New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Swampbuggy]

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

Fair enough, but I think the point is still valid that we can look to how others do it and model our fleet mix with that in mind. I used Germany as an example, because the overall size of the current fleet is comparable to the RCN, but they don’t field much in the way of an amphibious/transport capacity beyond a sharing agreement with Holland. If we were to have the fleet that Canada really needs, there would likely have to be a very major shift in the way Canadians, and by extension politicians, see the world and our place in it.

 

[Swampbuggy]

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…

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…

Emulate the fleet plan, but not the execution then, maybe?

 

[RangerRay]

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

That’s fair. But I think it’s a good idea to study what others are doing and adopt what works. Too many times I have seen management try to reinvent the wheel instead of look at what others have done.

 

[Underway]

Its always a good idea to look at what others are doing and see how that might apply to Canada. That being said we are in a unique circumstance and place in the world. As such both @Oldgateboatdriver and @SeaKingTacco are correct in that we should look at what navy Canada needs for those circumstances and apply a reasonable solution.

I think its important for the government to clearly communicte the decision process and have a discussion of what and why things are the way they are. We haven't had that discussion properly since the Mulroney years for the RCN. The Army/Airforce got a nice bump of reasonable thinking during Afghanistan with the Chinooks, C17's, tanks etc...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CSC seems a reasonable attempt to balance out the traditional ASW role, with an every increase air threat, along with other potentiel roles. I have to wonder if after the first batch they might go for a more dedicated AD role for some of the hulls?

Not sure the sub discussion will bear any fruit, or just a means to be seen doing something. The AOP's are a present solution to the North issue which is growing and yet not fully understood. By themselves they are limited, but with a all of government approach they will be significant enablers. I see an opportunity for the RCN to develop small scale arctic amphibious ops with Northern based assets, which will be impactful.

 

[Underway]

CSC is one part of the solution. A gigantic shit ton of work went into defining future threats and what kind of ship could respond to them. Our problem I would argue isn't necessarily a platform one. It's an institutional (not organizational) one and that starts with the Government. The Gov't needs to take a good strategic look at Canada, where we are are at, the real threats and what we are willing to do to deal with those. Then they take that to the military who says in order to deal with this you need X. And then sell X to the Canadian public and in particular the opposition.

When you get cross party agreement you get a relatively coherent and stable defence policy, particularly when they agree on the threats and roles for the RCN.

I have more to say on this, but its not really the thread...

 

[Czech_pivo]

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.

Based on the sheer amount of reports coming out of Germany about their equipment not being in a condition to be used, I'd be careful about looking at emulating their model......the logistics example may not be so rosey.

 

[Czech_pivo]

CSC is one part of the solution. A gigantic shit ton of work went into defining future threats and what kind of ship could respond to them. Our problem I would argue isn't necessarily a platform one. It's an institutional (not organizational) one and that starts with the Government. The Gov't needs to take a good strategic look at Canada, where we are are at, the real threats and what we are willing to do to deal with those. Then they take that to the military who says in order to deal with this you need X. And then sell X to the Canadian public and in particular the opposition.

When you get cross party agreement you get a relatively coherent and stable defence policy, particularly when they agree on the threats and roles for the RCN.

I have more to say on this, but its not really the thread...

I thought they did that in their 2017 White Paper? I think that maybe you meant to say, 'the Gov't means to have the testicular fortitude to actually implement what they say their going to do.'

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Based on the sheer amount of reports coming out of Germany about their equipment not being in a condition to be used, I'd be careful about looking at emulating their model......the logistics example may not be so rosey.

or their leaning tower of frigate

 

[Underway]

I thought they did that in their 2017 White Paper? I think that maybe you meant to say, 'the Gov't means to have the testicular fortitude to actually implement what they say their going to do.'

There hasn't been a White Paper in about 30 years or more. Mulrony was the last one IIRC. Every gov't sells it as their "defence policy" and glossy brochures out a different pitch. A White Paper would require thought and work and analysis. A defence policy requires marketing and a good ideas club.

One is much easier and cheaper then the other. Doesn't require tough decisions to be made.

 

[Swampbuggy]

or their leaning tower of frigate

Ok, I get it. To be clear, I meant fleet mix, rather than execution. I’m of the mind that logistics are more important than they get given credit for and Germany has a Navy where that doesn’t take a back seat. I guess I could have pointed at the USN or RN as other examples, but they’re also far bigger Navies with Carriers, Amphibs etc, so I didn’t find them to be realistically a target for Canada to meet.

Regardless, yes, I know there’s problems with the German Navy, including recently having none of their subs deployable.

I also understand that Canada needs the navy that Canada needs, but if you can point out to sceptics and taxpayers that someone else is doing thing X, it may make the jump to believing we can do that here too easier.

 

[childs56]

One of the issues we have is reinventing the wheel every few years and forcing it for the next decade. We need to look at what works for others, start building ships that work and move forward.
Hiring a company who as many here have said no experience in building a war ship is silly. They bought a off the shelf design, and are now modifying it so much that it would have been cheaper and better to just start from scratch. Once again Canada is trying to make a multipurpose ship that has a specialty in everything. Instead of building half the fleet Specialty Subsurface and half Surface/Anti Air.
We have screwed up the next ship production due to trying to reinvent the wheel when others have already working solutions. If it works dont fix it.

 

[KevinB]

One of the issues we have is reinventing the wheel every few years and forcing it for the next decade. We need to look at what works for others, start building ships that work and move forward.
Hiring a company who as many here have said no experience in building a war ship is silly. They bought a off the shelf design, and are now modifying it so much that it would have been cheaper and better to just start from scratch. Once again Canada is trying to make a multipurpose ship that has a specialty in everything. Instead of building half the fleet Specialty Subsurface and half Surface/Anti Air.
We have screwed up the next ship production due to trying to reinvent the wheel when others have already working solutions. If it works dont fix it.

Well I’m glad you have nothing to do with procurement.

You think that a Canadian Company would be able to build a better ship with no assistance, considering you’re complaining about a Canadian Company building one with major assistance…

Step away from the Crack Pipe.

 

[childs56]

Well I’m glad you have nothing to do with procurement.

You think that a Canadian Company would be able to build a better ship with no assistance, considering you’re complaining about a Canadian Company building one with major assistance…

Step away from the Crack Pipe.

What I am saying is that we have taken a ship design, added width, height, and length, Trying to cram a pile of gear into a already tight space with available space for future expansion. While saying it is a off the self platform. which it clearly is not. We are starting to see capability being dropped.

We should have built the ship as designed, split the numbers of Sub and surface platforms.
Instead we are Canadianizing a ship and trying to make a Frigate into a Destroyer/ Light Cruiser.

 

[KevinB]

What I am saying is that we have taken a ship design, added width, height, and length, Trying to cram a pile of gear into a already tight space with available space for future expansion. While saying it is a off the self platform. which it clearly is not. We are starting to see capability being dropped.

We should have built the ship as designed, split the numbers of Sub and surface platforms.
Instead we are Canadianizing a ship and trying to make a Frigate into a Destroyer/ Light Cruiser.

Okay I understand that a lot better.

I do suspect that you would however needed to buy 30-40% more ships at that point.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What I am saying is that we have taken a ship design, added width, height, and length, Trying to cram a pile of gear into a already tight space with available space for future expansion. While saying it is a off the self platform. which it clearly is not. We are starting to see capability being dropped.

We should have built the ship as designed, split the numbers of Sub and surface platforms.
Instead we are Canadianizing a ship and trying to make a Frigate into a Destroyer/ Light Cruiser.

Only the Brits are going with dedicated hulls. The Brits don't have the 3 coast issues that we have , effectively forcing us to have two navies, the same effect forced major design limitations on the USN till post WWII and still influences their ships buying/building. Both Canada and the Aussies are going with one ship- two jobs, it's not perfect, but we are actually I think doing it better than the Aussies.

 

[Czech_pivo]

There hasn't been a White Paper in about 30 years or more. Mulrony was the last one IIRC. Every gov't sells it as their "defence policy" and glossy brochures out a different pitch. A White Paper would require thought and work and analysis. A defence policy requires marketing and a good ideas club.

One is much easier and cheaper then the other. Doesn't require tough decisions to be made.

Thank you for the more granular information re White Paper. If the last 'real' one was the Mulroney one, then its the same one that put forward the idea and the political capital in selling the idea to the Americans, in Canada obtaining nuclear submarines. It then stands to reason that another White Paper, if done properly and without political interference, would come back with the exact same results....

 

[Spencer100]

Thank you for the more granular information re White Paper. If the last 'real' one was the Mulroney one, then its the same one that put forward the idea and the political capital in selling the idea to the Americans, in Canada obtaining nuclear submarines. It then stands to reason that another White Paper, if done properly and without political interference, would come back with the exact same results....

Change USSR to PRC......Done. LOL in regards to the sub requirement.

 

[Navy_Pete]

What I am saying is that we have taken a ship design, added width, height, and length, Trying to cram a pile of gear into a already tight space with available space for future expansion. While saying it is a off the self platform. which it clearly is not. We are starting to see capability being dropped.

We should have built the ship as designed, split the numbers of Sub and surface platforms.
Instead we are Canadianizing a ship and trying to make a Frigate into a Destroyer/ Light Cruiser.

We aren't really seeing capabilities dropped; what we're seeing is the 'operator wish list' being pared down to what is realistic and affordable. Some of the things they wanted to do are competing priorities, so you need to figure out a balance, and others were just rectal plucks that don't actually fit into the ship.

If you think of the operators as a spoiled, whiny pre-teen with an insane Xmas list, this is just the adults putting their big person pants on and vetting what Santa is going to deliver.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We aren't really seeing capabilities dropped; what we're seeing is the 'operator wish list' being pared down to what is realistic and affordable. Some of the things they wanted to do are competing priorities, so you need to figure out a balance, and others were just rectal plucks that don't actually fit into the ship.

If you think of the operators as a spoiled, whiny pre-teen with an insane Xmas list, this is just the adults putting their big person pants on and vetting what Santa is going to deliver.

So no Red Ryder BB gun for us?