New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Underway]

Running out of work for VSY? What about the replacing of the Kingston’s, they are already 24yrs old and by 2026 when the last JSS is done they will be 30yrs old.  Increase the size of the Kingston’s to 1,600 tons at 12-14 and there’s a lot of work there.

If that were the case the project would have been opened years ago.  There is literally no appetite for MCDV replacement right now.  The focus is on JSS, CSC and AOPS. The plate is quite full.  Perhaps once AOPS has run its course, but I suspect (hope) then money will go towards submarines.  Kingston class has another 15 years easy on those hulls.  They haven't even had a midlife refit, they don't need one.

I don't see how Seaspan can be running out of work. Were they not given an additional 15 multi purpose ships to build?

Wasn't there news a while ago that those ships were removed from the list of builds in order to move them to a third shipbuilder (aka Davie)?

 

[Uzlu]

Wasn't there news a while ago that those ships were removed from the list of builds in order to move them to a third shipbuilder (aka Davie)?

No.  Seaspan is going to build up to sixteen of these ships.  https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/multi-polyvalents-eng.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

And as I said:

Plus surely Davie will get a lot of these vessels:

Quote

    Government of Canada will also proceed through a competitive process with the design of a new class of smaller ships, the new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship, which would complement the work of the large fleet in shallow areas and deliver mid-shore science activities.

https://pm.gc.ca/en/news/news-releases/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

Mark
Ottawa

The gov't this spring suddenly decided essentially to replace the whole fleet of large CCG ships.

 

[MarkOttawa]

CCG currently has seven high endurance multi-tasked vessels and six offshore patrol vessels. These thirteen are surely the ones to be replaced by the "up to 16 Multi-Purpose Vessels" Trudeau announced on May 22. But why 16 rather than 13?

Also Trudeau announced "new Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Ship" (no numbers, clearly for Davie), which presumably would replace the current three medium endurance multi-tasked vessels.

Note that almost all the current multi-tasked vessels of both types were built in the 1980s:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_Canadian_Coast_Guard
https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels?status=1&search=close
https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/05/22/prime-minister-announces-renewal-canadian-coast-guard-fleet

But in 2013 (!!!) the Conservative gov't announced that Seaspan would build (after everything through the last ship planned, the polar icebreaker) up to five offshore patrol vessels and up to five medium endurance multi-tasked vessels:

Why in 2013 were the medium-endurance replacements considered a higher priority than the high-endurance ones the gov't now seems to be more definite about? Though if Davie gets the mediums they almost certainly will show up long before Seaspan's highs.

All most confusingly political, what? And the gov't and CCG give no time-frames in which those various types of vessels will be bought and no detailed rationale for what is being procured when and why.

Mark
Ottawa

Now this refit for a high endurance multi-tasked vessel, ship probably won't be replaced by Seaspan one until 2030s:

Ottawa spending $12 million to refurbish Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker Edward Cornwallis

The coast guard is announcing it will spend $12.1 million refurbishing a light icebreaker at a shipyard on Nova Scotia’s south shore.

Fisheries Minister Bernadette Jordan was in Shelburne, N.S., Monday to say the government will be funding repair work on the Canadian Coast Guard ship Edward Cornwallis, supporting 55 jobs at the Irving-owned Shelburne Ship Repair.

The work is expected to begin in April and last until January 2021.

A release says the repairs include the replacement of main engines, a new heavy-lift crane, a new bow thruster and hull coating.

The vessel will also undergo regulatory work such as inspecting the tail shafts, seals, stern tubes, propellers and rudder [emphasis added].

The 34-year-old icebreaker [emphasis added] was launched in 1986 after being built by Marine Industries in Tracy, Que.

Under the national shipbuilding strategy, more than $7.5 billion in contracts has been awarded under the repair, refit and maintenance program.
https://globalnews.ca/news/6618609/coast-guard-icebreaker-edward-cornwallis/

CCGS Edward Cornwallis:

https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels/vessel-details/59

Mark
Ottawa

 

[GR66]

Interesting article in Forbes magazine about concerns over the US Navy shifting to larger numbers of smaller warships.  This could possibly relate to some of the suggestions that have been made to increase the size of our own fleet by adding in Corvette type ships to the CSCs.  Thoughts?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2020/02/29/the-us-navys-future-fleet-will-run-aground-in-heavy-weather/#7afbc7797053

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Now this refit for a high endurance multi-tasked vessel, ship probably won't be replaced by Seaspan one until 2030s:

CCGS Edward Cornwallis:

Mark
Ottawa

The 1100's are decent vessels and do well for the day to day work of the CCG, particularly light icebreaking and buoytending. A modernized version of the same ship might be a good design choice.

 

[Spencer100]

Interesting article in Forbes magazine about concerns over the US Navy shifting to larger numbers of smaller warships.  This could possibly relate to some of the suggestions that have been made to increase the size of our own fleet by adding in Corvette type ships to the CSCs.  Thoughts?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2020/02/29/the-us-navys-future-fleet-will-run-aground-in-heavy-weather/#7afbc7797053

The "smaller" ships the USN are looking at like the FFX are 6000 tons plus bigger than destroy of a few years ago.  The min man ships of 2000 tons are bigger than some WWII destroyers that fought the Battle of the Atlantic. 

 

[GR66]

The "smaller" ships the USN are looking at like the FFX are 6000 tons plus bigger than destroy of a few years ago.  The min man ships of 2000 tons are bigger than some WWII destroyers that fought the Battle of the Atlantic.

No clue on this which is why I posted the article for comment by those that understand these things.  I know corvettes, frigates and destroyers are substantially larger now than in WWII, but I wonder if comparisons to the Battle of the Atlantic are apples to apples comparisons.

What kind of effects do high sea states have on the ability of modern radars to detect and maintain contact with sea-skimming missiles, etc.  Does heavy weather impact the ability to launch missiles? 

Obviously, escorting nuclear powered carriers requires significant speed (which is more of an issue for the USN than the RCN), but does significant weather make keeping up with nuclear sub targets difficult/impossible?  Would a CSC-sized ship fare significantly better in maintaining combat effectiveness than a smaller "corvette" sized vessel (probably equal in size to a WWII destroyer?)

 

[Uzlu]

Would a CSC-sized ship fare significantly better in maintaining combat effectiveness than a smaller "corvette" sized vessel (probably equal in size to a WWII destroyer?)

A larger hull helps with speed, therefore improving combat effectiveness. (More on size of hull and its relationship to speed.)  “A small ship always needs more horsepower per ton than a large ship for a given speed.  A small hull has limited room to put in large amounts of horsepower.” 

So for a small hull to maintain the same speed as a large hull, there is a huge decrease in the amount of room for things like sensors, weapons, computers, electronics, etc.—placing a greater limit on combat effectiveness compared to a larger hull. 

And bigger ships generally have fewer seakeeping problems—again, obviously, better in maintaining combat effectiveness compared to smaller ships.  So I can see why the Royal Canadian Navy would prefer fifteen surface combatants of about 8 800 tonnes instead of, say, four large surface combatants and, say, sixteen 3 500 tonne corvettes.

 

[MarkOttawa]

A larger hull helps with speed, therefore improving combat effectiveness. (More on size of hull and its relationship to speed.)  “A small ship always needs more horsepower per ton than a large ship for a given speed.  A small hull has limited room to put in large amounts of horsepower.” 

So for a small hull to maintain the same speed as a large hull, there is a huge decrease in the amount of room for things like sensors, weapons, computers, electronics, etc.—placing a greater limit on combat effectiveness compared to a larger hull.

Note specs for RCN's WW II Tribal-class destroyers:

...
Displacement 1,883 tons (2,559 full complement) BRT
Length 377 feet (oa)
Complement 190 (Cossack, Afridi, Somali and Tartar 219) men
Armament 8 4.7" guns (4x2)
4 x 2pdr AA (1x4)
8 0.5" MG AA (4x2)
4 21" torpedo tubes (1x4)
Max speed 36 knots [emphasis added]
Engines Geared turbines, 2 shafts
Power 44000 HP
...
https://uboat.net/allies/warships/class/1.html

But clearly a lot less "sensors, weapons, computers, electronics".

More specs here, gives "2,800 tons full load":
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/postwar/tribww2/

And RAN specs here:
https://www.navy.gov.au/hmas-arunta-i

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Batch 2 River Class look like a good replacement for half the Kingston's, have the other half dedicated mine hunters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel

 

[Lumber]

For comparison, here's the Russian Buyan-M class corvette, which has the same displacemetn as the Kingston Class, and half the displacement of the River-class batch-2's mentioend above:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buyan-class_corvette

Armament:
Buyan-M:
1 × 100 mm A-190-01 naval gun[3]
2 × 30 mm AK-630-M2 CIWS
1 × Pantsir-M CIWS (Stavropol)
2 × 4 UKSK VLS cells for Kalibr (SS-N-27/SS-N-30) or Oniks (SS-N-26) anti-ship cruise missiles
2 × 4 Komar surface-to-air missiles[5]
1 × DP-65 anti-saboteur grenade launcher
2 × 14.5 mm KPV type

 

[Colin Parkinson]

At the expense of range. The UK had to build a ship to patrol the Falklands, likley a better choice for us. The Russian ship is more a littoral fighter.

 

[Dale Denton]

Batch 2 River Class look like a good replacement for half the Kingston's, have the other half dedicated mine hunters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel

Just slowly build 12 out of Heddle Yard. Pull the life out of the Kingstons over then next 15 yrs and use them for niche or MCM roles.

Also this:

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/enhancing-the-royal-navys-batch-ii-opvs/

 

[suffolkowner]

http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/Featured_content?blog/162

from the article, has anyone heard this about two polar icebreakers before?

On December 19, 2019, the federal government announced that Davie Shipbuilding (Chantier Davie) of Levis, Quebec would become the third shipyard to participate in NSS, along with Irving and Seaspan. Although the details of Davie’s role are still being negotiated with Ottawa, the yard will be building six heavy (8,000 tonnes) and two polar (23,000 tonnes) icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard. In 2017, the company completed converting the commercial ship MV Asterix to serve as the Royal Canadian Navy’s auxiliary supply ship.

 

[Uzlu]

has anyone heard this about two polar icebreakers before?

it is expected that the initial order will consist of six heavy icebreakers of 8,000 tonnes and up to two 23,000 tonne polar icebreakers.

https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/09/09/1912995/0/en/UPDATE-Davie-to-become-Canada-s-National-Icebreaker-Builder-Taking-Canada-to-the-Top.html

 

[JMCanada]

Batch 2 River Class look like a good replacement for half the Kingston's, have the other half dedicated mine hunters

French new POM would be an updated MCDV: 1300 tons, limited crew (30), small gun and not even lillypad for helicopter.
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrouilleur_Outre-mer

Instead, if we are looking for true corvettes, six of these might be useful and would provide commonalities with allies (reduced costs).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The French is interesting, although does not appear to state if built to military/Civil or a hybrid of the classes like the River Class is. Picture here https://www.navyrecognition.com/images/stories/news/2019/december/The_President_of_the_French_Republic_announces_order_of_6_patrollers_overseas_925_001.jpg

For the corvettes, the big issue is trying to convince politicians and TB that these are different than the CSC's. However I think the Kingstons fit a good niche, which even the River Class might be to big for.

 

[Underway]

The RCN isn't going to want corvettes.  We need ships that can go into the fire and get out alive when it comes to combatants.  Corvette's legs are short, too small of a damage control capability and their combat systems are almost as expensive as frigates combat systems with less survivability.  Corvette's as they are currently constructed is a poor man's frigate for tight waters, and missions close to home. 

However, MCDV replacement is an entirely different conversation.  What are the missions MCDV's are currently doing, how do they fit into a fleet structure that the RCN believes it needs and what requirements are necessary for their replacement?

I think we can put MDCV jobs into three large categories: Mine countermeasures, Offshore Patrol, Interdiction Operations

Mine countermeasures - both minesweeping (large scale removal of mines) and minehunting (targeted detection and removal of mines) are a job that is important.
-need to have the ability to embark and operate the types UUV's that will do both of these jobs (clearing and hunting)
-embark Clearance Diving Teams to operate these UUV's
-embark appropriate dive stores (e.g. hyperbaric chamber)
-high maneuverability, dynamic station keeping, low signature (acoustic, pressure, magnetic)
-basic armament (NRWS, .50 cal)
-decent comms, maybe Link 16/22 capability though that might not be required

Offshore Patrol- range, good sensors (EOIR, good surface/limited air radar, perhaps sonar)
-UAV capability, short-duration Cyclone capability (therefore a flight deck and air landing equipment)
-good comms, full Link capability
-25 to 40mm gun and NRWS
-half-decent speed (20+ knots seems about right)
-good seakeeping

Interdiction - all the same stuff as Offshore patrol with the added requirement boarding capability, so good ships boats

Depending on how the AOPS turn out the patrol/interdiction jobs might be done by them, or partially by them.
The mine countermeasures job, however, requires IMHO a specialized build. Doing this modularly is not going to work properly.  Given the current shortfall in RCN numbers I would think that 8 MM's, 4 per coast would make sense.  Not as fun to talk about as the sexy Corvette concept but an extremely valuable role and fits a requirement for the RCN.

As for Offshore Patrol/Interdiction, a ship like the River Class would probably do quite fine.  I'm not sure there would be an appetite for them on top of the AOPs however.

 

[Swampbuggy]

The Aussies are replacing several ship classes with the ARAFURA class, including the HUON's. The capabilities and design would seem to check off all the boxes Underway mentioned above.