• 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

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
GR66 said:
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:

All good points and probably quite valid.  With respect to the colourized bit above, I'm actually suggesting that there be no Canada Task Group at all. We can send one or 2 ships to some other Task Group. I realize quite well this is a complete departure from established traditions and operating principles of the RCN, but I will wager that in 20 years the surface fleet will not be much different than what I have set out above. 15 ships (which the RCN and the government state are a minimum) is as much a number as 88 fighters when we plan on only deploying 6 fighters at a time.
Also, the type of surface ship, the principal surface combatant, would be something far more capable than the Type 26 in its current form. Land strike, surface strike, NGS, ASW, AAW, EW, BMD. Not "fitted for" or "planned" but actually fitted out completely.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
GR66 said:
Is there some major design flaw in Chinese subs which doesn’t allow them to work in the Atlantic in case of a war?

;)
Good one. If they ever started routine submarine deployments in the Atlantic, the USN would snap!! I do expect them in the arctic soon, if they haven't been there already via submarine.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
369
Points
1,010
whiskey601 said:
Good one. If they ever started routine submarine deployments in the Atlantic, the USN would snap!! I do expect them in the arctic soon, if they haven't been there already via submarine.

Germany sent commerce raiders into the Pacific during both World Wars.  They also had submarines deployed in the Pacific and Indian oceans during WW2.  In case of conflict it would make sense for China to send even one or two subs into the Atlantic.  The uncertainty they would raise would force the US/NATO to keep ships there in order to try and track them down instead of being able to send them to support the main effort in the Pacific.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
310
Points
860
whiskey601 said:
Good one. If they ever started routine submarine deployments in the Atlantic, the USN would snap!! I do expect them in the arctic soon, if they haven't been there already via submarine.

All they need to do is to negotiate access to a naval base in Venezuela and viola, Chinese ships/subs in the Atlantic....don't think that it can't happen.
Realistically they would most likely establish a naval base somewhere in the Indian Ocean and maybe Africa first before creating one in Venezuela, oh wait, they've done that already in Sri Lanka and Djibouti. 
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,059
Points
1,140
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>.

But then you are making the assumption that Subs are only being used for that one specific mission, which I don't think is a good assumption to make.

The Aussies can homeport their submarine force in one location because not only do they have more subs, they also are an island and you can sail around to the otherside relatively quickly.  A Submarine can leave Perth today and be in Sydney in under 10 days.

We have no such luxury, a sub moving from Victoria to Halifax would probably take a minimum of 30 days to get there if they go through Panama. If Panama isn't an option, it is probably close to 80 days to go around Cape of Good Hope. 

Either way, we need two separate fleets with a General Purpose Combat Capability across the spectrums of Sub-Surface, Surface and Air Warfare.

whiskey601 said:
All good points and probably quite valid.  With respect to the colourized bit above, I'm actually suggesting that there be no Canada Task Group at all. We can send one or 2 ships to some other Task Group. I realize quite well this is a complete departure from established traditions and operating principles of the RCN, but I will wager that in 20 years the surface fleet will not be much different than what I have set out above. 15 ships (which the RCN and the government state are a minimum) is as much a number as 88 fighters when we plan on only deploying 6 fighters at a time.
Also, the type of surface ship, the principal surface combatant, would be something far more capable than the Type 26 in its current form. Land strike, surface strike, NGS, ASW, AAW, EW, BMD. Not "fitted for" or "planned" but actually fitted out completely.

I still think eight ships isn't enough and the ships you are talking about getting considering the Capabilities you mentioned, would be akin to a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser.  I reckon we would need a substantial budgetary increase to man those ships and they would be totally unsuitable for many tasks our Navy has to carry out.


 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,046
Points
940
Not to mention it's easy to track ship movements through the Panama canal and an enemy will know that sub departing Panama is likely going to have refuel and reprovision nearby, allowing them to estimate fairly accurately how long before the sub reaches the operating theatre.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
86
Points
560
Missile defence capability for CSC?

Royal Danish Navy Orders SM-2 Block IIIA for Iver Huitfeldt-class Frigates

The Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization (Danish: Forsvarets Materiel- og Indkøbsstyrelse, FMI) placed an order for Raytheon SM-2 Block IIA missiles for the Royal Danish Navy (Søværnet) on October 2, 2018, according to the European online tenders platform Ted.

According to the announcement:
FMI wants to acquire up to 50 Standard Missile 2 Block IIIA (SM-2) missiles. The SM-2 missiles are self-defense missiles that are used to combat attacking enemy targets. The SM-2 missiles are fired from the Navy frigates. The acquisition can only be carried out through the US Navy via Foreign Military Sales (FMS). The SM-2 missiles are specially designed for shooting air targets [...] The armed forces shall use the SM-2 missiles in connection with the Navy's area air defense frigate to combat attacking enemy targets.

According to the Ted announcement, the total value of the procurement (excluding VAT) is 143 million U.S. Dollars.

The SM-2 Block IIIA will be intended for the Royal Danish Navy's Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates. The three 138,9 meters air defence frigates, Iver Huitfeldt (F361), Peter Willemoes (F362), and Niels Juel (F363) are displacing 6,645 tonnes. They entered service with the Royal Danish Navy in 2012 and 2013. Each frigate can carry up to 32x SM-2 missiles (as well as 24x ESSM). These ships share their Anti-Air Warfare suite with the Royal Netherlands Navy’s De Zeven Provincien-class frigates and the German Navy’s Sachsen-class frigates. The Thales sensors of this suite include the long range surveillance radar SMART-L and the multi-function radar APAR. At least one ship of the class will be upgraded for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) to act as a a BMD sensor and offer this capability to the NATO BMD system [emphasis added]...

Royal_Danish_Navy_Orders_SM-2_Block_IIIA_for_Iver_Huitfeldt-class_Frigates_1.jpg

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/october-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6551-royal-danish-navy-orders-sm-2-block-iiia-for-iver-huitfeldt-class-frigates.html

Mark
Ottawa
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Humphrey Bogart said:
I still think eight ships isn't enough and the ships you are talking about getting considering the Capabilities you mentioned, would be akin to a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser.  I reckon we would need a substantial budgetary increase to man those ships and they would be totally unsuitable for many tasks our Navy has to carry out.

A Tico would be a waste of money. A Type 26 with the 48Cell launcher repurposed for the SeaSparrow + a 32 Cell Strike Length Mk41 Launcher.  16 SSM instead of 8.  A 5" 62 Caliber Gun. Space for unmanned CUSV. 1 Cyclone.  All of these can supposedly fit on a Type 26.  I still do not see the point in having 15 surface combatants when the RCN  can barely crew the 12 FFG that they have.  Canada calls itself a maritime power but  has very little demonstrable maritime power. Why not opt for actual powerful ships in realistic numbers rather than powerful slogans like Task Groups and Blue Ocean navy or "protecting the longest coastline in the world".
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
229
Points
630
Perhaps with a modern fleet that is well equipped and a government that makes joining the navy an attractive proposition as a career and at the same time recognises and honours its military establishment the manpower shortage will disappear.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
369
Points
1,010
YZT580 said:
Perhaps with a modern fleet that is well equipped and a government that makes joining the navy an attractive proposition as a career and at the same time recognises and honours its military establishment the manpower shortage will disappear.

Silly goose...that's not the Canadian way!


...sadly.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
229
Points
630
We did it once.  In the early 60's we had 62 commissioned ships, including 2 escort carriers and somewhere approaching 20,000 naval personnel and that with a population of half what it is now  They did it by making the navy a worthwhile career, getting rid of the British disciplinary tradition, and by building a modern fleet.  I think we even had 20 destroyer escorts as they were called then.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
545
Points
940
We also had 30+ of the best MPAs in the world, a Brigade and Air Div in Europe...times have changed.  The world is at peace now, didn't ya know?  8)
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
48
Points
530
whiskey601 said:
A Tico would be a waste of money. A Type 26 with the 48Cell launcher repurposed for the SeaSparrow + a 32 Cell Strike Length Mk41 Launcher.  16 SSM instead of 8.  A 5" 62 Caliber Gun. Space for unmanned CUSV. 1 Cyclone.  All of these can supposedly fit on a Type 26.  I still do not see the point in having 15 surface combatants when the RCN  can barely crew the 12 FFG that they have.  Canada calls itself a maritime power but  has very little demonstrable maritime power. Why not opt for actual powerful ships in realistic numbers rather than powerful slogans like Task Groups and Blue Ocean navy or "protecting the longest coastline in the world".

Huh? We have 7 of 12 Frigates, Asterix, and 4 MCDVs all at sea right now. Tell me again how we can't crew our ships, or that we have very little demonstrable maritime power?

 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
It seems to me that it would be a herculean effort to put 7 Hals to sea (with air dets), fully armed and ready to rumble (which they are not).

Again, I'm going back to 8, and just 8, extensively equipped principal surface combatants with just one or 2 that are deployed or can be quickly deployed and actually have a chance at surviving an encounter with a peer adversary to an allied group.



 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
838
Points
1,060
whiskey601 said:
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

Can I suggest, as others have, replacing the MCDVs with comparably manned light corvettes?  Fitted for not with a heavy suite of weapons and sensors and heavily automated with a minimal crew.

Designed for rapid construction and low hull costs.

4 would be enough to work the kinks out of the build and initial operational programmes.  The weapons and sensors would be procured and deployed using the Danish Stanflex model.

Budget and crews would determine if additional numbers were to be built.
 

Jackal2018

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
By no means I'm saying war is coming soon. But with world tensions rising, should a war break out and Canada be involved, how would the timeline for the new ships change if at all?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,046
Points
940
Chris Pook said:
Can I suggest, as others have, replacing the MCDVs with comparably manned light corvettes?  Fitted for not with a heavy suite of weapons and sensors and heavily automated with a minimal crew.

Designed for rapid construction and low hull costs.

4 would be enough to work the kinks out of the build and initial operational programmes.  The weapons and sensors would be procured and deployed using the Danish Stanflex model.

Budget and crews would determine if additional numbers were to be built.

Something similar to this perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viana_do_Castelo-class_patrol_vessel
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
838
Points
1,060
Or similar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen-class_patrol_vessel
http://www.navy.gov.au/offshore-patrol-vessel-opv
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector-class_offshore_patrol_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandanti-class_patrol_vessel
 
Top