it ride.

 

[Kirkhill]

If you want something done right you need to talk to a Scandinavian

The Royal Norwegian Navy (Norwegian: Sjøforsvaret, lit. 'Sea defence') is the branch of the Norwegian Armed Forces responsible for naval operations of Norway.

As of 2008, the Royal Norwegian Navy consists of

approximately 3,700 personnel (9,450 in mobilized state, 32,000 when fully mobilized) and
70 vessels,

including

4 heavy frigates,
6 submarines,
14 patrol boats,
4 minesweepers,
4 minehunters,
1 mine detection vessel,
4 support vessels and
2 training vessels.

It also includes the Coast Guard.


The Norwegian Coast Guard (Norwegian: Kystvakten) is a maritime military force which is part of the Royal Norwegian Navy.

The coast guard's responsibility are for fisheries inspection, customs enforcement, border control, law enforcement, shipping inspection, environmental protection, and search and rescue.

It operates
throughout Norway's 2,385,178-square-kilometer (920,922 sq mi) exclusive economic zone (EEZ),
internal waters and
territorial waters.

It is headquartered at Sortland Naval Base.

In 2013 the Coast Guard had

370 employees, including conscripts, and
a budget of 1.0 billion Norwegian krone.

Outer Coast Guard operates

1x Svalbard OPV (6375 tonnes) - 50 (20 Officers and 45 Other Ranks split into 3 shifts with 2 shifts on board at any one time) - 2x NH90
2x Jarl OPV/Tugs (6250 tonnes) - complement of 8 regs and 8 conscripts and a carrying capacity of 40 - no Helo
1x Harstad OPV (3130 tonnes) - complement of 26 - no Helo

Taking delivery of

3x Jan Mayen OPV (9800 tonnes) with a carrying capacity of 100, to replace
3x Nordkapp OPV (3200 tonnes) with 52 crew and a HeliDet of 6 and 2x NH90

All, broadly, armed after the fashion of Canada's WWII Corvettes. And probably similarly survivable given that the Corvette was originally a civilian Whaler. Autocannons, Machine Guns and ManPADS.

Inner Coast Guard operates

5x Nornen PB (675 tonnes) with a complement of 20

The Nornens are armed with 50s.

So, in a Norwegian Canadian Navy

Patrol divisions of the Coast Guard would be divisions of the RCN

That would mean the 6-8x AOPSs of the RCN (6615 tonnes) with a complement of 65 and capacity of 87 - 1x CH-148
the 5x Offshore (760 to 2400 tonnes) with crews of 15 to 25 - two with Helodecks, and
9x Midshore (253 tonnes) Patrol Vessels of the Coast Guard with complements of 9.

The rest of the Coast Guard Fleet would stay with Fisheries and Oceans.

And given the Coast Guards MPVs then add the RCN's Orcas to the Patrol division.

8x PB (210 tonnes) with complements of 5.

Result

RCN Patrol Division

8x AOPS (6615 tonnes) - 1x Helo - berths for 87 - complement of 65
5x OPVs (~2000 tonnes) - Helocapable - berths for 24 - complement of 19
9x MPVs (250 tonnes) - nul Helo - berths for 14 - complement of 9
8x PBs (200 tonnes) - nul Helo - berths for 24 - complement of 5

OGDs carried - RCMP and DFO.

Roles

1. Home Waters Patrols
2. Nursery for sailors

RCN Bluewater division

4-12x SSK
12-15x CPF/CSC
12x MCDV - Minewarfare is a combatant activity.
2-3x JSS/AOR

Role

Force Projection

RCN Fleet Support division

Tenders, Tugs and Torpedoes.

I'll send you the bill