New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Engineering is overrated.

Engineering:

Where you calculate to five decimal places then add a 25% safety factor and a 15% contingency fee.

 

[dapaterson]

Harpoons are bolt on, 57 mm gun, CIWIS, are pretty much bolt on as well. (I'm talking out of my ass here but I'm sure the engineers will back up my MARS confident statement?
Have you seen the cost estimates to keep the Frigates going?

I've also seen the cost and time estimates for new cranes.

 

[FSTO]

I've also seen the cost and time estimates for new cranes.

Ha ha. I just overheard a conversation regarding the Multi-role boat. That Frankenstein has begat Cranezilla which will maybe cause a severe starboard list on poor ole Toronto.

 

[Kirkhill]

Harpoons are bolt on, 57 mm gun, CIWIS, are pretty much bolt on as well. (I'm talking out of my ass here but I'm sure the engineers will back up my MARS confident statement?
Have you seen the cost estimates to keep the Frigates going?

East Indiamen vessels carried both passengers and goods, and were armed to defend themselves against pirates. Initially, the East Indiamen were built to carry as much cargo as possible, rather than for speed of sailing.[2] The British East India Company had a monopoly on trade with India and China, supporting that design.

East Indiamen were the largest merchant ships regularly built during the late 18th and early 19th centuries, generally measuring between 1100 and 1400 tons burthen (bm). Two of the largest were the Earl of Mansfield and Lascelles being built at Deptford in 1795. The Royal Navy purchased both, converted them to 56-gun fourth rates, and renamed them Weymouth and Madras respectively. They measured 1426 tons (bm) on dimensions of approximately 175 feet overall length of hull, 144 feet keel, 43 feet beam, 17 feet draft.[citation needed]

East Indiaman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Czech_pivo]

I've said this plenty of times. You can build a light frigate/corvette with almost the exact same weapons and sensor loadout as the CPF right now.

Heck you could probably take the CPF ones off and install them on a corvette (given most of the sensors and weapons are pretty up to date).

There would be a significantl loss in survivability, range, and air operations. Likely the UWW portion would be reduced in capability as well. But if Tier 2 is a thing, then it would fill the purpose.

Keep CMS 330 going as well, as its designed for ships that size.

Would you be willing to expand on the term ‘survivability’?
What is meant by this term? Is it the ability to ‘survive’ 1 anti-ship missile? The ability to survive 1 torpedo hit? The ability to survive more than 1+ anti-ship missile?
Is survivability based solely on the size of the ship? Or is it a combination of naval design, size of ship, firefighting capabilities and redundancy of services/tools?

 

[Maxman1]

The Type 31 sounds like the best option. A light frigate that doesn't sacrifice survivability, range or air operations. Basically a modernized Halifax class with a third of the crew requirements.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The Type 31 sounds like the best option. A light frigate that doesn't sacrifice survivability, range or air operations. Basically a modernized Halifax class with a third of the crew requirements.

Having 15 CSC’s, 9-12 new Subs, 10-12 Type 31’s, 6 AOPS and 3-5 AOR’s would truly befitting a country that has 3 oceans and the worlds longest coastline to defend. We could actually say, ‘Canada is back’, and it would mean something.

 

[Stoker]

Having 15 CSC’s, 9-12 new Subs, 10-12 Type 31’s, 6 AOPS and 3-5 AOR’s would truly befitting a country that has 3 oceans and the worlds longest coastline to defend. We could actually say, ‘Canada is back’, and it would mean something.

In reality we'll get 3 CSC as the equipment for them are in the pipeline and then the new government will decide then if they will go ahead with the rest of the order or decide on a cheaper option such as the type 31 or other. We'll probably receive 4 to 6 submarines built offshore. 6 AOPS. 6 to 8 replacements for the Kingston class, larger ship, able to deploy overseas with lightly armed with a small caliber gun, no missiles or helo. 2 JSS with Asterix being returned to Federal Fleet.

 

[GR66]

In reality we'll get 3 CSC as the equipment for them are in the pipeline and then the new government will decide then if they will go ahead with the rest of the order or decide on a cheaper option such as the type 31 or other. We'll probably receive 4 to 6 submarines built offshore. 6 AOPS. 6 to 8 replacements for the Kingston class, larger ship, able to deploy overseas with lightly armed with a small caliber gun, no missiles or helo. 2 JSS with Asterix being returned to Federal Fleet.

Given the investment in both actual and political capital in the shipbuilding program on top of the growing tensions with China I think there would be significant political difficulty for a government switching from the CSC to a cheaper option after just three builds, but I can see the total reduced from 15 to 12 as a 1-for-1 replacement of the Halifax-class with manning potentially being given as the reason.

Similarly you potentially see 6 x corvette-type ships in addition to the 6 x AOPS as a 1-for-1 replacement of the Kingston-class. Hopefully these six ships would have some level of combat capability. If the navy keeps pushing Admiral Topshee's position that 8 x subs is the minimum that Canada needs then if we're lucky that will come to pass as well.

I'd love to see a 3rd JSS added to the build schedule but keeping Asterix available through Federal Fleet Services might have to be enough to hope for.

12 x CSC
8 x SSK
6 x Corvette
6 x AOPS
2 x JSS
1 x FFS AOR

I think that's at least an improvement over what we have now and realistically achievable.

 

[Kirkhill]

2 JSS with Asterix being returned to Federal Fleet.

And contracted out on short term contracts to other governments. Obelix to be built as a companion to keep up with demand.

 

[Rainbow1910]

The Type 31 sounds like the best option. A light frigate that doesn't sacrifice survivability, range or air operations. Basically a modernized Halifax class with a third of the crew requirements.

I will point out that the Royal Navy's Type 31 is missing a lot of baseline capability that Canada would likely require. That ship was specifically made to be pumped out on the cheap and is lacking in some capabilities for it. The ships have no sonar fitted currently, no bow sonar and any kind of towed array will have to be fitted into their mission bay as an add on. They don't have torpedo tubes aboard and they do not have the various integrated rafting and quieting systems to make them more useful ASW vessels. The RN claims they can be fitted with 32 strike length Mark 41 VLS but that is going to make them lose their CAMM missile launch tubes and will cut into their boat bays internally. Even the radar system isn't particularly impressive, I am also skeptical of the crew manning requirements.

How would these fit into the NSS? We will already have issues crewing the CSC's, let alone these lesser combatants. Not even talking about the logistical burden by adding yet another design to the fleet. There isn't any other Canadian yards I am aware of that can readily build something like this, the design would have to be seriously tweaked to make them worthwhile and given you are building them in Canada, the cost is likely going to skyrocket above the austere RN variant. I'd be more scared personally that some politician would try cutting CSC numbers to replace them with these, a true fools errand. I don't even think any foreign yards would be available to build these anytime soon.

 

[suffolkowner]

Having 15 CSC’s, 9-12 new Subs, 10-12 Type 31’s, 6 AOPS and 3-5 AOR’s would truly befitting a country that has 3 oceans and the worlds longest coastline to defend. We could actually say, ‘Canada is back’, and it would mean something.

your eyes are bigger than our chequebook

Given the investment in both actual and political capital in the shipbuilding program on top of the growing tensions with China I think there would be significant political difficulty for a government switching from the CSC to a cheaper option after just three builds, but I can see the total reduced from 15 to 12 as a 1-for-1 replacement of the Halifax-class with manning potentially being given as the reason.

Similarly you potentially see 6 x corvette-type ships in addition to the 6 x AOPS as a 1-for-1 replacement of the Kingston-class. Hopefully these six ships would have some level of combat capability. If the navy keeps pushing Admiral Topshee's position that 8 x subs is the minimum that Canada needs then if we're lucky that will come to pass as well.

I'd love to see a 3rd JSS added to the build schedule but keeping Asterix available through Federal Fleet Services might have to be enough to hope for.

12 x CSC
8 x SSK
6 x Corvette
6 x AOPS
2 x JSS
1 x FFS AOR

I think that's at least an improvement over what we have now and realistically achievable.

the build schedule can be slow rolled at the end if there is any resemblance of ship 15 to ship 1. The 6 corvettes if they are MCDV replacements makes sense but 8 SSK seems unlikely

I will point out that the Royal Navy's Type 31 is missing a lot of baseline capability that Canada would likely require. That ship was specifically made to be pumped out on the cheap and is lacking in some capabilities for it. The ships have no sonar fitted currently, no bow sonar and any kind of towed array will have to be fitted into their mission bay as an add on. They don't have torpedo tubes aboard and they do not have the various integrated rafting and quieting systems to make them more useful ASW vessels. The RN claims they can be fitted with 32 strike length Mark 41 VLS but that is going to make them lose their CAMM missile launch tubes and will cut into their boat bays internally. Even the radar system isn't particularly impressive, I am also skeptical of the crew manning requirements.

How would these fit into the NSS? We will already have issues crewing the CSC's, let alone these lesser combatants. Not even talking about the logistical burden by adding yet another design to the fleet. There isn't any other Canadian yards I am aware of that can readily build something like this, the design would have to be seriously tweaked to make them worthwhile and given you are building them in Canada, the cost is likely going to skyrocket above the austere RN variant. I'd be more scared personally that some politician would try cutting CSC numbers to replace them with these, a true fools errand. I don't even think any foreign yards would be available to build these anytime soon.

No room at Seaspan or Irving maybe Davie but theyre slow off the gate so far

 

[Stoker]

And contracted out on short term contracts to other governments. Obelix to be built as a companion to keep up with demand.

That is up to the Federal Fleet a private company, although when other countries see what it costs to lease from them they want not want to go that route.

 

[Stoker]

Given the investment in both actual and political capital in the shipbuilding program on top of the growing tensions with China I think there would be significant political difficulty for a government switching from the CSC to a cheaper option after just three builds, but I can see the total reduced from 15 to 12 as a 1-for-1 replacement of the Halifax-class with manning potentially being given as the reason.

Similarly you potentially see 6 x corvette-type ships in addition to the 6 x AOPS as a 1-for-1 replacement of the Kingston-class. Hopefully these six ships would have some level of combat capability. If the navy keeps pushing Admiral Topshee's position that 8 x subs is the minimum that Canada needs then if we're lucky that will come to pass as well.

I'd love to see a 3rd JSS added to the build schedule but keeping Asterix available through Federal Fleet Services might have to be enough to hope for.

12 x CSC
8 x SSK
6 x Corvette
6 x AOPS
2 x JSS
1 x FFS AOR

I think that's at least an improvement over what we have now and realistically achievable.

I always maintained that we would stay the course and build 15 ships however was before the harsh economic times we're in and the price of the project, similarly I stated the type 31 was too weak in capability. I can easily see the purchase of a more affordable option. I honestly think we won't get past 3 CSC ships, certainly not the full build. If we can't get a inquiry about foreign interference from China and ministers going to china to sit on councils do you think the government will rebuild the fleet with them in mind to potentially fight them.

I only recently talked to a former boss who is involved looking at the replacement capability of the Kingston Class. Like I said before larger ship, can operate globally, lightly armed. No ASW, No Hanger for Helos, No Missiles so no Corvette. It will be patrolling but heavy into MCM payloads operating with NATO.

Topshee won't be there forever and I would take what he says with a grain of salt.

 

[GR66]

I always maintained that we would stay the course and build 15 ships however was before the harsh economic times we're in and the price of the project, similarly I stated the type 31 was too weak in capability. I can easily see the purchase of a more affordable option. I honestly think we won't get past 3 CSC ships, certainly not the full build. If we can't get a inquiry about foreign interference from China and ministers going to china to sit on councils do you think the government will rebuild the fleet with them in mind to potentially fight them.

I only recently talked to a former boss who is involved looking at the replacement capability of the Kingston Class. Like I said before larger ship, can operate globally, lightly armed. No ASW, No Hanger for Helos, No Missiles so no Corvette. It will be patrolling but heavy into MCM payloads operating with NATO.

Topshee won't be there forever and I would take what he says with a grain of salt.

Just as Topshee won't be there forever (hopefully) Trudeau and crew won't be there forever either, so there is some hope that we might have a government in place that takes defence seriously.

I share your concern that 8 x subs might be wishful thinking but one can hope can't they?

As far as the Kingston-class replacement goes might there be an argument made that instead of seeking to replace the existing 12 x ships with a new class we could possibly build either 6 x more CSC hulls with downgraded combat capabilities (radar, missile systems, etc.) or 6 x more AOPS hulls with upgraded systems?

 

[Rainbow1910]

As far as the Kingston-class replacement goes might there be an argument made that instead of seeking to replace the existing 12 x ships with a new class we could possibly build either 6 x more CSC hulls with downgraded combat capabilities (radar, missile systems, etc.) or 6 x more AOPS hulls with upgraded systems?

AOPS isn't really suited to do anything outside of its designed roles, it will also be years out of production whenever the Kingston replacement comes around. A downgraded CSC hull won't really work considering the amount of redesigning required, its specifically a high end ASW combatant hull with a fairly high crew count. For all of the work required to redesign it into something more workable, you will likely be left with a still largely unsuitable, overly expensive and very overkill abomination.

A Kingston replacement can be done fine by something simple and cheap, no reason to try and fit a square peg into a round hole by shaving the edges off.

 

[Stoker]

Just as Topshee won't be there forever (hopefully) Trudeau and crew won't be there forever either, so there is some hope that we might have a government in place that takes defence seriously.

I share your concern that 8 x subs might be wishful thinking but one can hope can't they?

As far as the Kingston-class replacement goes might there be an argument made that instead of seeking to replace the existing 12 x ships with a new class we could possibly build either 6 x more CSC hulls with downgraded combat capabilities (radar, missile systems, etc.) or 6 x more AOPS hulls with upgraded systems?

Problem with building 6 more AOPS is that who is going to build them? 6000T Warship is a little too much to be operating with a NATO NCM task group and the ship doesn't meet the Kingston Class replacement speed requirement. End of the day we're all speculating of course and ideally we'll have 15 CSC as designed, 2 JSS, 6 AOPS and a undetermined number of submarines, and Kingston Class replacements. I would expect much more and probably much less.

 

[Kirkhill]

That is up to the Federal Fleet a private company, although when other countries see what it costs to lease from them they want not want to go that route.

Your contract paid off all the sunk costs....

 

[NavyShooter]

Nah, here's my forecast:

3 x CSC - then, with the realization that HOLY COW THESE ARE SPENDY, someone will suggest pulling some of the combat Suite off the Halifax's and slap it onto the AOPS, then build a few more AOPS.

So, we get 6x 'first flight' AOPS for offshore patrol duties, with 1x25mm.

Then we get 3x CSC that are effectively the (very late) replacements for the 280s.

Then...we get another 12 AOPS with a 57mm on the foc'sle, the 2D RADAR slapped on top, a CIWS on the aft of the superstructure, a basic comm suite upgrade and a single FCS and a quad pack of ESSM in a containerized launcher that can be swapped out for a quad pack of harpoons instead.

Just enough for the public to call it a warship, and our 3x CSC will be rotated around the world projecting power for us.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Would you be willing to expand on the term ‘survivability’?
What is meant by this term? Is it the ability to ‘survive’ 1 anti-ship missile? The ability to survive 1 torpedo hit? The ability to survive more than 1+ anti-ship missile?
Is survivability based solely on the size of the ship?

Depends what the expected threat is, but a heavy weight torpedo is generally not-survivable unless you are a carrier (and will still kill a lot of people), and some of the big anti ship missiles will wreck something frigate sized..

Or is it a combination of naval design, size of ship, firefighting capabilities and redundancy of services/tools?

Yes, as well as crew and training. Essentially you design the ship to limit damage by compartmentalizing it, have systems that will live through shockwaves, and have things redundant enough to reconfigure heavily.

Commercial ships have some survivability as well, but intended for a single event (fire, limited flooding). Warships take the same idea and extend it to significant battle damage.

Survivability is just a part of it though, the other bit is 'recoverability'. That's where you have people trained and capable to get things repaired/bypassed etc and get some combat capability back. They are related, but generally recoverability is where you need a lot more people, with a lot of survivability built into the design with things like comparmentalization and redundancies. The idea is you survive some specified kind of damage, while still being able to fight a bit, and have tools to try and get as much combat capability back as possible.