• 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

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,360
Points
1,010
Infanteer said:
Fascinating, thanks guys.  So, a ship doing some ASW training over off the UK is Force Generation and responds to its naval chain of command.  It could, the next day, be chopped to CJOC and deployed to the Med for Force Employment.

Yes, pretty much.  The coming exercise in Europe (unclass sched) has Halifax, Toronto and VDQ all working there.  VDQ is on "deployment".  Toronto and Halifax are on workups to get to higher readiness tiers.  VDQ could be called off for NATO and depending on equipment loadout Toronto or Halifax could be redirected to a real operation immediately (ie: Swiss Air Disaster).  It wouldn't be the first time a RCN asset has gotten a rapid addition of kit and supplies to go do a mission.

My OC from 2PPCLI once mentioned some envy with the RCN until Afghanistan, were far more operationally capable then the army.  As soon as a ship leaves the wall you are essentially on operations, intensity may vary...

Infanteer said:
Again, I'm assuming there is a spectrum of risk for operational employment based on how much of the "readiness training" a ship has done in Force Generation.  Is there formal events where "Sea Training" comes down to "check ride" a ship?

Yes they are called IMSRTs (lazily pronounced emserts) or traditionally "workups".  IIRC there are other levels/variations of "workups" but the final hurdle to high readiness are IMSRTs.

Coles Notes Version: Sea Trainers embark on a ship and supervise/assist with the delivery of Combat Readiness Requirements that cover everything from damage control rounds, multiple attacks on the ship, to pyrotechnic demonstrations and training.  Certain % of different trades and positions must be present to get that CRR checked off the list.  Some are individual, some are team, some are ship CRR's.  This is done over the course of about 20 days at sea, with some CRR's being able to get written off before the formal IMSRTs depending on the ships training schedule (ie: may already have qualified with the 57mm gun shoot during recent trials). 

Sea Training are also there to help the ship through IMSRTs by implementing training, giving tips/advice from their senior experienced people and coach you along.  This philosophy may be new to some old salts, but its the direction that they are heading right now.  The kick in the pants option is still there but not the prefered way to start with.

Their evaluation of the ship on IMSRTs and recommendation holds a lot of weight with the Admiral on whether a ship can deploy and in some cases may lead to the replacement of key positions if those pers are not performing to standard.

Personally I believe that the Sea Training organization is one of the main reasons RCN ships on deployment are looked upon as valuable and key performers in multinational operations despite perhaps equipment age or limitations in some cases.  They work hard to create SOP's and standards and then ensure the fleet meets those high standards and follows the SOP's.  They can be a bit stodgy and slow to change sometimes but they are an extremely important part of Force Generation.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
73
Points
380
GR66 said:
I could live with Canada having a fleet something like this:

12-15 x CSCs
12 x Corvettes
6 x AOPS
8-12 x MCM's
2 x Asterix
2 x JSS
6-8 x SSKs

I like the list, but it seems a bit ambitious for the RCN at this point. For myself, I’d like to see:

13-14 CSC
6-7 140-180’ Armed Cutter for OPV
6 AOPS
6-8 MCDV refit and fully eqpt for MCM
2 ASTERIX (crewed by FFS)
2 PRO CLASS AORS
7 SSK

I think this is a reasonable and attainable fleet mix for the RCN. I don’t think it’s likely, however.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,010
Points
1,090
Reality check on the fleet - I'll be happy if we get 15x CSC...the rest...not a priority for any government that's been in power in years.

I honestly do not expect to see steel cut on a CSC while I'm still in uniform.

NS
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
73
Points
380
NavyShooter said:
Reality check on the fleet - I'll be happy if we get 15x CSC...the rest...not a priority for any government that's been in power in years.

I honestly do not expect to see steel cut on a CSC while I'm still in uniform.

NS

I understand your skepticism, though, as a civilian, I haven’t had to live with the lack of adequate equipment the way that you have. It’s really too bad, because I think my “fantasy list” above isn’t really too outlandish. It’s lesser in scope than what the RAN is in the process of achieving, though our situations are quite different in geopolitical terms. 
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
8 CSC in the form of Destroyers with AAD and land strike.
6 AOPS with significantly enhanced surveillance kit (EW/ESM/SIGINT)
4 MCDV
4 SSK
2 JSS
1 Asterix
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
953
Points
1,090
Whiskey...

Your ideal fleet looks pretty similar to the fleet we already have.  Why minus the 7 CSC and 8 MCDV in your fleet, when the rest of the fleet is what we have now?  (Just curious)
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,360
Points
1,010
whiskey601 said:
8 CSC in the form of Destroyers with AAD and land strike.

So this is interesting.  For ages now I have been saying all indications are that the ships will have the ability to be modified for AAW or GP variants.  Apparently I was wrong according to the government's recent information releases.

All the ships will be the same variant with the ability for AAW, GP or other things with all essentially the same sensors.  This is an interesting choice.  There are pro's and cons to this approach, and I wonder if doctrine has a say here.  The flexibility of new sensors and plug and play systems really change the game.  Strike length VLS add weapons/role flexibility.  With the right sensor suit you can easily switch between Task Group Air Defence to Self Defence missiles, or Strike missiles, or even ASROC. 

The idea that all the ships in a TG (4 by doctrine) could do AAW and protect each other, and still have a good ASW capability compared to a specialized AAW destroyer and 3 GP frigates.  Which grouping would be more effective?  There is certainly more flexibility/redundancy in the former TG design, but the later TG design is a proven concept and specialized ships one would assume perform better at their specific tasks.

I also wonder if this is a specific decision by the CAF/RCN to shield its A. Budget (one class of ship is easier to manage maint wise) and B. prevent capability loss like what happened with the 280's.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
CBH99 said:
Whiskey...

Your ideal fleet looks pretty similar to the fleet we already have.  Why minus the 7 CSC and 8 MCDV in your fleet, when the rest of the fleet is what we have now?  (Just curious)

I feel that 15 ships is no better than 8. Either way  it's a still a small navy.

And I'm  thinking of ships we can actually crew in 10 years without shooting for the moon.
I would hope the CSC is a maximum effort, all round capable ship that can bring the fight to the enemy as part of a coalition (and win it in their waters). That means fighting in every dimension with devastating ability.
Accordingly, in order to remain a small blue water navy, something would have to drastically shift, I would think that would be fewer blue water surface surface combat fleet hulls and placing all of the roles of the Kingston class (except MCM) onto a potentially upgraded version of the AOP's with a significant surveillance and communications/data sharing suite.

Cheers

Edit: implicit in that model is removal of the 4 ship TG from future doctrine.  It's 1 or 2 plus a tanker or JSS. There would be no independent power projection, but there would be an opportunity to significantly swing the balance of capability to an allied TF.  A Type 26+++ ship.




 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
whiskey601 said:
I feel that 15 ships is no better than 8. Either way  it's a still a small navy.

Well in the context of the world's fleet of large surface combatants, 15 actually puts us in pretty good standing in terms of numbers.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
731
Points
1,040
whiskey601 said:
I feel that 15 ships is no better than 8. Either way  it's a still a small navy.

And I'm  thinking of ships we can actually crew in 10 years without shooting for the moon.
I would hope the CSC is a maximum effort, all round capable ship that can bring the fight to the enemy as part of a coalition (and win it in their waters). That means fighting in every dimension with devastating ability.
Accordingly, in order to remain a small blue water navy, something would have to drastically shift, I would think that would be fewer blue water surface surface combat fleet hulls and placing all of the roles of the Kingston class (except MCM) onto a potentially upgraded version of the AOP's with a significant surveillance and communications/data sharing suite.

Cheers

Edit: implicit in that model is removal of the 4 ship TG from future doctrine.  It's 1 or 2 plus a tanker or JSS. There would be no independent power projection, but there would be an opportunity to significantly swing the balance of capability to an allied TF.  A Type 26+++ ship.

I'd argue that cutting back the CSC's to 8 hulls effectively takes the RCN out of the blue water navy category in a major war.  With only four combatant hulls on each coast and accounting for less than 100% availability at any time that leaves less than one doctrinal Task Group to defend each of our entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines. 

You suggest cutting the Task Group size in half (or even to a single ship), but even if that is sound doctrine (I have no idea the implications of that, I'll leave it to the experts to comment) it still leaves a maximum of 4 x warships to defend each of our coasts.  That leaves zero ships with which to project power and therefore effectively no blue water capability.  And as has been pointed out by several experienced naval types in this forum the AOPS, no matter how much lipstick you choose to put on them in terms of extra sensors or bolt on weapons, is not and never will be a combatant. 

I'd argue that if we only get 12 x CSCs giving us 6 per coast for a single TG plus spares, or one 4-ship Task Group per coast for coastal defence and a third 4-ship Task Group for deployment it is not enough for what we'll need in a major war.  15 x CSCs is probably the absolute minimum number of combatants we would need in a real shooting war giving us two 3-ship TG's for defence of Canadian territorial waters on each coast and a 3-ship TG for deployment.  I think even that leaves us paper thin and doesn't take into account any losses or less than 100% availability.

That's why if I were PM for a day I would like to see something like 12 x ASW capable corvette-type minor combatants added to the fleet to supplement the CSCs.  And while even if we were to increase our defence budget to the 2% of GDP goal it may seem like shooting for the stars, as I noted in my original post I'd be willing to give up some other capabilities in order to fund that.  Because to be totally honest, having the naval capability to ensure that US military reinforcements and supplies reach a conflict zone will have much greater military benefit in a major war than putting a Canadian Brigade Group on the ground would.

:2c:

 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,363
Points
1,090
Why look at just surface vessels in that case? what if we had 12 submarines added to the mix? 6 per coast, or 3 or 4 per task group that you created here GR66. Operating as 2 sub wolf packs would be able to patrol a large area on top of a surface fleet.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,010
MilEME09 said:
Why look at just surface vessels in that case? what if we had 12 submarines added to the mix? 6 per coast, or 3 or 4 per task group that you created here GR66. Operating as 2 sub wolf packs would be able to patrol a large area on top of a surface fleet.

Submariners are allergic to each other. They work alone- not in packs.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,189
Points
1,010
Spectrum said:
That's a good thing because I'm sure in a few years we will only have one anyways...

;D

Do you have any, actual, first hand knowledge of Canada's submarine program?

I do.

The most difficult class of Submarine that I have ever worked against is the Victoria Class. Period, full stop.

 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,049
Points
1,360
The problem with most peoples views concerning the Navy in Canada is that they neglect to take in to consideration that we need two separate fleets based on simple geography and that these fleets cannot mutually support each other.

With this in mind, eight Major Warships split between two coasts is not enough as it leaves you with zero flexibility in emergencies.  The bare minimum is probably 12 and this is the absolute bare minimum. 

It is the same with Submarines.  We probably don't have enough right now and simple arithmetic tells me bare minimum is probably six with three per coast, eight would be better but six is doable. 
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
150
Points
680
Humphrey Bogart said:
It is the same with Submarines.  We probably don't have enough right now and simple arithmetic tells me bare minimum is probably six with three per coast, four would be better but six is doable.

Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you could make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
731
Points
1,040
Lumber said:
Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you could make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.

Is there some major design flaw in Chinese subs which doesn’t allow them to work in the Atlantic in case of a war?

;)
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
394
Points
930
Lumber said:
Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you could make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.
  If this were the case, you could home port everything on one coast and have half the fleet.  Problem with that is transit time.  The northwest passage, regardless of what Al Gore says, is not navigable most of the time so responding to a 'hot spot' on the other coast would require circumnavigating NA through Panama.  If Panama is closed or blocked you have two choices: global circumnavigation or down around SA.  Both options would require significant time and support such as a fleet tanker and we only have one.  What Humphrey wrote is true.  We need two complete fleets including two submarine fleets and what we have now is probably the bare minimum we should ever consider.  Plus the support vessels of course.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
380
Considering factors such as difficulty for manning and budget, IMHO Canada should soon procure 4 ocean and arctic capable submarines. With soon I mean to be operative by mid 2020s (around 2025).

Then... on a longer term, with about 5 years delay or as much as the Victoria class can be operative, a second program for about 8 more, coastal type, submarines. These would replace the Victoria class and make a submarine total fleet of 12 with the previous ones.

In my perspective, the first batch of 4 ocean-going submarines would allow for:
- one deployed either in Arctic or Pacific
- another one ready or also deployed in the same areas.
- third in preparation for operations or minor maintenance
- 4th in major maintenance or refit.

The Victoria class would then cover the coasts and be used for training.

For this 4 Arctic boats I see several  options: British Astute class (nuclear), French Barracuda (either nuke or AIP as for RAN), German type 216 (which is merely a design on paper) and Japanese Soryu.

For several reasons, including diversification of suppliers and to help our allies to maintain a sustainable defence industry, my favourite option would be the japanese, provided necessary modifications are introduced to cope with Arctic requirements (ice-breaking & submerged endurance).

There should be as well some kind of return to canadian industry.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
150
Points
680
YZT580 said:
  If this were the case, you could home port everything on one coast and have half the fleet.  Problem with that is transit time.  The northwest passage, regardless of what Al Gore says, is not navigable most of the time so responding to a 'hot spot' on the other coast would require circumnavigating NA through Panama.  If Panama is closed or blocked you have two choices: global circumnavigation or down around SA.  Both options would require significant time and support such as a fleet tanker and we only have one.  What Humphrey wrote is true.  We need two complete fleets including two submarine fleets and what we have now is probably the bare minimum we should ever consider.  Plus the support vessels of course.

No, that is not true at all. You could NOT home port the entire fleet on one coast. We have an actual demonstrated need for surface vessels on both coasts. The same cannot be as easily said about a submarine force.

Canada could carry on with a navy that has NO submarines at all; we could not carry on with a navy of ONLY submarines.

Ergo, while it would be nice to have a large enough navy and submarine force to have subs not only based, but operating simultaneously on both coasts, it is not imperative to our national interests for it to be so.

We could get on just fine by having all our subs on one coast. Not so with the surface fleet.
 
Top