New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure but I believe that the best form of compartmentalization is a separate hull.

250 sailors in one hull with one gun or three hulls and guns with 50 sailors each, sailing in company, and use the savings in hull costs and PYs to finance to the cost of automation.

With respect to the maturity of automation and can it be trusted?

You can trust it with your mother-in-law and Las Vegas gamblers.

http://life.nationalpost.com/2013/04/02/watch-someones-mother-in-law-get-a-fit-of-nervous-giggles-in-googles-driverless-car/
http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/05/08/google-gets-first-self-driven-car-licence-in-nevada/

Can you trust it to close doors and valves and turn on pumps?

http://www.nps.edu/Academics/gseas/TSSE/docs/projects/1996/automation_for_reduced_manning.pdf

and thanks to Thucydides for the last link -  I note that the presentation was based on 1996 automation (17 years ago).

 

[Navy_Pete]

Automation can result in minor crew savings on the engineer side, but you have to realize that there is a huge difference between how commercial ships operate and what a navy ship does.

For example, your typical container ship has one purpose; to go from point A to point B.  They have a few people to pilot it, a few pople to monitor to plant, and a few support staff and other misc folks.

Something like a frigate is manned based on some kind of worse case scenario for what kinds of roles it plays.  For example, you may need 25 folks (random number) to drive the boat, man the mostly automated combat systems, and watch the plant.  So to operate that in three shifts to cover 24 hours (I know it's not that actual watch rotation) that's 75 people for your basic crew.

Then you look at a scenario where you are doing that, plus adding in a security risk, so you have armed sentires and extra lookouts 24/7.  So say for argument sakes that adds 24 people.  Then while doing that you want to do things like send a boarding party onto another ship, so add another 30.  Then you want to add a helocopter, so between the air crew, a back up air crew, some maintainers, and your flight deck crew (firefighters etc) add another 20.  Now you have all this combat equipment, fancy radars, comms gear etc, so add another 20 for maintainers.  Somewhere along the way you are probably also taking on fuel at sea and doing a few other things as well.

All these crew numbers were pretty arbitrary, and actually lower then a real crew, but I think you get the point.  You can automate monitoring/operating of equipment (which it is) but that is only a fraction of what we do; the hull is basically to get sailors and their gear somewhere so they can get a mission done.

That's the big difference.  Everytime you add anything more then going from point A to point B, you add in crew to operate and maintain it.  That's why a navy ship can go from drug interdictions and maritime surveillance ops, to a search and resuce of a stranded vessel, then head on out to do some humanitarian assistance without ever changing crew or equipment.

Incidentally, for damage control, don't know any sailors that have had to deal with a missile hit, but most folks have a story or two of some kind of small fire or minor flood that happens just with normal sailing around and some are unfortunate to have seen a major event.  That also drives crew sizes due to our SOPs for doing DC.

Could we reduce crew sizes?  Absolutely!  Would that limit what the ships could do?  Absolutely.  It's all a bit of a balancing act, and driven by what the government wants the ships to be capable of.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Here ya go: http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/pubs_pol/opepubs/tbm_162/gptbs-gppct-eng.pdf - you can start at page 54.

This is the only way that federal government procurement projects are costed, since about the early 2000s.

These things get really complicated very quickly; pretty sure costs are for the delivery of the sihps with all the gear, ammunition etc onboard, plus spares for so many years, plus all the tech manuals, trainers, initial training etc plus any associated infrastrucutre.  So basically the ships in turn key condition, with all the spare parts and a crew of sailors trained to use it.

Including things like crew costs, fuel, food etc over the lifetime of the ships would be a much higher number, a WAG, and kind of meaningless.  Try doing it with a car sometime;  look at the sticker price, then add in fuel, maintenance, parts, insurance and give yourself an arbitrary salary for all the time you spend driving it.  Even ignoring inflation and increasing fuel costs, probably easily taking a $25k car into the six figure range.

 

[AlexanderM]

Lasers on US ships is already happening, just Google it.  And here's an article.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2223193/U-S-Navy-just-years-away-arming-warships-laser-weapons-capable-destroying-incoming-missiles-aircraft.html

By the time our ships hit the water I want a laser defence system that'l pick a quarter off the moon.  lol

And let's not forget this puppy.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/45465025/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/new-vehicle-laser-blows-everything/

 

[Halifax Tar]

Basically to summarize the Minister of National Defence released a statement on the conservative's proposed new ship building strategy.

Summary: $35B proposed to create two national ship yards to build military and civilian government vessels over the next 30 years, with consideration to eliminate boom-bust cycles.

Linkage:
http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/06/03/mackay-shipbuilding-cansec.html

What do you guys think?  I think it is a step in the right direction. Let the debate begin...  >

We need to stop believing everything the CF uses must be Canadian manufactured.  I will say it again we are not here to be an employment strategy.  If country X has platform Y that meets our requirements within our budget it should be a no brain-er to acquire that platform. 

Why do we need to reinvent the wheel everytime we buy things, from raincoats to ships.

Admittedly that stance will not win you votes in Levis, Halifax or Vancouver.

 

[YZT580]

Use someone else's design by all means.  As you say, there is no need to re-invent the wheel but there is a lot to be said for building them here.  When you pay to build them elsewhere, you are actually paying twice: once for the article and again in unemployment benefits for the canadian who hasn't got the job building your article.  Such an approach is not however a license for Canadian corporations to steal: prices must be realistic which, if we weren't always designing one offs  probably would be. 

 

[Navy_Pete]

To buy ships from another country would mean a change in govt policy as well; currently Canada officially shall not build ships outside Canada.  For the NSPS, aside from DND, the Coast Guard and PWGSC, Industry Canada is also involved.

To me, would make the most financial sense to buy an existing design off an ally, have the hull/power plant built somewhere else if it made financial sense, then sail them back to Canada and outfit them with the combat suite, which is now pretty much plug and play.

USN ships don't really fit with how we operate as a navy (huge manning requirements), but most of the european ships would.

The majority of the money is spent on operating and maintaining ships, but no one has the political balls to try and sell that.

I'm a huge supporter of the concept of keeping industrial capability in Canada; my issue with this is that there isn't the same strategic attention being paid to our ability to manufacture the raw materials (steel plating, piping, valves etc).  We no longer have the industrial base to make the components, so while they are running around screaming about building ships, most of the parts are made outside of Canada.  Drive through Hamilton, Welland, Oshawa etc any time and take a look at how many of the smaller producers are left and not replaced by McMansion developments for retired boomers (same thing for farmland, but that's completely off topic).

 

[mad dog 2020]

Courtesy of CBC 20 April 2013


NEW
French pitch new warships for next Canadian navy vessels
The Canadian Press
Last Updated: Apr 20, 2013 18:17 ET

The French Navy FREMM Class frigate Aquitaine rests at berth in Halifax on Saturday, April 20, 2013. The Paris-based naval contractor DCNS wants Canada to consider the frigates for the Canadian Surface Combatant program. Andrew Vaughan/The Canadian Press

France showcased its latest warship to the federal defence minister Saturday in Halifax, as the Royal Canadian Navy considers options for designs of its next generation of combat vessels.

Peter MacKay toured the 142-metre Fremm-class vessel Aquitaine, viewing the command-and-control systems on the bridge, as well as its engine rooms and missile systems.

MacKay said he came away impressed with the way the ship had centralized consoles for communications, sonar detection and navigation in the bridge area.

"I have never seen… such an impressive vessel," he said.

The vessel built by French-based DCNS was launched last fall and is being tested with a crew of 94 — less than half the complement of the French navy's previous generation of destroyers.

'I have never seen… such an impressive vessel' — Defence Minister Peter MacKay
The publicly owned firm is pitching the vessel as a cheaper design due to a higher level of automation, reducing the need for crew during missions and allowing space for more comfortable living and working quarters than prior French ships.

Capt. Benoit Rouviere, the warship's commander, said the ship costs less to operate and has a crew that performs at a higher level due to the design changes.

"We put a bit more money into buying the ship, but over the life cycle we are trying to save a lot of money," he said in an interview.

MacKay said he's viewing the latest in foreign vessels as Ottawa decides what designs it will use for Canada's next combat vessels.

"The… reason we are taking the time to tour ships such as the Aquitaine is to look at the capabilities of partners, serious navies like the French, to determine the best fit for Canada," he said.

The federal government has chosen Irving Shipyard in Halifax and Seaspan Marine in British Columbia to build vessels for its 20-year, $35-billion National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy.

Representatives for DCNS told reporters that the publicly owned firm is interested in bidding on designs and components of Canada's new combat vessels once the federal government provides details on what it is looking for.

Olivier Casenave-Pere, Canadian director for DCNS, said an adapted, off-the-shelf design may save Canadian taxpayers money.

"You will benefit from ships for which studies and developments have already been paid by the French government," he said.

However, he said it's difficult to estimate what the potential cost savings would be without knowing the Canadian navy's design specifications.
© The Canadian Press 2013

 

[AlexanderM]

I do really like the look of the FREMM, but then it's an entirely different set of missles.

Anyone care to comment on the Aster missle system vs the American missle's, ESSM, SM-2, etc?

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

I do really like the look of the FREMM, but then it's an entirely different set of missles.

Anyone care to comment on the Aster missle system vs the American missle's, ESSM, SM-2, etc?

Not my area of expertise, but my understanding is that there are two primary differences:
Aster Series = Active Homing and Kinetic Kill
ESSM/SM2 = Semi-Active Homing (that's why you see Fire Control Directors like Ceros on ESSM/SM-2 ships but not on ships like FREMM) and they have large explosive warheads

The arguments I've read as to which is superior so far appears to be mostly hypotheticals as I think most people who know real capabilities are paid to keep their mouth shut. 

The arguments for/against each type I thought were interesting though:
For the Aster Series - The argument is you can pop a bunch of missiles up quickly, and get them released in the direction of the target(s) much faster than missiles requiring radar directors for terminal lock.
For the ESSM/SM - The argument is that the power you can generate on a ship and the energy you can therefore push through a radar director is orders of magnitude greater than what you could ever hope to generate from a battery on an active homing missile.  Additionally, whether a real or false concerns, with semi-active homing the use of Fire Control Directors like Ceros is supposed to be safer for your escorting naval aviation (helicopters).  With active homing, if you pop up a missile and release it too quickly it could pick-up your ASW helicopter and you could have a real problem. With ESSM/SM and Fire Control Directors, if it's not painted, it's not a target.  Not a problem.

That's all I've got going from memory....if anyone else can elaborate, have at it.  I haven't read a lot on testing against supersonic targets which is probably the most relevant data at this point.


Cheers, Matthew. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

And we have a winner in the "who's going to take a second look at NSPS?" sweepstakes!

The Government of Canada today announced the selection of KPMG, from Toronto, Ontario, to provide support as a third-party expert for upcoming National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS) projects. This contract is part of the Government of Canada’s commitment to apply smart procurement’s guiding principles during the NSPS process.

This task-based, three-year contract, with an option to extend for up to ten years, was awarded with an initial estimated value of $500,000. The total contract value will be adjusted over time as new work packages are identified and approved. The contract will enable assistance with the NSPS projects, including:

    support to Canada’s contract negotiations, which may include providing advice and/or opinions regarding industry trends, norms and standard practices;
    assessment of cost proposals related to project implementation; and
    provision of advice on procurement and project management activities.

( .... )

 

[Acer Syrup]

And we have a winner in the "who's going to take a second look at NSPS?" sweepstakes!

So the middleman (PWGSC) just hired a middleman for half a million? Isn't that why PWGSC has 10,000 employees and a budget of 4 billion dollars annually?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes but being civil Servants, they can't be trusted to provide the correct messaging.

I see Seaspan is hoping to have capacity to bid on the newly announced ferry replacement program for BC ferries. the problem for Seaspan is they can't know what capacity they have until the government tells them exactly what they want and which class comes first.

Once the ship building gets into full swing, it's going to make it much harder for pipeline companies to find good welders. I suspect many will take slightly less pay for secure shift work in an urban area, rather than laying in a frozen pipe somewhere North of Nowhere.

 

[Kirkhill]

Yes but being civil Servants, they can't be trusted to provide the correct messaging.

I see Seaspan is hoping to have capacity to bid on the newly announced ferry replacement program for BC ferries. the problem for Seaspan is they can't know what capacity they have until the government tells them exactly what they want and which class comes first.

Once the ship building gets into full swing, it's going to make it much harder for pipeline companies to find good welders. I suspect many will take slightly less pay for secure shift work in an urban area, rather than laying in a frozen pipe somewhere North of Nowhere.

It is already hard to find good welders.  Stainless steel welders are very difficult to find.  I have seen black iron fab shops offering jobs to farm kids that learned how to weld in their Dad's barn.

 

[AlexanderM]

I am really starting to like this Iver Huitfeldt design.  The missile bay looks very flexible.  There are a load of pictures on this site.

http://forsvaret.dk/FMT/Materiel/Skibe/Fregatter/Foto/Pages/default.aspx

 

[jollyjacktar]

Very sexy.

 

[Good2Golf]

As an entirely un-Navy guy, I like its looks more than a Type 45.  Do they have the same/similar search radars?

 

[AlexanderM]

As an entirely un-Navy guy, I like its looks more than a Type 45.  Do they have the same/similar search radars?

Type 45 has Sampson system, plus Smart-L, whereas the Iver has APAR and Smart-L.  APAR is a good system, we don't need to have Sampson.  Also, there are a number of navies out there using the APAR/Smart-L combo, including Germany.  Everyone seems to be happy as far as I know.

 

[Good2Golf]

It was SMART-L I was seeing as the same...aft LR volume search. 

Interesting debate between BAE and Thales regarding the SAMSON is/isn't better than APAR....I'm not convinced that BAE's "SAMSON sees every part of the sky at least once a second" argument holds as much water against APAR...perhaps the light weight and higher up the mast for greater range is somewhat valid, but APAR is pretty high up the mast already and as folks know, an AESA radar can be looking continuously at any sector of the sky if it has overlapping antennas.  APAR has more graceful degradation than SAMSON IMO....all it takes is one antenna rotation motor to fail and SAMSON is a two array vice four array system, with some blind sidelobes depending on where the motor failed.

Regards
G2G

 

[AlexanderM]

It was SMART-L I was seeing as the same...aft LR volume search. 

Interesting debate between BAE and Thales regarding the SAMSON is/isn't better than APAR....I'm not convinced that BAE's "SAMSON sees every part of the sky at least once a second" argument holds as much water against APAR...perhaps the light weight and higher up the mast for greater range is somewhat valid, but APAR is pretty high up the mast already and as folks know, an AESA radar can be looking continuously at any sector of the sky if it has overlapping antennas.  APAR has more graceful degradation than SAMSON IMO....all it takes is one antenna rotation motor to fail and SAMSON is a two array vice four array system, with some blind sidelobes depending on where the motor failed.

Regards
G2G

I saw a program on the Type 45 a couple years ago, when the ship was participating in a war games excercise of some kind.  They picked up targets on Sampson but couldn't identify if they were friend of foe.  So there they were, the officers on the bridge, outside looking through binoculars trying to identify the aircraft.  I thought, what's the good of the air search system if they can't identify the aircraft?  The ship was pretty new so perhaps they have sorted out the target recognition issues but if not then yikes.  You have this highly advanced air search radar that should be sold with binoculars???