Continental Defence Corvette

[IKnowNothing]

I'm tracking a range requirement of only 4000nm.

But this is all academic.

There is no funding for this project, there's no spot for it in the NSS, and there's not even a definition of what role/capability these ships are designed to fulfil. Everything that the Government has asked for is covered by the AOPs and RCD.

Eventually. What do we do if eventually isn't fast enough? What if the ask is changing?

Moving in Parallel to the River Class Deliveries​

Moving beyond the River Class, what might be done? William Ellery Channing gave us the answer almost two centuries ago when he said that “quantity has a quality all its own”.

Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy indicated the government is now considering ‘up to 15’ River Class destroyers – a change from the definitive number of 15 as the minimum number of surface combatants defined as required by the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN). As the hull buy might now shrink below 15, it makes sense to pursue another class of less expensive surface combatants to be prepared to add the desired firepower for our Navy. And if geopolitics so dictate, an entire new class of such warships might be required to go beyond the Navy’s minimum essential fleet size.

Expediting Delivery of Warships - Canadian Global Affairs Institute

Based on OP's complement #'s, the personnel trade off is 3 or 4 to 1.

 

[Lumber]

Eventually. What do we do if eventually isn't fast enough? What if the ask is changing?

Expediting Delivery of Warships - Canadian Global Affairs Institute

So, here is where I believe military procurement, and naval procurement especially, makes things over cumbersome; there's what you need them to be able to do, and what you actually do with them.

Determining what we want/need them to do is a long process. You have to take in countless amounts of information, all the way from grand strategic (what do we want Canada's role in the world to be) down to the tactics (how many multi-axis supersonic missiles should it be able to defend against simultaneously), and everything in between (how much of it should be built in Canada, how much Canadian IP, how many days at sea, how many days of maintenance per days at sea, daily expenses, berthing location, interoperability, expandability, etc).

However, figuring out what you actually do with them is rather easy; just look at recent history and see both where we sent MCDVs and CPFs, but also ask Fleet, CHOJ, and SJS about "asks" for Canadian ships that we weren't able to satisfy.

For the latter, just about ANY ship will do. Whether it's humanitarian aide, flag waving, sovereignty and/or fisheries patrols, constabulary duties, or simple naval task group FG, just about any corvette sizes ship will do.

However, to actually be capable of standing toe to toe with a near-peer advisory, you absolutely need, at MINIMUM, the capabilities of the RCD.

So, if you know you aren't going to build another RCD, then don't overcomplicate it. Get somethings that's maybe a little better armed than a USCG National Security Cutter, and send them all over the world on all the missions where you aren't planning on them actually fighting high-level multi-threat naval warfare, which in reality, is what our ships spend 99.9% of their lives doing.

Seriously, you could pick just about any one of a dozen existing corvettes designs out of a hat, and any one of them could do 99.9% of what the government will actually be asking them do to during their careers.

 

[dapaterson]

If we picked another design we'd still have to Canadianize the hell out of it, because tradition.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So, here is where I believe military procurement, and naval procurement especially, makes things over cumbersome; there's what you need them to be able to do, and what you actually do with them.

Determining what we want/need them to do is a long process. You have to take in countless amounts of information, all the way from grand strategic (what do we want Canada's role in the world to be) down to the tactics (how many multi-axis supersonic missiles should it be able to defend against simultaneously), and everything in between (how much of it should be built in Canada, how much Canadian IP, how many days at sea, how many days of maintenance per days at sea, daily expenses, berthing location, interoperability, expandability, etc).

However, figuring out what you actually do with them is rather easy; just look at recent history and see both where we sent MCDVs and CPFs, but also ask Fleet, CHOJ, and SJS about "asks" for Canadian ships that we weren't able to satisfy.

For the latter, just about ANY ship will do. Whether it's humanitarian aide, flag waving, sovereignty and/or fisheries patrols, constabulary duties, or simple naval task group FG, just about any corvette sizes ship will do.

However, to actually be capable of standing toe to toe with a near-peer advisory, you absolutely need, at MINIMUM, the capabilities of the RCD.

So, if you know you aren't going to build another RCD, then don't overcomplicate it. Get somethings that's maybe a little better armed than a USCG National Security Cutter, and send them all over the world on all the missions where you aren't planning on them actually fighting high-level multi-threat naval warfare, which in reality, is what our ships spend 99.9% of their lives doing.

Seriously, you could pick just about any one of a dozen existing corvettes designs out of a hat, and any one of them could do 99.9% of what the government will actually be asking them do to during their careers.

We, the military, need to start thinking one generation ahead.

We're building RCDs, great, what's next ?

We need to stop getting caught at the end of service life scrambling for a replacement. Instead plan for end of service life and start introducing the the replacements in that process.