New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Furniture]

In my mind that means we should have totally interoperable systems from the get-go. I think that's already where the air force is headed. The navy is moving there as well, and the army is still a bit off. I think we need to leave behind bespoke systems and get on board with the development of systems that Americans are already heavily invested in.

I think many of us broadly agree with you, but one of the major problems with going the American route is the Americans have far more bodies to throw at problems than we do, and always will. What works for their system may not work for us, due to different culture and demographics.

We 100% need interoperable systems, but we don't necessarily need the same systems.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think many of us broadly agree with you, but one of the major problems with going the American route is the Americans have far more bodies to throw at problems than we do, and always will. What works for their system may not work for us, due to different culture and demographics.

We 100% need interoperable systems, but we don't necessarily need the same systems.

Case and point is the AEGIS system on the CSC; that will require us to revamp the ops room and CSE tech trades, how we crew the ships, and also watch requirements both at sea and alongside. The crewing/training component of it is really massive, and going to be a total shock for the RCN when they start to take the ships. The people that seem to be saying it's not a problem don't seem to have looked at our track record of updating trades/training for the last 20 years, and it will somehow fix itself with a positive, can do attitude.

Similarly, some of the RN design requirements for DC is actually less automated compared to what we are used to for the CPFs, so will need some extra training (basically like what there used to be with a separate FDSAC system from IMCS on the 280s and pre-FELEX CPFs) and more involved SOPs, which also coincides with much smaller DC component at emergencies, so not great when the DCTF and sea training capacity are both limiting factors at the moment.

I think if we had crewing requirements as a major operational factor we may not have selected AEGIS, and may have made some additional design changes to the T26 (and JSS), as the recurring costs in service as well as real crew shortages will be an issue for their whole operational life.

 

[Kirkhill]

When the balloon goes up, we will have time to build and deploy USVs at about the same time we have enough missiles to put on them. Missiles and other advanced weapons will likely be the limiting factor in a future war, not building barge hulls and fitting them with cheap diesel engines.

This is where I think we see things differently. I am not convinced that there will be time to build a fleet-du-jour once the balloon goes up. In fact, I would argue that the balloon is already well over the horizon.

I also have zero doubt that with enough time and resources we can make completely safe autonomous USVs,

We can't make completely safe crewed vessels.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/2-canadian-warships-collide-en-route-to-hawaii-1.1309679

US Navy Commander Dismissed After Accidents in the Pacific

The U.S. Navy has dismissed Vice Admiral Joseph Aucoin, the commander of the 7th Fleet,which is based in Japan. There have been four Navy accidents in the Pacific since late January, including two collisions that left sailors dead and missing.

learningenglish.voanews.com

We work with what we have in the realm of the possible.

I just don't think that the juice is worth the squeeze. Particularly given all of the other things the RCN/CAF needs to invest in... Even as a sailor, I'd rather see the army get effective CUAS/GBAD before the RCN gets arsenal USVs.

I don't see an either/or.

US Navy and Army's MK 70 Payload Delivery Systems Stretch Their Wings - Naval News

Last week we witnessed activity showing the US Navy and Army were both deploying their variants of Lockheed Martin MK 70 PDS around the globe

www.navalnews.com

....

Systems that can be mounted on any terrestrial or marine platform should be the first priority.

The nature of the platform should be entirely secondary.

....

In the words of Archimedes

Give me a place to stand......

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Rules at sea are far more flexible and hard to interpret then car traffic rules. Can a USV identify the difference between a sailboat under power or under sail? What about a fishing vessel fishing or one just transiting. How about a power driven vessel Not Under Command in the day vs at night vs a Power Driven vessel at anchor or restricted in its ability to maneuver (again day or night). Or recognize that it's in fog and all the rules change (including sound signals now!)

Then you have the Chinese fishing fleets that act like a swarm and attempt to bulldoze their way and will be used aggressively in the opening stages of any conflict.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

In my mind that means we should have totally interoperable systems from the get-go. I think that's already where the air force is headed. The navy is moving there as well, and the army is still a bit off. I think we need to leave behind bespoke systems and get on board with the development of systems that Americans are already heavily invested in.

No. The Navy is there, and has been there for a long time. Our frigates can seamlessly come into any US naval group, such as a Carrier Strike Group or an Amphibious Ready Group, etc. This very capacity to inter-operate with the Americans, which few nations have, is the reason the RCN contingent in Gulf War I became the only non American Task Group Command.

I'll just say it one last time, considering how long the lead time is for having new vessels come off the line, we should be looking seriously at new solutions which increase combat ability and not looking for just another unarmed patrol hull that will gobble up funds and stifle progress for the next two decades. In my head I see inexpensive autonomous weapon carriers to accompany and augment a River class as a deep water solution and a fast inexpensive patrol/assault boat something like the Norwegian Stridsbåt 90 H(alv) based in small ports along our shorelines in hybrid organizations for small scale littoral operations.

I'll just say it one last time, considering how long the lead time for having new main battle tanks come off the line, we should be looking seriously at new solutions which increase combat ability and not looking for just another Small Logistic Vehicle Wheeled that will gobble up funds and stifle progress for the next two decades.

This above, FJAG, is the Army equivalent of what you are saying about the Navy. Also, what you and Kirkhill are proposing may be autonomous, but they are far from inexpensive. The hulls and propulsion systems may be cheaper than a full blown frigate or destroyer, but the missile loadout you are talking about (128 + AA missiles) will set you back anywhere between 500 and 700 million dollars, so overall, your "inexpensive" wingman will cost you about 1B$, sit unused in harbour for 30/40 years just in case, and in any event cover only one potential threat while providing no capability in the meantime to carry out any of the other missions of the Navy.

Also, as regards the Norwegian S-90-H, they are not really patrol vessels, but assault boats. Once again, this is amphibious warfare: When the Army asks for it, the Navy will go into it, but so long as the Army does not ask the government for the capability, it is wasted money for the Navy to do it on its own. Moreover, with the coastlines we have and, what you have in mind would require such numbers as to be incredibly demanding in manpower, maintenance and support, the whole to address an insignificant threat in the Canadian context - as opposed to the Norwegian one.

 

[dapaterson]

No. Interoperability isn't a permanent state, and the RCN is falling off the edge in that space.

 

[Underway]

No. Interoperability isn't a permanent state, and the RCN is falling off the edge in that space.

What evidence? Its exactly opposite equipment wise.

 

[Furniture]

This is where I think we see things differently. I am not convinced that there will be time to build a fleet-du-jour once the balloon goes up. In fact, I would argue that the balloon is already well over the horizon.

If we are talking a barge with propulsion and rudimentary "follow the leader" programming, then I am confident even Canada can make those faster than we can make the missiles loads for them.

As I said earlier, the limiting factor WRT modern warfare is the weapons systems production times, not the hulls. Having a bunch of USV hulls sitting unarmed, and rusting away in Halifax and Esquimalt would be a massive waste of resources.

We can't make completely safe crewed vessels.

That doesn't really prove anything, particularly when you consider how rare those accidents are.

As I said, completely* safe USVs are possible, they just aren't worth the opportunity cost of investment when we have more pressing priorities.

Systems that can be mounted on any terrestrial or marine platform should be the first priority.

Great in theory, until you see what happens when systems not designed for use at sea are used at sea... The marine environment is likely the harshest environment for equipment on the planet. If you then make everything for the maritime environment, you end up with systems that are unnecessarily heavy/expensive for land use.

Should the CA and RCN look into using the same missiles, and environment appropriate versions of gun systems? For sure, if it makes sense for the operational needs of the branches, but forcing the CA or RCN to use a system that is not suited to their needs because it makes the supply system slightly less complex is not a wise idea.

The nature of the platform should be entirely secondary.

I agree with what I think you are saying here. We should be platform agnostic, and focus on the weapons system rather than buying platforms and seeing what we can make fit.

*as safe as with human crews

 

[Underway]

Here's a theory that we haven't considered. What if the Corvette program isn't for replacing the MCDV's. What if its replacing the frigates? Again Tier 2 combatant but reworked/reworded.

The CSC are not replacing frigate capability. They are going beyond frigate capability replacement into AAW, Command and Control, Cooperative Engagment, Flag Ship, BMD and so on, with new added capabilities.

The frigates combat systems are relatively new, SMART S, 3D AMB, CMS 330 tech refresh, New UWW suite, RWS, CIWS Baseline 2B, new FCS, Block III 57mm and so on.

We also are fairly confident that the frigate structural refits are challenging and exceedingly expensive, and perhaps won't be able to keep going until the CSC have replaced the fleet overall.

There is a path here where you build 3000 ton sized ships, reuse the combat equipment and the current upgrade programs (UWW, Comms) and get yourself a ship that can do the NATO missions with global deployability.

Basically the same combat suite as the frigates but add in an 8 cell VSL instead of the current missiles, a full comms refresh, and perhaps a new hull mounted sonar. It would certainly mean negigable combat system integration and equipment costs for installation on the new ship

If DWP's are cost over a billion per year it might be time to implement something, anything to cut into those costs.

Two questions, hangar or no hangar AND who would builds them?

Victoria shipyards had demonstrated through 3 different ship types that they can do the combat suite work. We just need the MSE side of things.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Here's a theory that we haven't considered. What if the Corvette program isn't for replacing the MCDV's. What if its replacing the frigates? Again Tier 2 combatant but reworked/reworded.

The CSC are not replacing frigate capability. They are going beyond frigate capability replacement into AAW, Command and Control, Cooperative Engagment, Flag Ship, BMD and so on, with new added capabilities.

The frigates combat systems are relatively new, SMART S, 3D AMB, CMS 330 tech refresh, New UWW suite, RWS, CIWS Baseline 2B, new FCS, Block III 57mm and so on.

We also are fairly confident that the frigate structural refits are challenging and exceedingly expensive, and perhaps won't be able to keep going until the CSC have replaced the fleet overall.

There is a path here where you build 3000 ton sized ships, reuse the combat equipment and the current upgrade programs (UWW, Comms) and get yourself a ship that can do the NATO missions with global deployability.

Basically the same combat suite as the frigates but add in an 8 cell VSL instead of the current missiles, a full comms refresh, and perhaps a new hull mounted sonar. It would certainly mean negigable combat system integration and equipment costs for installation on the new ship

If DWP's are cost over a billion per year it might be time to implement something, anything to cut into those costs.

Two questions, hangar or no hangar AND who would builds them?

Victoria shipyards had demonstrated through 3 different ship types that they can do the combat suite work. We just need the MSE side of things.

My primary concern for a strategy like this the temptation for a future government that is facing potential austerity concerns to slash the CSC order with the justification that these "corvettes" are around and can just about do what is required. With CSC's build being stretched out into decades, it has a long neck jutting out that could easily get the hatched if a future government is sufficient chop happy. I'd also be somewhat concerned if we could get the sufficient range, crew comforts and endurance out of such a sufficiently small ship fitted out so heavily, in order to fit the requirements of a Tier 2 combatant for Canada.

It almost sounds like you are describing the European Patrol Corvette program at this point, as far as size and capability is concerned.

 

[Underway]

My primary concern for a strategy like this the temptation for a future government that is facing potential austerity concerns to slash the CSC order with the justification that these "corvettes" are around and can just about do what is required. With CSC's build being stretched out into decades, it has a long neck jutting out that could easily get the hatched if a future government is sufficient chop happy. I'd also be somewhat concerned if we could get the sufficient range, crew comforts and endurance out of such a sufficiently small ship fitted out so heavily, in order to fit the requirements of a Tier 2 combatant for Canada.

It almost sounds like you are describing the European Patrol Corvette program at this point, as far as size and capability is concerned.

EPC would be a good place to look for a similar capability. MMPC – Modular and Multirole Patrol Corvette is another name for the project. Two or three variants.

I would agree with your concerns on that, however what's a greater concern. Having future CSC cut OR having the frigates retired early becuase they cost $1/2 billion every docking work period (or they break). From a Gov't of Canada security perspective its the latter.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Here's a theory that we haven't considered. What if the Corvette program isn't for replacing the MCDV's. What if its replacing the frigates? Again Tier 2 combatant but reworked/reworded.

The unfunded, unapproved corvette program that we have no credible plan how to crew it or support it? Right now we have 15 CSCs on the books with crews for about 7ish CPFs, more AOPVs incoming that we don't have crews for, 8-12 subs when we can't crew 4 existing subs. Oh, and 2 JSS we have no crews for either.

On the support side we don't have jetty space for that fleet, FMFs and 2nd line support to fix them, school capacity to train and sustain that many sailors, and 3rd line capacity for managing the ISSC (and again, no credible plan to build up to that either).

Adding in Corvettes is a fever dream in an already Pollyannish future fleet plan, if you look at inconvenient real world practical issues.

 

[JMCanada]

https://www.serco.com/media/9740/atlas-120-light-frigate.pdf?1685563690

The 4,000 ton Atlas 120 frigate would also be a good point to start from. If the crewing requirements were a bit lower, in the 100-110 range, that would be perfect (IMHO).

https://www.serco.com/na/canada/our-work/serco-canada-marine-naval-design-marine-engineering

 

[Good2Golf]

^^
In a wartime scenario we'd just do Ships Taken Up With Trade (STUFT) like the Brits did for the Falklands.
But as outlined in this article there is a whole host of issues that would need to be addressed.

Lessons for a Wartime Navy: STUFT Vessels in the Falklands War

The United States should take lessons on commercial ship conversions from the Falklands War.

www.usni.org

So in the end, I say screw it. Disband the Army and our contribution will be the protection (surface, subsurface and airborne) of the fleets of commercial ships heading to the warzone.

Disband the 5,000 new CRA employees who apparently can’t find where $15B of CERB overpayments went…

 

[Furniture]

Adding in Corvettes is a fever dream in an already Pollyannish future fleet plan, if you look at inconvenient real world practical issues.

At the risk of cursing the CSC project, is it not possible that the Corvette programme is being opened because the GoC has told the RCN behind closed doors "CSC cost too much, find a more affordable solution" already?

 

[GR66]

<snip>


View attachment 87591View attachment 87593

....

Systems that can be mounted on any terrestrial or marine platform should be the first priority.

The nature of the platform should be entirely secondary.

If developing expensive AI systems to control USVs to too much of a stress on the budget then why waste the money on a bleeding edge technology that may not even fit into our CONOPS anyway (see my post upthread: New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy).

Instead focus on the highlighted section of your post and buy containerized launchers that use the same missiles as used by the RCN and the CA's AD units. Extra munitions with flexible usage scenarios without committing to a specific platform. Need an an arsenal ship to accompany our Task Force? Take up a civilian ship with ample desk space and load it with containers. Need additional AD for Latvia? Load the containers on trucks. Running low on munitions for our ships or AD units? Pull the missiles out of the containers and use them as our war stocks.

Sometimes the pursuit of the exquisite solution has less overall benefit than the adequate solution.

As a general personal opinion though I think those trying for "moon shot" applications for both AI and un-crewed solutions will likely be disappointed by the results (and the especially the cost). I think we're still at the point where we're better off investing in un-crewed/AI-enabled vehicles that are more like a munition than like the parent platform. More bank for the buck.

 

[Underway]

The unfunded, unapproved corvette program that we have no credible plan how to crew it or support it? Right now we have 15 CSCs on the books with crews for about 7ish CPFs, more AOPVs incoming that we don't have crews for, 8-12 subs when we can't crew 4 existing subs. Oh, and 2 JSS we have no crews for either.

On the support side we don't have jetty space for that fleet, FMFs and 2nd line support to fix them, school capacity to train and sustain that many sailors, and 3rd line capacity for managing the ISSC (and again, no credible plan to build up to that either).

Adding in Corvettes is a fever dream in an already Pollyannish future fleet plan, if you look at inconvenient real world practical issues.

You're right. We should just give up. Why plan for or discuss the future where we can work ourselves out of this low point. No need to aspire for more. Its not like with work, a future plan and some luck 80% of these problems can be solved over the 20 year period this build up would take place. Those 7xCPF's by your own posts will NOT make it to where they will be replaced by the CSC's. So no need to fill the gap, despite the fact that the one CPF DWP budget is approaching ~$1/2 a billion, and we have three in DWP at one time.

Basically its impossible to recruit, we can't train anyone, no civis to work at FMF, and no way we could build fast enough to replace fleet rust out we might as well just quit now.

At the risk of cursing the CSC project, is it not possible that the Corvette programme is being opened because the GoC has told the RCN behind closed doors "CSC cost too much, find a more affordable solution" already?

No that would have leaked already in the Hill Times or something. This has VAdm Topshee written all over it.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It is called Plausible Deniability:

"No, the government is not replacing the current frigates with other frigates before the destroyers arrive because the Shipbuilding Strategy is late and flawed, we are replacing the much older MCDV's with corvettes because those are much more capable ships. The Shipbuilding Strategy is a great success that will replace the frigates with much more capable destroyers. We are working to deliver new capabilities for the defense of Canada and working towards achieving our aim of 2 % of GDP spent on defense." - Min. of Defense.

 

[Good2Golf]

It comprises 400 sailors focused on operating a powered sUSV of 16 ft called the Global Autonomous Reconnaissance Craft.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

With new ships coming online, you find that recruiting and retention issues will decrease. Same if we had new subs, if we can start delivering new subs by the time the first CSC is being launched, you likely find that you will have far more interest. not to mention you can now advertize "Bleeding Edge tech" which will attract the younger generation. Hopefully by the time the first CSC and Sub arrives, we will have reduced many of the bottlenecks in recruiting. With CFP self-divesting, you might gain some retention as you might actually have two crews for each of the remaining ships.