Destroyer Replacement Program

[geo]

wolfshadow.
welcome to the forum....
There was no real need to rehash the material of this thread for the Minister.  Plenty of political aids lurk here.
If you have something tangible to add to the discussion, feel free to say so... just try to stay in your lane and talk about what you know - VS - what others know.

 

[wolfshadow]

It

wolfshadow.
welcome to the forum....
There was no real need to rehash the material of this thread for the Minister.  Plenty of political aids lurk here.
If you have something tangible to add to the discussion, feel free to say so... just try to stay in your lane and talk about what you know - VS - what others know.

Geo,
My email  was not so much of a rehash for the minister as a note from a concerned citizen about the topic.  If he says anything interesting in reply, I'll post it here to inform others.  I was in the middle of checking on the status of the replacement program for my own edification when I ran across this topic.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[dapaterson]

As I am somewhat politically activist, we shall see what Mr. MacKay has to say on the matter.  I just sent the Minister of Natinal Defence an email on the subject of this thread.  If he emails me a response, I'll post it here for the edification of others.

Hmm... you realize that the MND will not draft the reply.  Rather, the email will be routed to the Minister's Correspondence Unit (MCU) who will farm it out to either the Navy or ADM(Mat).  They will dust  of the generic "Thank you for your interest in the Canadian Navy" letter, pass it up to the MCU who will ensure it meets tone and formatting requirements, and send a reply to you within 4 to 6 weeks.

The Minister himself will give it only a cursory look - or he may just read the one para summary that's included.

The real fun is when someone writes to say the Navy commander, doesn't like the answer he gets, then writes to the Minister... nine times out of ten, the same staff member will write the second reply...

Of course, no names, no pack drill...  >

 

[wolfshadow]

Oh, I realize that...  He'll prob get a comment from a staffer to the effect of "Some guy wrote in about replacing the Destroyers."

However the more letters that they get about the topic, the more the matter come on their radar screen.

And sometimes the formulaic responses from the ministers office can be interesting.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You do realize the Navy is currently trying to work on getting the Victorias back in the water, the JSS project under way, FELEX, the conversion of the CPFs to embark the Cyclones, and the new Arctic OPV program started. While we have been told the DRP is important, lets not over extend ourselves.

 

[wolfshadow]

Ex-Dragoon: I realize that there is a bunch of stuff on the plate of the navy. And alot of the stuff that we are doing prob. should have been done years ago.  For myself, I'm more worried about the long lead time for major combatant construction.  This become even more of a worry if we are to build them here in Canada.  Not like I think that my one little email to the Minister's office is going to do much, but I think that it would be appropriate for the Government to at least consider and debate the matter of funding them.

Oh, and as a new member, thanks for the considered responses.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

We all are wolfshadow, especially those of us that work/live/play on said ships. Having the program stood up and SCSC stood down indicates to most of us that the replacement of the 280s has become a higher priority for the Crown.

 

[geo]

Hmm... you realize that the MND will not draft the reply.  Rather, the email will be routed to the Minister's Correspondence Unit (MCU) who will farm it out to either the Navy or ADM(Mat).  They will dust  of the generic "Thank you for your interest in the Canadian Navy" letter, pass it up to the MCU who will ensure it meets tone and formatting requirements, and send a reply to you within 4 to 6 weeks.

The Minister himself will give it only a cursory look - or he may just read the one para summary that's included.

The real fun is when someone writes to say the Navy commander, doesn't like the answer he gets, then writes to the Minister... nine times out of ten, the same staff member will write the second reply...

Of course, no names, no pack drill...  >

Heh.... have been the author of my fair share : >

 

[dapaterson]

We all are wolfshadow, especially those of us that work/live/play on said ships. Having the program stood up and SCSC stood down indicates to most of us that the replacement of the 280s has become a higher priority for the Crown.

Ex-Dragoon:  I suspect the price tag associated with SCSC scared people; it would dominate the CF capital plan for a significant length of time.  Cutting it in two (DDHs then FFHs) will raise the overall costs, but spread it over a longer period and  permit the Frigate replacement to start later, freeing capital dollars for other projects (anyone notice the age of the CF-18s?  Or the wear and tear the LAV fleet is currently undergoing?)

I think this is probably a tactical move by the Navy to ensure new platforms in a shorter timeline; pressing forwrad with SCSC would defer the acquisitions significantly.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Militarys are expensive and need to be maintained in a planned and disciplined manner. If Canada wants to keep a viable Armed Forces with well trained and credible people we're going to have to spend the bucks on it. a patchwork plan for the last 30=40 years of equipment acquisition and troop reductions, contracting out and generally using the Department as a political football has left us in the position now where everything needs replacing and we're short of people. As stated in another article I read recently it took about 15 years to destroy the CF from about 1963-78 or so...it'll take twice as long to put us back on our feet. ...and it will take annual budgets of well into the 30 billion dollar annually level. If the Government can muster the political will then we will have a new and improved CF...if not we'll muddle along like we have done for the last 30 years...buying equipment only when absolutely necessary and asking our people to keep fixing stuff with binder twine and duct tape, while our expert technicians depart for greener pastures.

 

[geo]

In hoc...
If you look at the history of Canada and it's military you'll find that the military has pert much always been neglected and any moneyh spent on oit has been grudgingly spent.
When WW1 broke out we had next to nothing but a patchwork of militia units throughout the country & no serious military equipment.... the military was ramped up for the duration.... and brought back down pert much just as quickly.
When WW2 broke out, we had next to nothing but a patchwork of militia units & a miniscule regular force & no serious military equipment... the military was ramped up for the duration and retained for the war in the pacific.  It's only a matter of pure luck that Korea happened within 5 years of WW2 that Canada had something substantial to pony up for the war against North Korea, China & the dastardly communists.

Our military industrial complex was pert much built up for WW2, refreshed for Korea & developed/maintained between 55 and 70.  Everything else has been downhill & on life support.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

In hoc...
If you look at the history of Canada and it's military you'll find that the military has pert much always been neglected and any moneyh spent on oit has been grudgingly spent.
When WW1 broke out we had next to nothing but a patchwork of militia units throughout the country & no serious military equipment.... the military was ramped up for the duration.... and brought back down pert much just as quickly.
When WW2 broke out, we had next to nothing but a patchwork of militia units & a miniscule regular force & no serious military equipment... the military was ramped up for the duration and retained for the war in the pacific.  It's only a matter of pure luck that Korea happened within 5 years of WW2 that Canada had something substantial to pony up for the war against North Korea, China & the dastardly communists.

Our military industrial complex was pert much built up for WW2, refreshed for Korea & developed/maintained between 55 and 70.  Everything else has been downhill & on life support.

Agreed. I am a bit of a history buff myself and realize that we had glory years during the early part of the Cold War. What we need is the political will to break out of that mold and come up with a more workable plan. The old plan of mobilize and equip Reserves when the balloon goes up is not viable anymore.

 

[geo]

Heh... most wars nowadays are "come as you are" with very little chance for a buildup.

Many rocket scientists at the big puzzle palace have realized that the delta they built into the army's militia (combat arms types) is no longer sustainable.  Troops have to be trained to a closer standard, from the very beginning. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Back a few (early 90's) moons ago when I was in the Reserve's, we used to train 2 nights a week and in Sept-Nov and Jan-May we usually had 2 FTXs a month.  I believe now the normal standard is 32 training days per reservist funding to the unit CO to train his people.  THAT would be the first action to take IMHO to correct the delta that exists now.  You have to resource, fund and staff the issue properly and that requires more of the almighty training $.

But if the powers that be did that, wouldn't they be accused of a "Bush-like military buildup" by the NDP?  ;D

 

[a_majoor]

A thought occurred to me ( ) regarding future warships. If even second rate nations like Iran can field weapons like supersonic anti ship missiles and Skvall supercavitating rocket torpedoes, then sleek "greyhound of the seas" warship designs are pretty much a dead end. Even with exotic hull forms, hydrofoils, lifting bodies and so on, no ship as we understand it will be able to move fast enough to evade an attack by modern weapons. Adding ECM, decoys and weapons like CIWS increases cost and weight (especially up top), things which are critical in a compact warship.

Rather than layering on more and more defenses and electronics, why not build the same capabilities as a Halifax class frigate into a vastly larger hull? If you think of a modern container ship or pure car carrier, there is a giant hull powered by an 11,000KW diesel capable of doing 20+ knots. Cutting down the hull and lowering the freeboard (since we are not carrying 400+ cars) still gives us a ship displacing @ 20,000 tons with considerable room for weapons, helicopters, UAV's, turbine powerplants for dash speed, ASW sonars and hydrophones etc. The key here is most of the hull is still empty space.

Double hull construction with a spacing measured in meters, critical components in widely separated, isolated and shock mounted compartments and maybe even filling the dead spaces with a non flammable foam would provide the ship with the ability to absorb a tremendous amount of battle damage if and when mines, torpedoes or missiles leak through the defenses. As a bonus, the ship would have much better stability and sea keeping than a compact traditional warship, and probably greater endurance as well.

Operating in littoral waters would be more difficult with a large hull design, but the trade off is the ship can better absorb the punishment that an enemy can deliver compared to a conventional warship. (The tanker wars back in the 1980's are a great example; the USN had an empty supertanker lead the way into the Persian Gulf, and the tanker could hit one or more mines and continue to sail where a warship would be out of action.) The offense is delivered by the high performance weapons the ship carries, the virtue of the ship becomes its seakeeping and endurance, and the ability to fight on even when hit.

 

[WPA]

How about the BAby Burkes that the Aussie turned down looks interesting.
With more automation and the uses of the APAR & L-Band radar would make it a very nice ship.

The Type 45 might be good to with the change the radar setup.
Get ride of the high radar structure and use the APAR & L-Band radar and flush mounted MK41 and replace the main gun with the 57mm.
No real need for Canada to have the large gun and increase cost of a new supply and service chains for it.

The navy fleet could look like this:

6 AWW
10 frigates
6 to 8 aopv
3 JSS
2 to 3 LHP enforcer design flat top for amphibs

Any other ideas or options ? 

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

There are a lot of associated infrastructure costs with significantly larger warships. A 20 000 ton FFH would need more docking space, more fuel etc. That could have siginficant follow-on effects on thing like JSS design and infrastructure budgets.

wpa, AAW warships are built around their radars/launchers. You can't just change those without a lot of very significant issues later.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Not to mention at 20,000 tons you would have a battlecruiser vice a frigate.

 

[a_majoor]

The extra costs associated with vastly increased size are noted, I wonder if the trade off is worth it? Looking at naval actions since the 1980's, traditional warships have been sunk or taken out of action with rockets, missiles, iron bombs, mines, at least one torpedo, suicide bombers in a small boat and even a Carl Gustave. Lots of nations have a limited capability to try to deny the seaways and littorals with missiles, mines, diesel submarines and torpedoes, as well as taking desperate measures like attacking with bomb dropping aircraft and suicide boats. If the cruiser (since that is indeed what it would be) is big enough to absorb hits like that and stay in action, then perhaps it is worth the associated extra costs.

WRT fuel, I think the large container/car carrier ships that inspired(?) this thought are quite economical to run, otherwise there would be little profit in actually sailing ships of this size in commercial service. The standard has evolved to one almighty diesel engine of 11,000 KW power output running at @ 100 RPM and turning a single propeller for a cruise speed of 20+ knots. Even most warships don't sail much faster on day to day cruises, and extra power for a high speed dash can be supplied with gas turbine engines coupled to the shaft, running generators and powering an electric motor geared to the shaft, or other ways.

Since it seems there will be lots of time before the Destroyer replacement program actually puts something in the water, we can consider a really wide range of options.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Yes but something at 20,000 tons is going to produce a huge radar cross section. You have a target that big and whomever you up against will volley fire missiles at your ship to overwhelm your defences. The bigger the ship, the easier it is to find.

As drunksubmrnr pointed out you would drastically need to rebuild the docks in Halifax and Esquilmalt to accomodate this monster.

WPS look at the German F124 (Sachen), a hell of a lot more affordable then the Burkes, baby Burkes and the Type 45. BTW having the 5 inch on the Burkes helps us contibute to the NGS role. Why get rid of a weapon that will help us support our troops ashore??