Little Honking Ships......

[Kirkhill]

To refresh the interminable "wouldn't it be nice" discussion....

My latest prescription:

Build 16 CSCs - 4 of the AAW variety, 8 of the GP variety (both embarking CH-148s but with CH-147 capable decks)  and 4 stretched versions with flat decks like these ones.

Link

San Giorgio design built for the Algerian Navy.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Range would be insufficient, wouldn't it?

Matthew.

 

[a_majoor]

But can it embark 500 fully equipped troops, house a command suite for the Admiral and a second one for the Task Force Commander + staff AND be built in modular sections in ridings controlled by the government of the day to be assembled in Resolute Bay to support the "Economic Action Plan and the "Canada First" Defence Strategy?  :

Otherwise, it is actually a pretty cool ship. If it were up to me I'd upsize to the Japanese "Helicopter carriers".

 

[Kirkhill]

440 troops and 400 mio Euros Thuc.

And yes, a little short on legs Matt but 30% more than the Iroquois and  we're supposed to be defending Canada First and the Carribean Second in any event.  N'est ce pas?

We have two big tankers to get little ships over long distances.

 

[Infanteer]

Seems familiar.  The San Giorgio class that it's based upon comes in at just under 8,000 tons displacement.  The Scheldt Enforcer has a small variant coming in at the same displacement.  Definitely seems more feasible/palatable than manning ships at 15,000+ tons.  Put 2-3 together and you can sail a BG anywhere.

 

[MarkOttawa]

The money just will not be there, esp. with build in Canada:
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/26594/post-1284386#msg1284386

How about a mix of OPVs/Black Swans and just a few serious frigate-types?
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/joint-concept-note-1-12-future-black-swan-class-sloop-of-war-a-group-system
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hollandclasspatrol/

If the RCN is mainly to do drug-busting and anti-piracy?  And not much there there left for latter:
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/world/archives/2014/01/20140119-130156.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/somalia/10582360/Somali-pirates-hijack-first-ship-since-2012.html

What is the threat against which we need 15 high-end surface ships?  One-for-one Cold  War vs Soviets replacement  (with specific NATO responsibilities then);  but  that Cold War is over. 

Moreover the RN is only going to have 19:
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20131230/DEFREG01/312300007/Final-Type-45-Destroyer-Enters-UK-Royal-Navy-Service

Or do we envisage combat with China with a lot of the 15 new CSCs?  Is that the rationale?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

To refresh the interminable "wouldn't it be nice" discussion....

My latest prescription:

Build 16 CSCs - 4 of the AAW variety, 8 of the GP variety (both embarking CH-148s but with CH-147 capable decks)  and 4 stretched versions with flat decks like these ones.

Link

San Giorgio design built for the Algerian Navy.

I'd vote for this. It would give us enough utility for the missions we have been called upon in the last number of years. IMO OPVs belong with an "armed" CCG. FELEX, CSC and Kirkhills CSC variants would be a nice mission enhancer for Canada and our coalition partners.

 

[GR66]

This is a WAY out of my lane question.  If we can't afford our own BHS...or a LHS....or even a JSS vs an AOR, then could we get creative?

Could we subsidise the purchase of a pair of commercial Ro-PAX ships for East & West Coast ferry fleets?  The government could maybe provide interest free loans (with generous repayment schedules) for the companies to purchase these ships and the CF would pay for the cost to add a couple of modifications to make them more useful for military use (such as a helicopter pad, refueling at sea capability, upgraded power, etc).  The ferry companies would be free to use these ships but the CF would be able to "activate" them when required to respond to military needs.  Additional mission capabilities could be added when required with containerized systems.  There could also possibly be some kind of manning agreement where a few NAVRES billets could be on each ship so that we have crews familiar with the vessels. 

Here's an example of an existing vessel that has both military and commercial versions:  http://www.incat.com.au/domino/incat/incatweb.nsf/0/76457AADD2C1A987CA2571AF0019EC66?OpenDocument

It's maybe not as effective as having a dedicated BHS, but we would have available a couple of vessels in time of need to be able to transport troops, vehicles and containers when required as well as have a platform that can carry a couple of helicopters for ship-to-shore movement, etc.

Just a thought.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Ah! Kirkhill, where to start to dash your hopes again?

Lets put it this way: I love dreamer but:

1) these small phibs are not repeat not "combatants" in the sense of the CSC. They could not fight their way out of a paper bag if their life depended on it.

2) You cannot just "stretch" a CSC and put a "flat deck" on them so they would remain the same ships. They would be, by necessity entirely different: different internal arrangement of machinery, different internal compartments arrangements, different distribution of equipment and on-board services, different ballasting and tanking arrangements, and likely  even a different hull form would be required, etc, etc. So, if you want small phibs (and I would personally like to see phibs in our Navy) it is a lot faster and smarter to start either from scratch or from a foreign design we buy than try to start from a CSC.

3) The San Giorgio's are not bigger than the envisaged CSC's - in fact they are about the same size but shorter.

4) The San Giorgio's have a limited lift capability: They can only carry about 400 armed personal for landing and about 30-34 large army vehicles. They do not repeat not have the capacity to embark either the task force commander or the Admiral and their staff. No on board medical facility to talk of either.

5) The San Giorgio's have a very limited capacity for helicopters: there is no Hangar to store them in (they stay on deck, with the afferent corrosion problems from exposure to salty sea air) and especially when the LCVP's davits are in the upper position, limited spots and embark capacity of maybe four or five medium helicopters at most.

5) The CSC are extremely unlikely to be able to ever land the CH-147 Chinooks: The CSC's and their flight decks are small and the Chinooks don't have a haul down system, making the sea states in which you could safely land them on a CSC quite limited.

As I have said, I would love for the Navy to have phibs, but my choice would be to acquire something more suited to our needs, with about the same size crew, but that would provide good helicopter capacity, better troop transportation and heavy equipment capacity, actual room for command staffs and good medical facilities. For about the same price as the San Giorgio's, these would be Mistral class ships, or if we wished to go a little bigger and a bit pricier, the Canberra class.

 

[GreenMarine]

:goodpost:

Took the words out of my mouth.

 

[Kirkhill]

Ah! Kirkhill, where to start to dash your hopes again?

I live to entertain you OGBD.  ;D

But.....

My old man lived by the dictum "Anything's possible if cash".

If we had cash we would have bought Big Honking Ships a decade ago.  If we had cash we would have bought a US style navy.  Since neither of those conditions pertain I can only assume that we are short of the ready...

Another favourite phrase around our place was "It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools".

While I appreciate the value of an electric 3-Axis mitre saw I can also see how a job might be done with a tenon saw and a mitre box.

Just because I can't afford the 3-Axis mitre saw should I disregard what can be done with the tenon saw?

San Giorgio is not San Antonio... but we can't afford San Antonio.  Should we disregard what we might be able to accomplish with the San Giorgio?

I will be pleased to hear how you propose to fund high end capabilities.


Your Servant, Good Sir,  >

 

[Kirkhill]

PS

San Giorgio has no hangar.  Agreed.

But.

San Giorgio can move CH-146 Griffons from the Vehicle deck to the Flight deck via an elevator.

Better than nought.

But.

The picture is not of the San Giorgio but of the San Giorgio variant Kalaat Beni Abbes of the Algerian Navy which:

The BDSL, with a displacement of 8 800 tons, can accommodate 150 crew and 440 soldiers and their equipment as well as landing craft – three landing craft can simultaneously operate from the stern well. Vehicle and personnel landing craft will be carried, along with a couple of RHIBs. Three Landing Craft Vehicle Personnel (LCVP) are being manufactured in Algeria under license by the Mers El Kebir shipyard.

The vessel can accommodate 15 main battle tanks or 30 light tanks or armoured personnel carriers. A hospital with operating rooms can house fifty beds. Five medium helicopter can be carried in a hangar.

Link

With the exception of the Admiral's staff it seems to tick the boxes you left open .... as regards the Admiral's staff, perhaps if we left a platoon, or even a company ashore, perhaps they could be accomodated.  Nelson's staff only required seven berths.

Your Servant.

 

[Kirkhill]

And in closing....

One hull, one machinery suite, one electronics suite.

3 different ships,  including a flat top.

Courtesy of Damen Shipyards.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

And in closing....

One hull, one machinery suite, one electronics suite.

3 different ships,  including a flat top.

Courtesy of Damen Shipyards.

This isn't really my lane but I think trying to turn CSC hull/machinery into a usable LHD is kind of like trying to put a pick-up truck frame onto a Lotus Elise chassis.

You 'could' do it, but your constraints would dramatically undermine the LHD performance.


Matthew.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

One caveat:  If you were willing to limit the size of your alt vessel to the Absalon-class, the Iver Huitfeldt/Absalon programs probably merit some review.


Matthew.

 

[ArmyRick]

That San Giorgio looks rather tiny for a LPD. Or am I reading the dimensions wrong?

 

[ArmyRick]

What does CSC stand for?

 

[Kirkhill]

ArmyRick:

CSC = Canadian Surface Combatant.  It's the Navy's programme to replace both the DDHs "Destroyers" and the Halifax Frigates with a single class of ship - hopefully resulting in 15 or 16 new ships.

And you are right.  These ships are a lot smaller than US and even British LPH/LPDs.  They are more the size of the old LSTs (Landing Ship Tanks) and have found employment in coastal navies.  Thailand also comes to mind.

I think these things would have utility in Canada and as "motherships" for disaster relief and constabulary duties internationally.  They would also thicken out an ASW screen with their "5 medium helicopters in a hangar".  Unless the text is wrong that would mean 5 CH-148 Cyclone or CH-149 sized helos.

 

[Infanteer]

And in closing....

One hull, one machinery suite, one electronics suite.

3 different ships,  including a flat top.

Courtesy of Damen Shipyards.

That is the image of the Scheldt variants I spoke to earlier.

 

[Kirkhill]

If we had the cash then the Enforcer (3 of them in the flat top variant) would be my preference too.

But if they're too rich for our budget perhaps something like the modernized San Giorgio would be affordable - especially if built to a common standard with the CSCs.