New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Underway]

Possession is 9/10th’s the law.

Armed Possession is the other 1/10th.

Sure. AOPS is the 90% solution. Frigates and MPA's are the other 10%. High low mix is perfectly fine in this situation.

 

[Spencer100]

Sure. AOPS is the 90% solution. Frigates and MPA's are the other 10%. High low mix is perfectly fine in this situation.

Myself (which is meaningless) I'm ok with the AOPS. First is there not a ton of learning still to do operate up north. A big gun and missile are not needed for that.

Plus did I not just see a Mk41 VLS in a FEU? That would solve the missile part. Lockheed may have the app for the CS330 mission system add on.....you just a better targeting system. Does the SPY7 come in a box too? Lockheed? SPY in Box... A SIBX if you will.

 

[Good2Golf]

SIBX and its fixed brethren, Aegis Ashore…

 

[Spencer100]

SIBX and its fixed brethren, Aegis Ashore…

SIBX...I just made that up!

Lockheed rep if you are watching.....please send cheques to post office box......

 

[Spencer100]

If I was magically put in charge of Logistics and Weapons purchasing in the CAF. I would tell every team to design their systems to fit into and FEU or TEU. (Forty foot Equivalate Unit, Twenty etc.) I think some people call them Sea Cans or Connex boxes.

TEU and FEU Containers | Literally Everything You Need to Know

An aside when I give university lectures I always start with what man you never heard of changed the world and brought about the modern world we live in more than Steve Jobs and Bill Gates? Malcom McLean.

Back to my thought (I know I'm not the only one) As Canada is large and the Force are small plus most of the mission are overseas. We should put as much of the forces in logistics units.

I would not buy kitchen trucks or ambulances (not 100% here) etc.
Put everything in a standard box. Work shops, equipment repair etc.
Then just buy one flatbed truck. Plus a up armoured one too.

I would not buy HIMARS....HIMARS in a can
AA in a box. Mortars in box. etc. Radars in one box. power equipment another for it another.

 

[YZT580]

If I was magically put in charge of Logistics and Weapons purchasing in the CAF. I would tell every team to design their systems to fit into and FEU or TEU. (Forty foot Equivalate Unit, Twenty etc.) I think some people call them Sea Cans or Connex boxes.

TEU and FEU Containers | Literally Everything You Need to Know

An aside when I give university lectures I always start with what man you never heard of changed the world and brought about the modern world we live in more than Steve Jobs and Bill Gates? Malcom McLean.

Back to my thought (I know I'm not the only one) As Canada is large and the Force are small plus most of the mission are overseas. We should put as much of the forces in logistics units.

I would not buy kitchen trucks or ambulances (not 100% here) etc.
Put everything in a standard box. Work shops, equipment repair etc.
Then just buy one flatbed truck. Plus a up armoured one too.

I would not buy HIMARS....HIMARS in a can
AA in a box. Mortars in box. etc. Radars in one box. power equipment another for it another.

and a fleet of ro-ro on each coast to carry them

 

[Spencer100]

and a fleet of ro-ro on each coast to carry them

That's my point. Logistics win wars. If the whole army and some of the Air Force and Navy can packed in FEU's then moved easily around the world and on the battlefield that would be a win. Plus if the FEU can also be used as the firing platform or mission module there can be speed of use added. Civilian equipment is everywhere that can move that stuff. Plus you have more general military equipment than now. The field kitchen on a flat bed truck. Truck break move the kitchen on to a different truck. Or you land the kitchen at the FOB and now the truck does something else. I know no one wants to give up there wheels to a different unit etc. but this is more of management, operations thing. But even if the kitchen stays with the truck the life cycle are most likely different, so a savings.

Take your AA defence battery all in a can. If is a semi permanent the unit is grounded. If not is stay on the wheels. I could see a AA battery being used by the army one day packed up and put on the back of AOPS. US Marines are thinking this way now with Antiship missiles etc.

 

[TacticalTea]

That's my point. Logistics win wars. If the whole army and some of the Air Force and Navy can packed in FEU's then moved easily around the world and on the battlefield that would be a win. Plus if the FEU can also be used as the firing platform or mission module there can be speed of use added. Civilian equipment is everywhere that can move that stuff. Plus you have more general military equipment than now. The field kitchen on a flat bed truck. Truck break move the kitchen on to a different truck. Or you land the kitchen at the FOB and now the truck does something else. I know no one wants to give up there wheels to a different unit etc. but this is more of management, operations thing. But even if the kitchen stays with the truck the life cycle are most likely different, so a savings.

Take your AA defence battery all in a can. If is a semi permanent the unit is grounded. If not is stay on the wheels. I could see a AA battery being used by the army one day packed up and put on the back of AOPS. US Marines are thinking this way now with Antiship missiles etc.

I'd first verify that we have the necessary Canadian-flagged tonnage available, but I don't think we should invest too much in massive ships that can be prioritized as targets and sunk, thus annihilating our sealift capability.

We should probably just give shipping firms an incentive to tag their ships as reserve auxiliaries, to be diverted from their usual commercial activities in case of armed conflict or international emergency.

Then if we ensured they maintained some compatibility standards, this could be a win-win relationship, provided the proper political will is there.


Edit: this was mostly a reply to the ro-ro comment but I don't know how to replace quotes on the mobile page.

 

[Maxman1]

How about Mistral class assault ships? Or perhaps the original, larger BPC 250 design submitted to Australia. An LHD (or two) would provide huge amounts of transport capabilities on to of its amphibious warfare capabilities.

 

[Prairie canuck]

A few Vard series 7 510 or a couple of the smaller Mistral 140

​

 

[YZT580]

I'd first verify that we have the necessary Canadian-flagged tonnage available, but I don't think we should invest too much in massive ships that can be prioritized as targets and sunk, thus annihilating our sealift capability.

We should probably just give shipping firms an incentive to tag their ships as reserve auxiliaries, to be diverted from their usual commercial activities in case of armed conflict or international emergency.

Then if we ensured they maintained some compatibility standards, this could be a win-win relationship, provided the proper political will is there.


Edit: this was mostly a reply to the ro-ro comment but I don't know how to replace quotes on the mobile page.

I don't think it would matter if the hull was painted grey or red, white and blue. Any hull carrying military gear is going to be targeted. But having a standing fleet capable of carrying your gear, whether civil or naval should be a no-brainer. The only difficulty with civilian is crewing them into a threatened area

 

[quadrapiper]

I don't think it would matter if the hull was painted grey or red, white and blue. Any hull carrying military gear is going to be targeted. But having a standing fleet capable of carrying your gear, whether civil or naval should be a no-brainer. The only difficulty with civilian is crewing them into a threatened area

If it's built around bulk carriage of seacans, it's not going to belong in a high-threat area regardless of crew.

Something more specifically naval in nature (more manoeuvrable, fitted hard and soft defensive systems, higher speeds, etc.) could of course play battle tanker, but I'd imagine would have design tradeoffs that would rule out use in most modern civilian trade: it would probably need to be a purely federal vessel, even if only optionally RCN-crewed.

 

[TacticalTea]

I don't think it would matter if the hull was painted grey or red, white and blue. Any hull carrying military gear is going to be targeted. But having a standing fleet capable of carrying your gear, whether civil or naval should be a no-brainer. The only difficulty with civilian is crewing them into a threatened area

We have very limited financial and human resources. There's no point maintaining commercial-grade shipping in the fleet when those resources can go to vessels (from existing or planned classes) that actually contribute to the naval battle instead, and when said commercial shipping already exists and could be leased as required.

We are not the US Navy and should not try to emulate it.

Might be more worthwhile to invest in airlift.

 

[childs56]

We have very limited financial and human resources. There's no point maintaining commercial-grade shipping in the fleet when those resources can go to vessels (from existing or planned classes) that actually contribute to the naval battle instead, and when said commercial shipping already exists and could be leased as required.

We are not the US Navy and should not try to emulate it.

Might be more worthwhile to invest in airlift.

But we should have reliable commercial, land air and sea transport available in a secure means such as the US has with their Transport Command Airlift, Sea and land. We have none of the same ability or agreements. it has been eluded to that the Canadian government could possibly buy some container ships, roll-on/roll-off types also, contract a Commercial Air Carrier and land shipper to provide these services in time of need. When they are not needed they carry on normal business.
The problem we have is relying on the lowest bidder to ship our Equipment overseas. Left us in Limbo in 2000 when the ship carrying our equipment had to be boarded, then the shortage/ denied access of transport overland in 2011 after Afghanistan.

 

[RangerRay]

We are not the US Navy and should not try to emulate it.

No, but can we not try to emulate the Royal Australian Navy?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Why?

Our circumstances are different. Australia is withein a day or two's sailing distance at a reasonable rate of advance (speed where you can defend the phibs) of many neighbours that can be probematic in an area where they are expected by the nations of the region to be able to intervene - so they have and need intervention capability.

We don't. Even if we claimed that we "need" phibs for the Arctic, we can only get to the beginning of its edge in two days while burning the phibs rubber, which makes their defence, particularly against the most likely threat of nuclear attack submarines very difficult, at best, for the ecorting force. At a more reasonable rate, you are looking at three days or more - and that is just getting to the entrance to the Arctic. We are also not expected by anyone to go far oversea with phibs to provide coverage. Other NATO nations, either closer in location or with overall reach (US, UK, France) can do that. But remember, the UK, France and the Dutch maintain such capabilities because they still have oversea territories.

If we were to have amphibious cap[ability that serves a purpose, we would have to use the US Marines model, and I am not sure the Canadian Army is ready or willing to maintain a high readiness battle group of about 500 soldiers embarked for multiple months at a time just driving around onboard a ship "just in case", on top of its other tasks.

If you want transportation capability for the Army's equipment in case of need, concentrate on merchant ships of the container or Ro-Ro type. But with the very few times such requirement has been found to be needed (I believe it's been three times only since WWII), just hire merchant ships at that time - just don't hire vessels from your old ennemy's fleet

 

[Swampbuggy]

If I were to want to emulate another navy, I might benchmark Germany. Especially where logistics are concerned, the Germans have a very flexible force, including a mix of 11 oilers/support vessels. If the RCN is to operate task groups, I feel it would be much easier with 4-5 oilers rather than just the planned 2. IMHO, if there was extra money to spend, I’d spend it there rather than on equipment transport vessels at this time.

 

[KevinB]

If I were to want to emulate another navy, I might benchmark Germany. Especially where logistics are concerned, the Germans have a very flexible force, including a mix of 11 oilers/support vessels. If the RCN is to operate task groups, I feel it would be much easier with 4-5 oilers rather than just the planned 2. IMHO, if there was extra money to spend, I’d spend it there rather than on equipment transport vessels at this time.

I wouldn’t recommend any German Defense model. They have most of that in theory, but that is it.
They have worse rust out issues and failed maintenance than the CAF…

 

[RangerRay]

First I will acknowledge that I am wildly out of my lane here.

My thinking goes along the line of us being similar in almost ever way to Australia in terms of economy, culture, politics, etc., other than the immediate threats in our neighbourhood. Add to that, we have large coastlines on three sides of our country that need defending, and our largely expeditionary army will need ships to go places and be supported. In times of trouble, we may find it difficult to rely on allies or contractors.

To me, the USN is in an entirely different category of what we can achieve. The RAN is something that should be achievable.

Having said all that, I am willing to be schooled by naval SME’s on the subject.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If I were to want to emulate another navy, I might benchmark Germany. Especially where logistics are concerned, the Germans have a very flexible force, including a mix of 11 oilers/support vessels. If the RCN is to operate task groups, I feel it would be much easier with 4-5 oilers rather than just the planned 2. IMHO, if there was extra money to spend, I’d spend it there rather than on equipment transport vessels at this time.

How about we stop trying to emulate other Navies, and buy the Navy we need for Canada?