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

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Colin - for the merchant fleet you have to ask yourself how many containers reach port vice how many containers are lost at sea.  How many barrels of oil....etc.

As to the manning of government vessels, I would suggest that you are "over-manned" (a relative term) precisely so that when things go pear-shaped on a merchant vessel you can jump in to ensure those containers, barrels, ships and crew are not lost.  Kind of like the government facilitating trade by building highways and hiring coppers.
 
Lumber said:
I was responding to GR66:

Ack.  OGBD's point, as the starter of the "BE PREPARED, ALWAYS" line of thinking, still holds water though...and you never know...there may also be some future KAPITAN MANs out there that our Ships need to be capable of dealing with...
 
There are plenty of times that my ships have needed everyone for some unforeseen situation.  A tow in a storm for example in which reduced crewing would have made things rather dicey.  It was great to have the extra help for the evolution.  Prob could have done it with less but it didn't hurt to have more people.  In the Canadian waters situation help is a very long way away if there is an emergency of some kind, any kind.  In European waters its most likely in visual range.  Europe is positively crawling with traffic both airborne and waterborne. 
 
Kirkhill said:
Colin - for the merchant fleet you have to ask yourself how many containers reach port vice how many containers are lost at sea.  How many barrels of oil....etc.

As to the manning of government vessels, I would suggest that you are "over-manned" (a relative term) precisely so that when things go pear-shaped on a merchant vessel you can jump in to ensure those containers, barrels, ships and crew are not lost.  Kind of like the government facilitating trade by building highways and hiring coppers.

On containers http://gcaptain.com/how-many-shipping-containers-lost-at-sea/#.VfLp-_mnRyE

ships lost http://www.actuarialeye.com/2014/03/30/how-many-ships-disappear-each-year/

Governments generally can't afford to lose even one ship to accidents. Commercial shipping is much safer than it used to be. However with the larger container carriers being built just the loss of one of them with a full load is likely to have a economic ripple.
 
An update:

Canadian Global Affairs Institute

Mark Collins – RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatant Will be Foreign Design
November 20, 2015 Global Affairs Staff

Makes sense, the major European players are included plus one American:

    Results of pre-qualification process for Canadian Surface Combatant

    Public Services and Procurement Canada today announced the results of the pre-qualification process, the first step in the competitive procurement process to select a Combat Systems Integrator and a Warship Designer for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC).

(...SNIPPED)
 
Chris Pook said:
I'm going with an OMT hull with LockMart systems for 50 cents Alec.  Now if only they will guarantee the Stanflex philosophy.

I don't care what they do, as long as they start cutting steel and ordering engines. Lots of them. Big ships, little ships, stealthy ships submarines, surveillance ships, drone ships >>I don't care what, but they need to get moving. There are people who this project in some form of iteration 20+ years ago, and are planning to retire and nothing has been done. Get movin people. Build it, and they will come...
 
Commander, RCN states that budget is not enough: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warships-30-billion-navy-mark-norman-1.3347145
 
A few comments on my part here:

First of all, I thought this was a very good presentation by the Admiral: Short, clear sentences; no mumbo-jumbo or buzzword that make you sound like a politician; direct answers to direct questions, and taking responsibility where responsibility lies. Moreover (and this one is a personal beef) I appreciated seeing a senior military officer meeting the press dressed appropriately in DEU, not in "look at me I'm a crusty combat type" gear.

Second of all, I will admit to being surprised to learn that the 26 B$ of the NSPS identified for the SCSC is for the overall program - not just the ships, which are apparently only 14 B$ of it.

I had always assumed the higher figure to be for the ships only, which to me made sense, as being about 1.5 B$ each for the GP version and about 2.5 B$ each for the three AAW/Command version. With the lower costs, I can see this makes no sense: 15 ships for 14 B$ means each one is below one billion dollars. They must have been on drugs: The CPF's cost about 800 millions each to build in the early to mid nineties, and just TRUMPing the tribals cost about as much for each.

Third, I am happy to see that the Navy wants to be heard publicly about its requirements. We don't  do that often enough and in my mind, every opportunity to explain to Canadian what we do and why it can be so expensive should be seized upon. Canadians, in my experience, understand - they don't like spending that kind of money - but they understand, if they are told the facts.

Finally, I appreciate his candour when saying, we tell the government "this is what we need and how much it costs, or this is what capability the money you want to spend buys" but when all is said and done, the government decides and we get on with the job with what we are given (in my early days in the Navy, we used to say "The Queen will provide"). I made that very point on a different aspect of this discussion in my above post #30 of Sept 09, 2015 at 16:59:11.

A little side note: In the "Power and Politics" video, it's hard to see because they have a "exclusive interview" electronic box in front of it, but in the short clips of the Admiral's interview aired on the National, you can see that the ball cap on his desk behind him says "HMCS HARRY DEWOLFE  PGB 430". I guess they have decided that the AOPS are "Gun Boats (PG), Icebreaking (B)". 
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
A few comments on my part here:

First of all, I thought this was a very good presentation by the Admiral: Short, clear sentences; no mumbo-jumbo or buzzword that make you sound like a politician; direct answers to direct questions, and taking responsibility where responsibility lies. Moreover (and this one is a personal beef) I appreciated seeing a senior military officer meeting the press dressed appropriately in DEU, not in "look at me I'm a crusty combat type" gear.

Agreed,

Oldgateboatdriver said:
Second of all, I will admit to being surprised to learn that the 26 B$ of the NSPS identified for the SCSC is for the overall program - not just the ships, which are apparently only 14 B$ of it.

You're dating yourself OGB.  Its the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project now not the Single Class Surface Combatant (SCSC).  That particular program died about 2008 or so.  If you don't stop using it I'm going to start calling certain ships Henry.... :subbies:

Oldgateboatdriver said:
A little side note: In the "Power and Politics" video, it's hard to see because they have a "exclusive interview" electronic box in front of it, but in the short clips of the Admiral's interview aired on the National, you can see that the ball cap on his desk behind him says "HMCS HARRY DEWOLFE  PGB 430". I guess they have decided that the AOPS are "Gun Boats (PG), Icebreaking (B)".

Once again dating yourself.  It went from Gunboat or Patrol Gunboat to now "Patrol Combatant (PG)" as I guess that covers more types of ships...  Gunboats used to have a very specific brown water job and now they are doing blue water work... at least in our case they will be.  I do think its probably the best classification for the ship, can't really think of a better place to pigeon-hole them into.
 
Build 10 CSC all to the same design, do not build 3 AAW and 7 ASW, all 10 should be equally able in AAW and ASW.
They should be commissioned one per year over 10 years.
Order in pairs update design over build period.
Each ship should be able to operate two helicopters.
Build hulls overseas and fit out in Canada?
BTW is Irvings building yard covered, if not they do not deserve the build.
Going to have to be huge increase in defence budget to get more than 10 CSC.
 
I think at anything less than 12, we're going to compromise our ability to operate effectively year round.  12 allows 4 to be at sea at all times.
 
I hope for more than 10 CSC as well but believe it will be 10 CSC and 5 AOPS, maybe if we get out of submarines or settle for interim AORs on permanent basis we can get a couple more CSC.
 
Getting out of submarines creates a whole host of other issues with domain awareness.

On paper, it may look like you are saving money, but you are giving up quite a lot of capability by not having them.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Getting out of submarines creates a whole host of other issues with domain awareness.

On paper, it may look like you are saving money, but you are giving up quite a lot of capability by not having them.

And credibility too.
 
and the ability to train for ASW, something that has bitten us badly more than a few times in the past.
 
Colin P said:
and the ability to train for ASW, something that has bitten us badly more than a few times in the past.

I am a bit less concerned about this part, but yeah, real world ASW is a gut check that you don't get in a sim.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
I am a bit less concerned about this part, but yeah, real world ASW is a gut check that you don't get in a sim.

I would still be concerned. There are still way too many "unstable" nations that could potentially be at times our enemies/opponent in our area of action and who own and operate diesel submarines.

I know they may not be up to Western levels of maintenance and training, but they often work for governments that are more casual than we are with their seaman's lives. And that is sufficient to create a threat. Remember that, at the rate they were cranking out boats, the German by 1942 were sailing U-boats with crew as green as those of the corvettes that were fighting them. They were going to sea with fresh recruits barely trained and a couple of merchant seaman officers turned naval captains and a few merchant seaman engineers per boat. They still made quite an impression.
 
Our first U-Boat kill was a green corvette captain vs a green u-boat captain, thankfully our guy did everything right. Due to the lack of subs, Canada struggled to get subs loaned to her in WWII to train her escorts in sub hunting.
 
I'd strongly agree that ASW should be a priority focus for us...with the new CSC, by maintaining a submarine capability and with MPAs.  I personally think it's important for our own sovereignty but also in support of the US as our primary ally.

I can't think of anything that would have a bigger political and military effect (both psychologically and in terms of changes to overall strategy) on the US than the loss of one of their aircraft carriers.  While there are multiple possible threats to a carrier I'd guess that a lucky diesel sub is the greatest one. 

I'm sure the US would be happy to see us bring as much and as varied capabilities to the table as we can, but I'd be willing to bet that a strong ASW contribution would be at the top of their wish list.
 
Back
Top