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

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAP
  • Start date Start date
First of all, thanks for all your inputs, they make me learn from all. This was a “what if” game and I didn’t want to extend too much in my previous post. Supporting my idea, let me drop a few more comments…

One point is that I saw 17 knots somehow slow compared to the 2x4.5 MW motors. Then I was not sure if it was due to the hull shape or to the propellers (fixed or variable pitch? optimized for low speeds because of ice? – I also don’t know) . For an ocean going tug and submarine rescue ship, I considered 3-5 additional knots would help. I intentionally used conditional (“maybe propellers and prop. system should be also reviewed”) meaning that it should be studied both in terms of Navy needs and technical feasibility without introducing major changes/risks on the design. Sorry that I was too brief in my post.

Same way applies to the ice thickness. If it were as easy as just to use a thinner layer of steel in the hull (probably not), and if the Navy would not require these two ships for full Arctic environment, then they could be redesigned for 70 cm instead of 120 cm. Please remember that in the game we had no problem about money and had time enough untill mid 2020’s, when we would find the production gap, to make such redesign.

Crane (for SUBSAR) - I read sweeds using a 55 tons, A-shaped crane for their Sub-rescue ship, Korea uses an A-shaped crane as well. Might it happen that the 20 tons crane of the AOPs would not serve for the purpose? Is it really required an A-shape crane? and is the AOPS crane of such type?

Towing- of course any ship can tow. However, other navies (US, France, Russia, for instance) do operate oceanic tugs (UK relies on a Forward repair ship listed in the RFA), relieving other ships from such task.

Range and payloads – Good to know about the SUBSAR & SUBSMASH payloads! Then it wouldn’t be necessary too much of special design for the AOPS platform. On the other hand, since these 2 additional ships would not need to cover the Arctic, then it might be useful to redesign the hull for ocean-going (and benefit from a “lower” [1] polar class). Good also to know about the 4 months endurance of the AOPS (I had no data on that). But still 6500 nmi might be reviewed acc. to the needs and requirements of the RCN.  IMHO it might be a little bit short to properly cover the Pacific without refueling in the way to assist to the distressed vessel. Vancouver to Sidney distance is about 6.700 nmi straight [2].

While I had in mind to use as much as possible an existing platform (the AOPS) and cover a possible gap in the Navy’s fleet, from the comments received it becomes clear that such ships (2x submarine rescue & oceangoing tugs) should better be designed from a blank sheet.

[1] Lower as less restrictive, therefore, higher number.
[2] Yeah, the range depends on the cruise speed as well. I’m primarily pointing to the RCN to determine the targeted range for such SUBSAR & Tug duties, and secondly expressing that IMHO 6.500 nmi would not suffice.

Sorry for this loooong post. And thanks again for your comments.
 
Chief Engineer said:
In my opinion the somehow is to design an entirely new hull and ship. the design is over 30 years old. There are lots of advances in warships that the hull won't support.
This is a fair point, however the designers of the Burke have evolved the design in flights since 1988, around the same time the 330 were taking shape in the yards. Is this not where we have gone wrong with shipbuilding, instead of small but steady streams of improved flights or batches, we go big and then go bust. The CPF design could have, and still can evolve and modernize, including hull changes, stealth, propulsion etc. Some the evolutions would certainly be radical, granted.
One more question, are we gaining or losing capability with a Type 26 with only one helo, or should there be a design option for 2 embarked similar to the 280. Each ship retaining UAS equipment as well.
 
Considering how full our yards are at the moment with the exception of Davie who would even be able to build new flights of halifaxs/halifax sub-class?  Id bet only a foreign yard could build them any time soonish. Lets assume by magic it did happen the order would need to be significant to make it worth it to a yard, we would need massive recruiting and training efforts if we wanted a fleet of 20+ surface combatants capable of blue water operations
 
If the yards are full, no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not call the aussies and order 3 or 4 Hobarts?
They are AWD with C2 capabilities.

I am pretty sure they could deliver on fixed price and within schedule.
 
Cloud Cover said:
This is a fair point, however the designers of the Burke have evolved the design in flights since 1988, around the same time the 330 were taking shape in the yards. Is this not where we have gone wrong with shipbuilding, instead of small but steady streams of improved flights or batches, we go big and then go bust. The CPF design could have, and still can evolve and modernize, including hull changes, stealth, propulsion etc. Some the evolutions would certainly be radical, granted.
One more question, are we gaining or losing capability with a Type 26 with only one helo, or should there be a design option for 2 embarked similar to the 280. Each ship retaining UAS equipment as well.

The Burke class was built to evolve over time and is significantly larger than the CPF, the Halifax Class was not. Talking to several Nav Arc's that worked on the life extension told me that the design has reached its end.
 
JMCanada said:
If the yards are full, no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not call the aussies and order 3 or 4 Hobarts?
If the yards are full?  https://www.marinelink.com/news/quebec-eyes-federal-shipbuilding-460538
Why not?  https://army.ca/forums/threads/120223/post-1517415.html#msg1517415
 
JMCanada said:
If the yards are full, no need to re-invent the wheel. Why not call the aussies and order 3 or 4 Hobarts?
They are AWD with C2 capabilities.

I am pretty sure they could deliver on fixed price and within schedule.

I’m thinking this negates what started the line of thought this thread was addressing. The pitch for an overhauled HALIFAX was to address a larger gap at ISI if Alion succeeds in having its day in court. If that drags in, then the “gap” will be larger. Buying AAD vessels from around the world wouldn’t keep Irving employees in the meat, and so the Government would never entertain that thought. If there is a gap, and if the G was to try and fill it, I’d suspect another AOPS or two is likely to be the way they’d go. Or, possibly some type of RO/RO logistics ship as a refit from an existing vessel. I can’t see them spark up a line of essentially new build ships to address a couple years of lean times at Irving, much less throw a pile of cash to a foreign shipbuilder, even if it means getting AAD capability much sooner.
 
Swampbuggy said:
I’m thinking this negates what started the line of thought this thread was addressing. The pitch for an overhauled HALIFAX was to address a larger gap at ISI if Alion succeeds in having its day in court. If that drags in, then the “gap” will be larger. Buying AAD vessels from around the world wouldn’t keep Irving employees in the meat, and so the Government would never entertain that thought. If there is a gap, and if the G was to try and fill it, I’d suspect another AOPS or two is likely to be the way they’d go. Or, possibly some type of RO/RO logistics ship as a refit from an existing vessel. I can’t see them spark up a line of essentially new build ships to address a couple years of lean times at Irving, much less throw a pile of cash to a foreign shipbuilder, even if it means getting AAD capability much sooner.

Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.

Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments..... 
 
Czech_pivo said:
Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.

Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....

Can’t unfortunately send anything over 1000 tonnes to be built at Davie. That’s one of the clauses in the NSS. Anything over 1000 tonnes to be built at ISI or VSY. So, in that case, either you spec out a new coastal vessel at apx the same size as an MCDV and somehow manage to get ISI and Davie to work together or you build something more capable but have to have it done where there’s already a it of work to get through. If the “gap” is only a couple of years, you’d never get those ships done before CSC starts cutting steel, IMHO.
 
What about the "NSS Shakeup"? Maybe bump that number up by 800-1000 tonnes?

Build a few Visby's, or Sa'ar classes.
 
LoboCanada said:
What about the "NSS Shakeup"? Maybe bump that number up by 800-1000 tonnes?

Build a few Visby's, or Sa'ar classes.

If I were a betting man, I’d say there would be some sort of heavy cash penalty in making that sort of change to the program. Not too mention the stink storm of publicity the other two shipyards would unleash. That clause is unbelievably defining of who does what in warships in Canada. You may even call it a structural regulation and I doubt the other two yards would take that lying down.
 
Why fuss with the surface fleet? Pretty essy pill to swallow that the victoria replacement would need to be off shore built
 
Czech_pivo said:
Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.

Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....

It would make sense to have a Kingston Class replacement in the wings for any perceived gap, they can be built as a gap appears and the oldest vessel can be placed in reserve/retired/sold
 
Swampbuggy said:
If I were a betting man, I’d say there would be some sort of heavy cash penalty in making that sort of change to the program. Not too mention the stink storm of publicity the other two shipyards would unleash. That clause is unbelievably defining of who does what in warships in Canada. You may even call it a structural regulation and I doubt the other two yards would take that lying down.

Well I certainly hope the gov do not take opportunity* to pay a fine and reset the program to Day 0. However, that does seem to be the tradition.

* after the October election, of course.
 
LoboCanada said:
What about the "NSS Shakeup"? Maybe bump that number up by 800-1000 tonnes?
Or do a more extensive shakeup and reconsider the FREMM offer, give some Corvettes to Irving. Did the Liberals not say they were going to fix the procurement system, or am I remembering wrong? So difficult to get things done in this country.
 
Colin P said:
It would make sense to have a Kingston Class replacement in the wings for any perceived gap, they can be built as a gap appears (...)

Quite sensible, indeed.
 
Czech_pivo said:
Why not move the inevitable replacement of the Kingston's forward and if there is a large enough gap as a result of more Gov't ineptitude.  Look to replace them them roughly 10 Corvettes, split the work between Irving and Davie. Possibly 2 to Irving and the other 8 to Davie. Look to use an existing 1,200 - 1,600 ton design with light armament (reuse the 4 '76's off the Iroquois's for the first 4, great way to save money, besides WTF are the 76's doing anyways right now, and then start to cycle the 57's for the remaining 4-6 as the Halifax's on offline ) and add some light ASW and give them a speed around 22-24kn's.

Many have said that the Kingtons' aren't going anywhere soon, but the reality is that they will need to be put down eventually, why not start doing so in 4-5yrs from now. The oldest Kingston (HMCS Kingston) will be 29yrs old by then, not exactly a young girl, more like someone thinking about taking early CPP payments.....

The 76's are supposedly no longer in our inventory so you can discount them. There's no plans to build a corvette class and the 57mm's may be destined for AOPS as they are replaced with CSC's.
Right now it appears that and i'm just speculating that when all the AOPS are built, you may see some of the older Kingston Class paid off but a number remaining for the mine warfare role. As a person involved directly with the class and its maintenance they are in great shape and I wouldn't doubt some or all will be around another 10 to 15 years. Eventually they will all be paid off however as far as I know nothing planned on its replacement and they may very likely not be replaced with AOPS taking up the slack.
 
AlexanderM said:
Did the Liberals say they were going to fix the procurement system, or am I remembering wrong?
To fix the procurement system, politics must be removed from it.  That means all the political parties must agree to take politics out of procurement and work together for the good of the Canadian army, navy, and air force.  That means instead of the political party that is currently in power calling all the shots, a committee made up of members from all the political parties gets to decide on procurement.  I do not see this happening anytime soon.
 
I think an "improved" Kingston class would be a good idea, maybe a tad longer with a bit more accommodation and work deck, with AOP's coming on line, I forsee the Kingstons staying closer to home and their replacement will still need some ice ability, at least on par with the current vessel. I don't see it needing a flight deck or fast speed, this is more of a hard working dirty job and maneuverability type vessel, doing jobs ill suited for the bigger ships.
 
If I were a federal politician, I think I’d try to kill a bunch of birds in one shot. So, say a significant gap becomes evident, maybe 2-3 years between AOPS and CSC. I think I’d pull the trigger on 2 more AOPS. Then, just before the federal elections, I’d throw something dandy at Davie to shore up my Quebec votes. That “something” could be a complete refit of 6-8 MCDV to become dedicated MCM vessels. The remaining 4-6 get cleaned up and donated to foreign navies as a goodwill gesture. Maybe to some of the African nations we’ve being visiting these last couple of years.

It’s something for everybody.
-ISI builds 23 ships instead of the 20 it was one year ago.
-Davie is still in the game doing refits until the MCDV needs replacement in 10-12 years. Maybe they become a centre of ingenuity as opposed to the 2 centres of “excellence”. They could do a HADR or Hospital ship conversion too, possibly.
-VSY isn’t spooked by Davie getting another AOR, so they’re happy

Now you have votes secured in three areas.

Also
-MCM capability is secured for the next 10-12 years
-OPV situation is stabilized for the next 25 years, until ISI finishes CSC and can start the whole process over again one ship at a time.
-Canada gains international credibility for fostering defence around the world with the donation of the surplus MCDV’s.
-CSC program picks up right after AOPS 8 without missing s beat.


 
Back
Top