• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Naval Capabilities Needed.

Ex-Dragoon

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
18
Points
430
  Ok over the past few years you might have seen me mention the baseline naval capabilities we  currently have. For a refresher they are AAW (AntiAir Warfare), ASuW(AntiSurface Warfare) and ASW (AntiSubmarine Warfare). I have in the past described it as a triangle and to remain a viable navy, we must maintain a capability in these 3 warfare areas.
  Money is coming in, albeit slowly. JSS, APV, FELEX, (maybe an LPD) and SCSC are all the horizon. The question is where should we go from here? Personally I have been thinking of this and I feel that we should bring back NGS (there is talk the SCSC will have that capability) I also think we should really develop our own UUV knowledge. I think we should as well develop countermeasures against UUVs. I feel that this is a more economical route to go for our Navy, rather then aircraft carriers that some of you forcefully advocate. So what do you think? Where should our Navy go from here?
 
Well Ex,

Since no one else seems to want to play with you, I will.  ;D

I think it all depends upon how much you're budgeting for procurement going forward.

Here were my "pulled-out-of-butt" estimates:


..................................2007.......2008.......2009......2010......2011......2012......2013.....2014.....2015

Current Commitments
Arctic Ice Breakers(6)....$50.......$100.......$300......$300......$300......$300......$300.....$300.................
JSS(3)..........................$50........$100.......$200......$200.....$200......$200......$200.....$200.................
Victoria Refits................$25.........$25........$25........$25....................................................................

Recommended Commitments
Additional Cyclones (6)........................................................$100.....$100.......$100......$100...............
FELEX(12).....................$50.........$100......$200......$200......$200.....$200.......$200.....$200......$200=>
BHS(1+).................................................................................$0........$0...........$0........$0.....$ 200=>

Notes:
1) Arctic Ice Hardened Corvettes - Modify design to carry Cyclone.  Cyclone becomes primary weapons delivery system.  Remainder of surveillance and weapons systems are minimal.  Prefer to build in Atlantic Canada as economic stimulus is badly needed. 
2) JSS - I still prefer the idea of separate LPD/AOR's, but I think the reality is the system needs to be combined due to public perception.  Again, Atlantic Canada build would be preferable.  Strategically, I think we should be able to keep at least one shipyard running at all times with smart procurement planning.
3) Victoria Re-Fits - I know many guys keep telling me about how important submarines are, but this purchase still confuses me to no end as the Victoria is not fast enough submerged to escort our surface vessels where enemy submarines could be a threat, which leaves them in the role of ambush killer.  My problem is what are we hunting?  Spanish fishing boats in the Grand Banks?  If you want to monitor fishing violations, use a light patrol aircraft.  To use a 48-crew submarine to do fisheries patrosl is incredibly expensive overkill.  Now, if we're eventually talking about procuring (4) nuclear submarines that can act as battle group escorts as well as having a land-attack capability, then I can see an ROI arguement.
4)  FELEX - Simply put, I think given the age of the CPF's, the cost associated with SCSC at this time is too high given other more urgent needs.  As such, I would move forward with the FELEX project.  As I'm unqualified to speak on details such as hull extensions or radar upgrades, I'll leave that to others to debate.  The one thing I will continue to argue is that the 20mm Phalanx worries the everloving hell out of me (specifically the physics of a 20mm projectile against an evading supersonic target), and would much prefer to see an upgrade to SEA-RAM.  One thought I'd like to throw out there is that IF the current hull is incapable of much upgrading due to weight concerns, perhaps we could split FELEX into (2) batches.  Batch 1 would be the air defence and C&C variant, and would be stripped of its non-essential task-specific gear to focus on new radar and SAM's.  Batch 2 would be the ASW, ASuW variant which would be stripped of Anti-Air Equipment (with the exception of the aforementioned SEA-RAM), and carry Harpoon (including a land attack variant) as well as the UUV's that you mentioned earlier (and totally agree with you, by the way).  In such a fashion you end up with pair of vessels that together provide a great deal more capability that two identical "jack of all trades" frigates.
5)  BHS - Even with JSS, I'd still like to see a dedicated LHD as it would for the first time provide an ability to support troops inland.  Now whether than means AH-1Z or F-35B, I don't know, but I think it's a force multiplier that should be explored.  Note, this construction would dovetail into the same shipyard building the JSS.


Matthew.  :salute:
 
Dragoon,  CDan you please let me know what NGS means?  I looked for it in the military terms sections and came up empty.
 
newfin said:
Dragoon,  CDan you please let me know what NGS means?  I looked for it in the military terms sections and came up empty.

Naval Gun Support.


Matthew.  :salute:

P.S.  If there are more, don't hesitate to ask, because I just reread my post and hadn't realized just how many acronym's I'd used.  ;D
 
Cdn Blackshirt said:
Naval Gun Support.


Matthew.   :salute:

P.S.  If there are more, don't hesitate to ask, because I just reread my post and hadn't realized just how many acronym's I'd used.   ;D

Actually its Naval Gunfire Support
 
Matthew,
  Considering the Cyclone is an Air Force asset as much as the Navy would like to think we own it, then it really does not belong in your list. I don 't want to discuss economics as its way above my pay grade.
1) Considering how hard the Arctic environment is for Helos, making them your primary weapons carrier might be a mistake. UAVs might be a better option.
2) JSS is more AOR anyways with sealift capability, its not even the same class as an LPD.
3) I am not sure what else I can say to you regarding subs so I am not.
4) FELEX is going ahead irregardless. It is needed and very much overdue. I have no concerns about the Block 1B series of CIWS, and as a sailor I think having confidence in the kit we use should count for something. Not that I would mind having RAM onboard as well, anything added to help keep me alive is a good thing. Dividing the FELEX into 2 batches would only add to the cost and make it more unswallowable to Cabinet. Not a good idea. Its having the jack of all trades frigates that make a Halifax class frigate a much desired asset with our allies.
5) Agreed, although again adopting fixed winged air craft for the Navy would sky rocket the cost. If anything stick with gunships.

 
Another area that we should investigate and develop a capability for is small boats ops. Well armed FIACs that could be used to help support boarding ops, escort merchant traffic in littoral areas would be a god send to naval commanders in areas like the Arabian gulf.
 
As someone with a strong interest in anything naval i've been following this thread, too bad more army.ca members aren't taking part in this discussion.  Anyway a couple of thoughts, first I support ExDragoon 100% on developing small boat capabilities (this is something i've been thinking about for awhile myself).  I think Canada should seriously pursue creating a small boat capability similar to the US Navy's Special Boat Squadrons which support SEAL operations.  I propose a squadron each for the Atlantic and Pacific fleets.  As ExDragoon pointed out they could be used to support boarding operations and escort merchant shipping in littoral waters, taking some of the burden off the destroyers and frigates.

Like the aforementioned US Navy squadrons, they could be used to support CANSOFCOM, providing seaborne insertion and extraction, including while under hostile fire, which would be difficult for submarines to do.  Such a capability is timely given events on the global maritime stage, such as the increase in piracy on Africa coasts and in the Pacific.

I know from previous discussions that the Victoria class boats are a touchy subject for many here.  While among patrol subs the Vics may have unique capabilities, that in some ways make them similar to nuclear powered hunter-killers, what sense is there in having these unique capabilities if one cannot use them fully.  The Vics have yet to return value for the money spent on them.  There are other designs out there, that while they may not have some of the Vics capabilities, they WORK.  One example is the Franco-Spanish Scorpene class.  Canada should seriously consider purchasing these, or one of the other excellent diesel boat types available out there.  One question, from what I understand plans to purchase or build an amphibious ship have been axed.  So does the Navy still plan to lease the USS Gunston, and what about SCTF, is this still in the works, and what timeframe are we looking at?
 
cameron said:
  So does the Navy still plan to lease the USS Gunston,

No.  The Gunston Hall was used for the ITEE and thats it.

and what about SCTF, is this still in the works, and what timeframe are we looking at?

The SCF has been put on long-term hold.......
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Another area that we should investigate and develop a capability for is small boats ops. Well armed FIACs that could be used to help support boarding ops, escort merchant traffic in littoral areas would be a god send to naval commanders in areas like the Arabian gulf.

Dockstavarvet's CB-90 - for APVs, for FELEX/SCSC, for Naval Reserve DOMOPS.  And yes I am a fan.... ;D
http://www.dockstavarvet.se/index2.php?content=products&subpage=combat_boat_cb_90_h
http://www.cat.com/cda/files/254901/7/Patrol%20Boats%20%E2%80%A6Dockstavarvet.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Boat_90
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOHFgDIGvOA

Here's a Swedish video on the CB-90 on YouTube.
 
Downsides to using small boats: Can't handle ice and can't handle big waves.

Personally I'd say go for small multi-role Corvettes to defend the east and west coast like they plan to do for the arctic, they're cheaper(than frigates or destroyers) and will free up our frigates for international exercises. Find one small ship design that's cheap, easy to build, and operate and allows for many to be built, don't go over the top, just build what you need and allow for additional add-ons later. Yes big fancy frigates are nice but if you don't have a lot of them, you're kinda screwed, especially with a coastline like ours.
 
Boater said:
Downsides to using small boats: Can't handle ice and can't handle big waves.

Personally I'd say go for small multi-role Corvettes to defend the east and west coast like they plan to do for the arctic, they're cheaper(than frigates or destroyers) and will free up our frigates for international exercises. Find one small ship design that's cheap, easy to build, and operate and allows for many to be built, don't go over the top, just build what you need and allow for additional add-ons later. Yes big fancy frigates are nice but if you don't have a lot of them, you're kinda screwed, especially with a coastline like ours.

I was guessing that:
1) The Svalbard-equivalents in concert with the MCDV's are going to be tasked exactly as you describe primarily with Coastal Defence and Surveillance while freeing up the CPF's to be tasked primarily for foreign deployments.
2)  The 280's will be retired without AAD replacement with a majority of crew transferred to the Svalbard-equivalents (2nd in command become captains of Svalbards) whilst captains probably go to JSS hulls due to the C&C role of the new vessels.


Matthew.  :salute:
 
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/visby/ 

These Swedish ones are nice, though I'm not to sure how they would handle ice being made of 'plastic' and all.

But: They are fast 35K
      Small Crew 43
      And fairly well armed though lacking a viable air defence system but I belive that they are designed so that one may be added on at a later date
      And they look really cool  :)
 
Executive Officers of 280s are only Lieutenant Commanders, they would not get a major war vessel command and the C&C role of the JSS is more geared towards the troops ashore vice a naval warfare role.
 
For a FIAC I think this would be a better option:
http://www.defense-update.com/directory/shaldag-II.htm
 
Good for near the Coast Ex-Dragoon, not good if you have to reach out and touch somebody over the horizon, though they could be useful in a layered coastal defensive system: Big ships (frigates/Destroyers) far out to sea to protect against naval or cargo ship bourne threats, Corvettes in the middle for patrol and intercept, and small boats up close to shore for intercept and harbour defense.
 
Ex-Dragoon said:
Executive Officers of 280s are only Lieutenant Commanders, they would not get a major war vessel command and the C&C role of the JSS is more geared towards the troops ashore vice a naval warfare role.

Thanks for the correction Ex....


Matthew.  :salute:
 
Back
Top