Decommissioning announcement 19 Sep 2014 - 2x Destroyers and 2 x AOR

[GR66]

See my comments about "Buy America," "Canada First," and stupid political decisions driven by even more stupid voters here. And I mean it: the reason ministers and senior bureaucrats, generally smarter than average people, make dumb decisions is because the people, the almighty but incredibly stupid f'ing people, demand stupid decisions.

Tony Abbott may get away with some smart defence procurement in Australia, but if he does it is because Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard have nearly destroyed the Labour Party, not because Australians are smart. He might, also, spend some of the dollars he saves by smarter defence procurement on visible job creation projects, remembering Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's quip about Canadians liking to see construction cranes because it means people are working.

Agree totally but what particularly bothers me about the NSPS is that for the most part we're planning to design and build ships that nobody else will ever buy.  There are a pretty limited number of countries that are in the market for a high-end multi-purpose frigate and most of these countries have their own domestic programs and will never politically be able to choose to buy Canadian. 

If you're going to spend pork on shipbuilders then in my opinion you need to both KEEP them busy with ongoing orders and have them build something for which there is an international market.  The CSC is at the top end of what the major world navies have in their fleets.  The US, Brits, French, Italians, Spanish, Japanese, Danes, etc. are not going to give orders for their premier warships to Canada over their own shipyards.  It's just not going to happen.  The rest of the world DO buy warships offshore because they don't have their own industries to protect, but they simply can't afford ships like the CSC. 

In my humble opinion Canada would be better served both militarily and industrially by once again becoming primarily a "Corvette Navy".  We have the longest coastline in the world which means we should have a fairly large number of ships and aircraft to patrol and protect that water.  We're also blessed with an excellent strategic location in that our populated areas are physically far from other naval powers and we sit on top of the US with it's dominant navy.  No other country has the blue-water power to steam into North American waters with their fleet and hope to survive. 

Submarines, mines and asymmetrical attacks however would be a serious potential and realistic threat.  I think in many ways having a larger number of ASW corvettes instead of a smaller number of multi-purpose and AAW Frigates would not only provide better protection for our own waters but would be as much of an advantage for our allies as well.  The USN has lost much of it's ASW capability and experience at the same time that diesel subs are becoming more central to the navies of many potential enemies.  Canadian expertise in this area would probably be very welcome.

A ship design similar to DCNS's GoWind class (http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/gowind_corvettes/) that are around 2000t with a crew of less than 100, have a helicopter hanger and stern ramps that can be used for RHIBs for boarding parties or mine hunting UUVs and 3-week endurance might be able to fulfill this role.  The RCN could perhaps have a standing order for one new ship every two years which could give us a 30-ship fleet that is constantly renewing itself as technology advances and give our shipyards an affordable hullform that can be modified into a number of ship configurations that would be affordable for international customers. 

If there's a real need for a handful of more capable AAW or Command-capable Frigates/Destroyers then buy a couple of those off the shelf from the US/Brits/French/etc. to save time and cost rather than designing and building our own (because we'll never sell them to anyone else anyway).

 

[MARS]

Again, I've said it before but "Soldiers/Sailors are incapable of making policy decisions because they always think whatever they have isn't good enough, that they need more of it and that they aren't getting the support they need," we work for the government. not the other way around and they determine what we should be doing and what kit we are going to be using.

I agree.  Your quote makes me think of Billy Connelly and the tail end of his "women's demands" stand-up comedy routine.

Here is the Youtube of it, I think - hopefully just the end bit (I can't access Youtube from my current location to check the clip)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ga3BQWoNPq0

Here is the text version in case the link is duff:

"We want this! And that. We demand a share in that, and most of that, some of this and fucking all of that. Less of that, more of this and fucking plenty of this. And another thing we want it now. I want it yesterday and I want fucking more tomorrow. And the demands will all be checked then so fucking stay awake."

 

[YZT580]

Just as a thought, could they have deliberately set out to make a big thing out of the decommissioning to make a strategic off-shore buy to cover the gap until our own constructs come on line in much the same manner as they bought the CH47s?  Look, our ships are rusted out we have a plan but buying these few ? will bridge the gap and give our industry time to come on line. 

 

[Old Sweat]

Announcing an off shore buy instead of contracting to build and buy in Canada would, it seems to me, be a political misstep of gargantuan proportions. Can you imagine the furor as the opposition, the unions, the media, the academics and the create-a-job crowd attack it for being anti-whatever group you can think of that knows enough to jump in front of a camera and speak in short, vivid sentences that air well on the evening news? (Sorry for the run on sentence.)

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

If the government and previous governments had stuck with its plans for new support ships and haven't kept extending the paying off of the 280's and the tankers we would be in better stread right now. Yes the NSPS is a great idea but 10 years too late, we are facing significant capability shortfall and to me and many members of the RCN thats unacceptable. It may be silly to have high expectations, but tell that to someone sailing on a 40 yr old ship a 1000 miles from land in a storm. Many of my peers have seen this coming and yes many of us think that its not good enough. I may be naive, but I expect better of my government.

Chief, I come from the light infantry so I know exactly what it's like to get the shaft not just from the government but from your own organization who doesn't really give a damn about what you do. 

Expectations need to be managed, we had a 10 year war that we had too pay for, certain things during that time were put on the back burner while we fought said war, the Navy took the brunt of it during that timeframe.  While the government's present plan isn't the be all end all, at least it has a plan.  The next few years are going to be difficult for all the services, we all have our own issues that we are trying to work out but I am confident everything will turn out for the best in the coming years. 

What the services desperately need is to start working together on issues facing the CF and stop being so closed minded, we have a tendency to focus on ourselves and forget that we are part of a bigger machine that is the CF.

 

[Stoker]

Chief, I come from the light infantry so I know exactly what it's like to get the shaft not just from the government but from your own organization who doesn't really give a damn about what you do. 

Expectations need to be managed, we had a 10 year war that we had too pay for, certain things during that time were put on the back burner while we fought said war, the Navy took the brunt of it during that timeframe.  While the government's present plan isn't the be all end all, at least it has a plan.  The next few years are going to be difficult for all the services, we all have our own issues that we are trying to work out but I am confident everything will turn out for the best in the coming years. 

What the services desperately need is to start working together on issues facing the CF and stop being so closed minded, we have a tendency to focus on ourselves and forget that we are part of a bigger machine that is the CF.

Sir, honestly where I work I don't often think about the other services and the hard times they are surely facing. What I do often think about is the morale issues we face operating a navy that is slowly but surely rusting away and the flood of personnel leaving. Perhaps its the idea that in short order and for a significant period of time we will have more crews that we have hulls for and we cannot meet our committements. I am glad that there is some kind of plan in place to provide us new platforms, however like I mentioned before its the priority I don't like and I am entitled to my own opinion. I accept it and support it but I don't have to like it. From my many years of experience at sea hoping everything is going to turn out for the best is foolish, you may as well plan for and expect the worse.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If there is a surplus of sailors, lease a couple of icebreakers, paint them grey, put light armament on them and let them train and work in the arctic. Start now and everything should be ready for next season.

Also look at some small vessel stuff, including small patrol boats and landing craft, anything that can be leased. It would be challenging and give Junior Officers more chances of command and broaden the experience base in the navy.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

Okay Colin. There you go using common sence and logic again!

To compound this, we DO NOT have a surplus of sailors because we are retasking to platforms with NO (RegF) BILLETS (ORCA and KIN class).

I don't know what the answer is but that Norwegian frigate outside my window sure looks like it may fit the bill for some of our strategic deficencies....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Sounds like a armed boarding party is in order, cutting out a frigate is part of the tradition! Of course it will have to be cleansed of Lutefisk afterwards!

 

[suffolkowner]

USNS Bridge and USNS Rainier may be available for lease until are Berlin class enter service.

This would be a good idea in my opinion. The gap in capabilities both within the RCN and NATO is growing too large. There will without a doubt be further slippage in the schedule. It might be time to look at upgrading some Halifax class frigates further as well maybe Smart-L instead of Smart-S. The Irving yard is probably more susceptible to delay than Seaspan. Can the Halifax replacements really be expected before 2030?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

SMART-L was looked at and deemed unfeasible as it would require cutting and stretching the Halifax's to accommodate the extra top weight, and such a radical redesign was simply more expensive than getting new ships from scratch.

On the other hand, I agree that we should look at leasing support capability until the new AOR's (I won't call them JSS) come on line.

Also, GR66, the other nations that do buy offshore do buy ships as sophisticated as the CSC's: Australia's purchases of Spanish AAW destroyers and amphibious ships, or MEKO and American frigates before is a good example.

Finally, no one should think that we are about to magically inherit a large number of unemployed seaman just because four ships will soon decommission. As the trickle of releases from these four ships occur over time, the released personnel will simply be absorbed in an otherwise undermanned fleet, with perhaps enough of an overage that some people will finally be able to attend long career courses that have been postponed to service the fleet - thus finally being able to enjoy promotions that were overdue. In due time, it may even permit the Navy to put together the first crew of the AOPS right from the beginning of their construction, thus letting them learn and get ready during construction and be able to observe said construction from the start: This is invaluable preparation, especially for the engineering trades who can learn the "nuts and bolts" of their new ship before even going at sea in her.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

For you special deal

http://www.shipworldbrokerage.com/Pages/PatrolFrig.aspx

http://www.shipworldbrokerage.com/Pages/TankerVessels.aspx

http://www.shipworldbrokerage.com/Pages/Tugs.aspx

http://www.tampers.eu/Military-Landing-craft-for-Sale-2-pct.html

http://commercial.apolloduck.ca/listings.phtml?cid=27 - Since we are reviving old ranks, we can revive another honourable tradition, the armed Merchant cruiser! Perfect for luring in pirates and likes. Downside is Admirals and staff officers might find the quarters comfy and spend to much time aboard.

 

[suffolkowner]

SMART-L was looked at and deemed unfeasible as it would require cutting and stretching the Halifax's to accommodate the extra top weight, and such a radical redesign was simply more expensive than getting new ships from scratch.

On the other hand, I agree that we should look at leasing support capability until the new AOR's (I won't call them JSS) come on line.

Also, GR66, the other nations that do buy offshore do buy ships as sophisticated as the CSC's: Australia's purchases of Spanish AAW destroyers and amphibious ships, or MEKO and American frigates before is a good example.

Finally, no one should think that we are about to magically inherit a large number of unemployed seaman just because four ships will soon decommission. As the trickle of releases from these four ships occur over time, the released personnel will simply be absorbed in an otherwise undermanned fleet, with perhaps enough of an overage that some people will finally be able to attend long career courses that have been postponed to service the fleet - thus finally being able to enjoy promotions that were overdue. In due time, it may even permit the Navy to put together the first crew of the AOPS right from the beginning of their construction, thus letting them learn and get ready during construction and be able to observe said construction from the start: This is invaluable preparation, especially for the engineering trades who can learn the "nuts and bolts" of their new ship before even going at sea in her.

Is an enhanced AD capability something the RCN should have in the next 15 years?
Is there some other way of incorporating it in either the Halifax class or other platforms?
The Smart-L weighs 8 tonnes(?) how much does the smart-s weigh?
Would removing the hanger/helicopter help alleviate the weight issue?
How about another system like AN/SPY-1K?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

If there is a surplus of sailors, lease a couple of icebreakers, paint them grey, put light armament on them and let them train and work in the arctic. Start now and everything should be ready for next season.

Also look at some small vessel stuff, including small patrol boats and landing craft, anything that can be leased. It would be challenging and give Junior Officers more chances of command and broaden the experience base in the navy.

It's all Harper's double-secret plan to buy both the Russian Mistrals.


Matthew. ;D

 

[Cloud Cover]

Is an enhanced AD capability something the RCN should have in the next 15 years?

Should have had it 15 years ago, but I doubt it will materialize in the next 15 years.

 

[MilEME09]

http://youtu.be/hha91X0cojI?t=4m15s

ahem, some things dont change we are back to here

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's all Harper's double-secret plan to buy both the Russian Mistrals.


Matthew. ;D

I was giving it a thought. A Mistral Class appears to have a complement of 160 personal, the Iroquois Class is suppose to be 280 (both from Wiki) So from a manning perspective it's doable to run one of these ships. That does not include running an Air arm or the Hospital function. However if we did order one of these(not the Russian ones), we could offer the bare hull and crew to various operations where other countries provide the other elements. This could buy us quite a bit of political favour with minimal operational risks. Wiki claims the cost is $600million USD. With the loss of the current ships and the the amount of money the DND has given back, 2 of the issues can be dealt with. Plus ordering it from overseas means no impact on our current semi-mythical Ship building program. Once you have the ship you can push for a Air arm and tailor other units to support it. 

 

[MikeKiloPapa]

Is an enhanced AD capability something the RCN should have in the next 15 years?

In the long term absolutely ( as should all maritime nations )...but for now i think you are fairly well covered by the USN and the rest of NATO,  so i agree that you should prioritize ASW capability and AOPS/OPV.

Is there some other way of incorporating it in either the Halifax class or other platforms?

Most certainly, perhaps with something like an enlarged CEAFAR installation. But top tier AAW systems is ridiculously expensive and the question is if it is worth the investment on vessels that have, at best , 15-20 years left in service.

The Smart-L weighs 8 tonnes(?) how much does the smart-s weigh?

~1,5 tonnes , give or take.

How about another system like AN/SPY-1K?

A much heavier system that in addition requires a lot of space for installation , either on  the superstructure or on a very heavy mast. Besides SPY-1K is yesterdays technology and has very little upgrade potential left. By today's standards it doesn't have particular impressive performance either and there are plenty of smaller, cheaper and more capable radars on the market.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Colin, I think the actual figures are more like Mistral = 182, IRO = 245, without the senior command element.

Also, and that is the beauty, Mistral don't have an "air arm". As amphibious ships, you cut your cloth as required by the mission you are embarking on: You wish to carry out ground forces landing, you bring medium/large troop transport army helicopters with some gunships to escort them; you want to be the centrepiece of an ASW group: you load up with MH's; going in the Arctic for general duties? Load up with some utility helicopters, etc.

The added air element does not have to be accounted for as it is provided by the army or air force as required by the mission. In fact, since the four retired ships (2 AOR and 2 DDH) are all MH carrying ships, pressure on the resources of the Maritime Air Group for the provision of Sea kings has been reduced accordingly, meaning some would be available for a Mistral just by getting back to pre-decommissioning tempo.

Also, we don't count the medical personnel as "ship assigned" when the AORs carried medical/dental personnel, they were usually added personnel from the CF medical service onboard for deployment.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect also the Mistrals would lend themselves to the "deep maintenance" required to keep those Sea Kings flying till the Cyclones arrive. Speaking of which, what is the heaviest helicopter the Mistrals can handle? I suspect if they could take the weight of a F35B you woulds still need to protect the deck from the thrust as well.