New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Halifax Tar]

Even in your wildest dreams?! I'd retire those things right this moment if it were in my power. Granted that's probably shortsighted and why such things aren't in my power, but, you get the point

Why so ?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Engineers, like to bitch about everything. Its not like the CG never saw the plans.

The CCG has a long history of taking proven hull designs and overloading them or having them shorten to save money, with predictable results. An inexperience builder with CCG doing oversight is not a good recipe.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Was Seaspan responsible or did they build according to specs.? I seem to recall that the last design out of Transport was top heavy. Perhaps they need to go to sea for a few months and discover the meaning of best practices.

Weatherships and 500 Class enter chat

 

[TacticalTea]

Why so ?

It lacks all four of these: Seakeeping, speed, weaponry, role (since we have the AOPS now).

And I'd have bought the Mistrals in 2015 ;P

 

[Underway]

It lacks all four of these: Seakeeping, speed, weaponry, role (since we have the AOPS now).

And I'd have bought the Mistrals in 2015 ;P

Seakeeping is fine. Have a weird roll sometimes but you get used to it.
Weaponry, fine for their role, I've been over this a million times and we don't need up armed MCDV's.
Speed yah this should be better.
Role... still have work to do all the time. Command development platforms for NWO, route survey, new equipment trials, OP CARIBE, domestic patrol, excellent dive platforms etc...

 

[FSTO]

So at the Defence Committee today, Williams was on his hobby horse again, but Dave Perry from CGAI took the steam out of him by pointing out that you cannot make nation to nation comparisons when it comes to procurement.
Williams was on the "Build 3 CSC's" (which is bloody stupid, 2 on each coast at a minimum) and restart the process, "properly" to build the remaining 12 schtick.

 

[TacticalTea]

So at the Defence Committee today, Williams was on his hobby horse again, but Dave Perry from CGAI took the steam out of him by pointing out that you cannot make nation to nation comparisons when it comes to procurement.
Williams was on the "Build 3 CSC's" (which is bloody stupid, 2 on each coast at a minimum) and restart the process, "properly" to build the remaining 12 schtick.

Who is this Williams person and why does their opinion matter?

 

[dapaterson]

Former Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel in DND.

 

[KevinB]

Former Assistant Deputy Minister for Materiel in DND.

So, not credible.

 

[Navy_Pete]

So at the Defence Committee today, Williams was on his hobby horse again, but Dave Perry from CGAI took the steam out of him by pointing out that you cannot make nation to nation comparisons when it comes to procurement.
Williams was on the "Build 3 CSC's" (which is bloody stupid, 2 on each coast at a minimum) and restart the process, "properly" to build the remaining 12 schtick.

Bit surprised he's not officially a registered lobbyist, but the small company he works for represents Alion Canada which was one of the losing bidders, so he is hardly neutral. Would be nice to see someone call him on his bias in Parliament.

 

[Maxman1]

build Knud Rasmussens for inshore patrol work. Stanflex modules for 76, SAM and NSMs as well as civvy duties.

Knud Rasmussen-class patrol vessel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

And if there is still money, build more convoy escorts.

I forgot about those. I'll add to my list six to twelve of them and possibly a few more for the coast guard, with a hangar if possible.

And the Australian Attack or Shortfin Barracuda class subs, but built in France by Naval Group (building them in Australia by shipyards that have never built a submarine was probably the cause of the ballooning costs and long lead times).

And of course this is on top of ships planned, like the CSC and Protecteur class.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I forgot about those. I'll add to my list six to twelve of them and possibly a few more for the coast guard, with a hangar if possible.

And the Australian Attack or Shortfin Barracuda class subs, but built in France by Naval Group (building them in Australia by shipyards that have never built a submarine was probably the cause of the ballooning costs and long lead times).

And of course this is on top of ships planned, like the CSC and Protecteur class.

These will look really nice sitting alongside jetties we don't have with crews that don't exist.

The ships are only a part of it, unless we have supporting infrastructure, repair resources etc it's a waste of taxpayers money. We don't have enough for the current fleet and that's just trending downwards, and as the US LCS experiment shows, can't really cut people and still be a useful warship.

 

[Maxman1]

These will look really nice sitting alongside jetties we don't have with crews that don't exist.

The Knud Rasmussens have a crew of 18, with accommodations for up to 43. Half the crew requirement of the Kingstons.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The Knud Rasmussens have a crew of 18, with accommodations for up to 43. Half the crew requirement of the Kingstons.

They are twice the size though, and the 'core crew' usually means they have enough to leave the harbour, not actually do anything useful. They will still need more jetty space and increased maintenance, espcecially if they come with helo capabilities (for helos we also don't have, and would have their own flight crews etc which we...also don't have).

The MCDVs are being crewed by reg force now, which is making the crew problem on the heavies worse.

In the short term, if we tie up some MCDVs and mothball a few CPFs we might have enough people to actually sail the ships we have safely and be able to do enough maintenance to have them up to the safety standard for basic sailing.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The Knud Rasmussens have a crew of 18, with accommodations for up to 43. Half the crew requirement of the Kingstons.

In home port duty watches alone we'd complicate the F out that 18 people.

 

[TacticalTea]

They are twice the size though, and the 'core crew' usually means they have enough to leave the harbour, not actually do anything useful. They will still need more jetty space and increased maintenance, espcecially if they come with helo capabilities (for helos we also don't have, and would have their own flight crews etc which we...also don't have).

The MCDVs are being crewed by reg force now, which is making the crew problem on the heavies worse.

In the short term, if we tie up some MCDVs and mothball a few CPFs we might have enough people to actually sail the ships we have safely and be able to do enough maintenance to have them up to the safety standard for basic sailing.

Yeah I'm guessing that's a day crew.

I can't imagine sustainably running that kind of a ship with only 18 people.

I'm a bit perplexed by your assessment that RegF manning of the MCDVs is problematic. Suggesting we should return to the split fleet of yore?

If anything, I just expect that the MCDVs will be retired as more AOPVs join the fleets, probably none left by the time the first CSC is commissioned. We also have two JSSs to fill (though presumably, some of those bunks would be taken by those coming off the Asterix).

 

[Stoker]

Yeah I'm guessing that's a day crew.

I can't imagine sustainably running that kind of a ship with only 18 people.

I'm a bit perplexed by your assessment that RegF manning of the MCDVs is problematic. Suggesting we should return to the split fleet of yore?

If anything, I just expect that the MCDVs will be retired as more AOPVs join the fleets, probably none left by the time the first CSC is commissioned. We also have two JSSs to fill (though presumably, some of those bunks would be taken by those coming off the Asterix).

All Kingston Class have been given a structural survey by ABS and are structurally sound for the next 15 years and that's due to the maintenance construct. All Kingston's have been funded for a further 5 years for maintenance and have structural certifications issued for 5 years. After the initial 5 years expect several to be put into low readiness and that will continue each 5 year cycle. Kingston's will probably be sailing in some form for the next 15 years.

Very cheap to operate and maintain compared to AOPS. AOPS can't replace everything a Kingston Class can do. Expect more reserves to be manning the Kingston's in the near future.

 

[Maxman1]

They are twice the size though, and the 'core crew' usually means they have enough to leave the harbour, not actually do anything useful. They will still need more jetty space and increased maintenance, espcecially if they come with helo capabilities (for helos we also don't have, and would have their own flight crews etc which we...also don't have).

They are twice the displacement. But the overall length and beam are only slight more, and still less than the Harry DeWolf.
Kingston class:
OAL: 181ft
Beam: 37ft
Draft: 11ft

Knud Rasmussen class:
OAL: 235ft
Beam: 47ft
Draft: 16ft

Braunschweig class (for comparison, since I also suggest that):
OAL: 292ft
Beam: 43ft
Draft: 11ft

Harry DeWolf class:
OAL: 340ft
Beam: 62ft
Draft: 21ft

Any jetty that can accommodate the Harry DeWolf will handle those ships, and somehow I find it unlikely we would have any jetties that can only just accommodate a single Kingston but nothing even slightly larger. And new ships should require less maintenance than the older ship it replaces, after shakedown.

We would obviously use our own helicopters, which is unfortunately the Cyclone class. The original design of both the Knud Rasmussen and the Braunschweig have a helipad, but no hangar, just like the Kingstons. However, the Braunschweig class was modified for Israel as the Sa'ar 6 with a hangar for a MH-60, which is related to the Cyclone and slightly longer.

 

[Good2Golf]

Very cheap to operate and maintain compared to AOPS. AOPS can't replace everything a Kingston Class can do. Expect more reserves to be manning the Kingston's in the near future.

…sounds like the Navy’s boat equivalent of the Griffon.

 

[Stoker]

It lacks all four of these: Seakeeping, speed, weaponry, role (since we have the AOPS now).

And I'd have bought the Mistrals in 2015 ;P

The ships ride fine, its just the risk averse crews we have now. Speed 15.5 compared to 17 knots for AOPS, still gets you where you need to go. Weaponry, made do with .50 cals, seems pretty successful conducting Op Caribe's. For role have a look at conuse and conops for both classes, AOPS was never designed to replace the Kingston's. In fact both will continue to operate doing similar missions.