New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Whether APAR or SAMPSON, the situation you described as arising during the EX would likely have occurred. At long range you will pick up civilian planes that either don't get painted sufficiently to trigger the transponder response or smaller private planes not required to carry transponder. Even with transponder, ID at long range is not always easy: Talk to the crew of USS Vincennes. This uncertainty is something we have to live with. In case of open war with a defined area of combat, this will go away as anyone would enter the airspace at their own risk - and civilian airliners usually don't take those risks. In training, well, we can't close airspace around exercises all the time, now can we.

BTW, my favourite part of those pics of the IVER HUITFELDT you posted is different than everyone else, I think: I like the picture of the quad-cabin. The use of light tone wood for the bunks, furniture and bookshelves gives the place a more homely look , as opposed to our "utilitarian" use of metal. To me its just something I would enjoy and it would make me feel like the ship was designed and built by people that understand they are manned by humans that go away from home for long periods of time - not by automatons that are just another part of the machine.

 

[Good2Golf]

Whether APAR or SAMPSON, the situation you described as arising during the EX would likely have occurred...

Concur, for all the reasons you note, OGBD.  In real life, ROE would supplement the e-PID capabilities.  Valid point about AEGIS (Vincennes), but I can't help but think there were a number of factors contributing to that event.

Generically, will SSC have  a dual MFR/ASR configuration?

Regards
G2G

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well, in the Vincennes incident there were human factors (what a surprise), but as long as we have humans involved in the decision to fire/not fire at a target (and in my mind, we should), human factors will come into play.

As for the configuration on the SCSC, I have been out of the loop for a while, so anyone else feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. My understanding was that the powers that be were looking at the SMART L / APAR suite [they would have loved to be able to put on the FELEXed Halifax's], which would mean surveillance, tracking and directing from the APAR.

However, with the current "stretched" timeline before we see a hull in the water, something even better could come along - you never know.

 

[Underway]

Currently that's the plan from everything that I have heard.  How it will be mounted, with what missiles guns and other armament is up in the air.  The last most up to date thing I read/saw on the CSC was as follows.

APAR
SMART-L
Standard Nav radars
there was discussion on still mounting 2x FC radar similar to what the frigates use now, not sure why when you have APAR but there are probably some advantages that the APAR doesn't have (power?)
2x Millennial Gun (port and stbd)
1x 127mm ( now with GPS guided munitions!)
32 VLS
SM2 in the VLS (prob SM-6 now)
2x Phalanx block B CIWS (fore and aft)
Mk 46 torp tubes
6000-7000 tonnes


If the RCN wants to use the Aster 15/30 it works well with a rotating radar like SAMPSON / EMPAR,  while semi active SM2/ESSM requires a constant illumination of the target which APAR /SPY provides.  I don't know if the active radar of an Aster would work with APAR or not but it stands to reason that it probably would while the SM2 and ESSM require some sort of fire control from the ship.  SM-6 uses active and semi active sensors so might work with all radar types.

I suppose your choice of weapons has quite a but to do with your choice of sensors.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Currently that's the plan from everything that I have heard.  How it will be mounted, with what missiles guns and other armament is up in the air.  The last most up to date thing I read/saw on the CSC was as follows.

APAR
SMART-L
Standard Nav radars
there was discussion on still mounting 2x FC radar similar to what the frigates use now, not sure why when you have APAR but there are probably some advantages that the APAR doesn't have (power?)
2x Millennial Gun (port and stbd)
1x 127mm ( now with GPS guided munitions!)
32 VLS
SM2 in the VLS (prob SM-6 now)
2x Phalanx block B CIWS (fore and aft)
Mk 46 torp tubes
6000-7000 tonnes


If the RCN wants to use the Aster 15/30 it works well with a rotating radar like SAMPSON / EMPAR,  while semi active SM2/ESSM requires a constant illumination of the target which APAR /SPY provides.  I don't know if the active radar of an Aster would work with APAR or not but it stands to reason that it probably would while the SM2 and ESSM require some sort of fire control from the ship.  SM-6 uses active and semi active sensors so might work with all radar types.

I suppose your choice of weapons has quite a but to do with your choice of sensors.

Just curious of what source you read for this configuration?

 

[AlexanderM]

Keep in mind that with the IVER HUITFELDT you get the 32 vls cells, plus another 48 ESSM, which makes it a pretty nice package.  I was hoping for at least 48 vls cells but with the extra ESSM launchers it looks OK.  Plus all the flexibility of that missle deck.  Very sexy indeed!  I love the look of that ship!

Oh, and lasers, don't forget the lasers.  Not on the design but needs to be added, already on some US ships.  By the time our ships hit the water the ship defense lasers should be ready.

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


Lasers on US warships.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23379-dronewrecking-laser-gun-to-sail-on-us-warship.html

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/04/08/future-is-now-navy-to-deploys-lasers-on-ships-in-2014/

These systems are mainly for taking out drones and boats, but once we see the 100 kilowatt systems and above they'll be able to hunt bigger game, such as incoming missiles I suspect.  I would still keep the point defence weapons, as in guns, but have both.

 

[Kirkhill]

Oh, and lasers, don't forget the lasers. 

 

Some people just can't resist picking at scabs......   

And by the way - given the time lines and their definitive nature you might want to start planning for the safe storage of photon torpedoes.

 

[AlexanderM]

 

Some people just can't resist picking at scabs......   

And by the way - given the time lines and their definitive nature you might want to start planning for the safe storage of photon torpedoes.

Did I mention that the missile deck is flexible?  ;D

 

[Underway]

Just curious of what source you read for this configuration?

Ppt presentation on SCSC that I saw a couple years back.  Remember it pretty well as the millennial gun and FCR caught my eye as unique.  VLS and radar types are no big surprise as the navy has made no secret about wanting these, even considered the APAR for the FELEX.  However this info was before it morphed into CSC.  A lot of this info was also in the SCSC report.  Things like the 127mm were in there as support to forces ashore was a big deal in that report.

That being said the CSC project is a closed book.  I think the RCN is just running as fast as they can dealing with AORs, AOPS, HCM and the subs. 

What might be interesting is the design of the general purpose CSC.  We all know what a tribal replacement would probably look like, but what would a same hull GP ship look like.  Same radar perhaps, less VLS but with ESSM and Harpoons in them?  More ASW inboard?

 

[Underway]

Looked through the thread but didn't see a link to this interesting report from the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute: NSPS Update

This in particular caught my eye:

Backing away from NSPS contracts to pursue reportedly cheaper foreign options will also be difficult for
the same legal and political reasons. To do so for reasons of saving money is particularly suspect despite the
claims. Recently one author has asserted that the offshore ‘off the shelf’ option for ships would be “far and away
the cheapest (and fastest) approach.”  Another has claimed that a made-in-Canada ship involves a 20% cost
premium.  Neither critic accompanies these claims with evidence. Neither do they mention the detailed studies
done on the topic—likely because the one conducted by DND’s audit arm concluded that the built-in-Canada
Canadian Patrol Frigate ultimately cost only 7% more (roughly $28 million per ship) on average than seven
other similarly sized foreign warships.  That 7% “at home” premium also created over 7,000 person-years of
Canadian employment and established at least 12 Canadian companies that are still in business and exporting
complex marine systems to such demanding customers as the United States, Israeli and Royal Navy today.  That
same audit also considered the Canadian frigate the combat superior of every one of the foreign frigates studied
save the one that it was ‘only‘ the combat equal to.  It also quoted Forecast International, a US publication
which conducts an annual assessment of warship capability, which concluded:

After a very shaky start, mainly due to the long gap in Canadian warship construction, the Halifax
class frigates have matured into fine warships. The lead ship of the class has been the subject of
unstinting praise from the US Navy, following visits to American naval bases. HMCS Halifax is also
regarded as being a very satisfactory and a well-conceived design by the British Royal Navy Directorate
of Navy Construction.

More recently, a study commissioned by Industry Canada questioned similar doubtful claims of cheaper foreign
shipyards and estimated that their products normally resulted in a 25% increase in in-service support costs after
they were delivered.  These costs, by the way, are not insignificant and can easily equal 60% or more of the
purchase cost. In addition, foreign firms have also been front and center recently in their readiness to demand
more than was budgeted during both the earlier and current JSS projects while also disputing elements of our
procurement processes

I find it completely fascinating that when you start actually doing audits and research the previous frigate program was not a horrible money pit.  Granted one needs to consider that the new shipbuilding may become that but it can be done effectively and properly.  It is also interesting to note that in service support cost increase with foreign buys of ships.  Of course the Halifax was built in a different time and there wasn't a global economy the same way as there is now.

 

[Inquisitor]

This in particular caught my eye:
I find it completely fascinating that when you start actually doing audits and research the previous frigate program was not a horrible money pit. 

Depends on how one defines "Horrible money pit".  This may be a bit of topic but I recall an instance when Japan when evaluating snowplows rejected a one driver Caterpiller solution as non starter compared to their two operator, one to drive, one for the blade,  home grown solution since everyone knows that "Japanese snow is different".

To get get back on track, the reason that most countries design a homegrown military *****  widget for example is they hope 1. that it will help their forces, 2. subordinate is t6hat they can recoup some of the development cost by offering it for export.

Since 2. does not seem to be on the table.  Instead of reinventing the wheel, I mean Surface combatant. Evaluate the options and chose the one that best meets your needs.

For those that disagree, the Army stopped designing AFV' s with the BobCat. The RCAF with the Arrow.

 

[Inquisitor]

Should have included that both the Tribals and Halifax class were well over budget.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Bumped with the latest suggestion, from a former Chief of Staff for PM Harper:  you get more, overall, buying international than you get going "buy Canadian" for big honkin' ships ....

.... Given Canada’s integration into the global economy, it is time to reconsider how defence procurement serves economic policy. One way to do that is to link defence procurement to Canada’s international trade and investment efforts.

Since 2006, the Harper government launched and restarted free trade negotiations with many key trading partners. But few of those efforts have borne fruit. Perhaps the resupply ship procurement could serve as an experiment to try to conclude some of those negotiations. The Harper government could, for example, announce it will take bids from any shipyard in a country that has a free trade agreement with Canada as of April 1, 2014. American and Norwegian shipyards would immediately be eligible to bid, and both the EU and South Korea might find it valuable to ensure their shipyards were also eligible.

The economic benefits to Canada of concluding the Canada-EU and Canada-Korea trade two agreements are much larger than the benefits of building the ships in Canada. The federal government projects the entire NSPS — which involves more than just the resupply ships — will create about $2-billion in economic benefits per year. But similar projections predict the Canada-EU trade deal would benefit Canada to the tune of $12-billion per year. and the Canada-Korea agreeement, a further $1.6-billion per year ....

Although freer trade is a Conservative value, it would take mighty big political cojones to go this route - especially as an election creeps up.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Should have included that both the Tribals and Halifax class were well over budget.

Does anyone have any data for this?

Anecdotally I was told that the last few Hfx ships were ahead of schedule and under budget, and that the overall project was under the total budget, even thought the first few ships were more expensive.

That made sense, as the first ship was the most expensive, and the rest got faster and cheaper as they learned how to do the modular build.

No idea about the Tribals, although odds are generally good the projected costs were underestimated for TRUMP.

 

[AlexanderM]

My memory is that the Halifax class was very expensive.

 

[Underway]

Does anyone have any data for this?

Anecdotally I was told that the last few Hfx ships were ahead of schedule and under budget, and that the overall project was under the total budget, even thought the first few ships were more expensive.

That made sense, as the first ship was the most expensive, and the rest got faster and cheaper as they learned how to do the modular build.

No idea about the Tribals, although odds are generally good the projected costs were underestimated for TRUMP.

As I posted above the Halifax were right in the ball park for frigate programs at the time.  They were not significantly over budget.  However the way the govt does accounting now is significantly different.

 

[AlexanderM]

I remember thinking, when they were built, about how expensive they were, wish we could find the actual numbers somewhere.

 

[Halifax Tar]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/09/26/petrolekas-and-perry-buy-this-ship/

Very interesting...

 

[Kirkhill]

Maybe the Dutch could load it up with the 44 CV90s they want to get rid of as well as the additional 63 they bought but apparently didn't take delivery on.  (107 CV90s for those counting).

 

[The Bread Guy]

Stand by for an announcement Monday morning Vancouver time:

The Honourable Diane Finley, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, will make an important announcement about shipbuilding.
Date: Monday, October 7, 2013
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Location:

Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards
50 Pemberton Avenue
North Vancouver, British Columbia

Also participating are:

    the Honourable Kellie Leitch, Minister of Labour and Minister of Status of Women;
    the Honourable James Moore, Minister of Industry; and
    John Weston, Member of Parliament for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast–Sea to Sky Country ....

Don't know if it's related, but 2 hours later, reporters get to read some documents in Ottawa about "a new Defence initiative" and get to talk to people they're not allowed to identify.