New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

And more on the German Front - apparently this MKS-180 - which started life as a Korvette - is now supposed to be lower cost version of the F125 to supplement the F125 numbers.

Apparently the Korvette now displaces 5000 tons and is ice strengthened while maintaining 18 knot cruise (26 knot flank).  Also intended for 2 years on station with 4 month crew rotations.

An indepth early requirements outline for MRCS180 can be found here 

I'll recap it below for those who don't read German.



MKS180 will have:

a modular mission deck (375 m², 80t payload) (see below)
a heavy focus on MIO (see below)
hangar and aviation facilities for one large helicopter (13t) and two VTOL drones, both with organic support
weapons - comparable to K130:
standard self-defense package (two RAM Block 2, two or more 27mm guns, two to four MASS)
medium-calibre (76mm) main gun - larger calibre (127mm) for NGFS in discussion
ffbnw four heavy anti-ship/anti-surface missiles
MIO support as listed below
electronics - inbetween K130 and F125:
3D air surveillance radar and 2D surface radar
2-3 separate radar fire control systems (no illuminators though)
1-2 long-range IR/EO surveillance systems
EO/IR fire control systems on guns
ESM/EW systems
deployment, endurance and speed profile comparable to F125
ice capability (!!)
accomodations for 70 crew plus 70 additional (air crew + 50 troops)
MIO support:

same troop capacity as F125 (50 men)
two large RHIB/LCVP on davits
through deck on the upper deck for free movement of the protection detail on the ship to all sides
weapon stands for maritime protection detail for 360-degree protection, all semi-protected (armour) and NVG-capable:
multiple positions (360-degree) for .50cal HMGs and 40mm AGLs
multiple positions for ATGM, MANPADS and snipers, stabilized (!)
multiple positions for observers and commanders, overviewing deck and sea
armoured ready room for reinforcement troops
Module options stated so far include:

ASW - low-frequency towed array sonar plus ASW module for helicopter (dipping sonar, torpedoes)
MCM - mine detection sonar, possible minehunting drones
Mobile Command Support (forward naval HQ for joint operations)
Unlike LCS though MKS180 will not include procurement of modules, i.e. we're not buying a certain number of ASW ships and a certain number of MCM ships.



Planned timetable for introduction is:

2011 - Initial design phase

2012 - Design selection, detail design phase

2013 to 2015 - Specification (platform and system)

2016 - building contract

2019 to 2020 - commissioning of first unit

Budget is a bit hazy/conflicting, as a whole it seems to be a roughly two billion Euro project for six ships.

Link

Preliminary MKS180 design:
max 5000 tons displacement
crew: 140 standard + 70 additional accomodation
Operational: speed: 26 knots flank, 18 knots cruise at sea state 4; range: 4000 nm at 18 knots ; endurance 21 days without external support ; 2 years mission endurance (identical to F125)
Environment: All seas, i.e. including ice capability
Subsystems: one medium/large helo w/ AShM (max 15t), two UAVs, two RHIBs
Armament: 2 RAM Block 2, 2 MLG 27mm, 1 OTO 76mm, 2 MASS, ffbnw medium AShM
Sensors: Close-range 360-degree IR/radar, laser and radar detectors, EW (0.5 to 40 GHz), NBC detector suite
Mission modules:
EW/SIGINT
ASW w/ towed VDS (and ASW weaponry?)
MCM
diver support
MIO functionality:
armoured MG/AGL, ATGM, MANPADS, sniper, command posts (against .50cal)
armoured ready room (against .50cal)
armoured magazines (against .50cal)
restricted access to ship from all outside doors (PIN or card needed)

Link

 

[Underway]

Interesting article in Frontline Defence magazine.  Its a bit awkward to post as its a virtual magazine but pg 17 is where the warship design article starts.  The previous few pages are about fleet capability with RAdm Newton.

Of interest to the discussion here is the reference to the "Most Qualified Team (MQT)" vice the "Most Capable Design (MCD)" approach.  I find that particular bit of info very interesting.  First where does the article author get this idea from (references pls...)?  And doesn't this hamstring us again with a potential "made in Canada" design vice a MOTS solution?

I suppose the argument could be made that if you select the MQT they should have also previously designed a ship that would be in the competition for a MCD, so any ship that is built for Canada would have the bones or at least be an evolutionary variation of a MCD.  There is a risk here as well though.  As the article states:

Warship integration within a budget means solving the problem of global optimization between competing and sometimes contradictory performance.  Any complex system designer knows that a global optimum under constraints is rarely the addition of single-view optima.

The above quote was typed out and copied from the article referenced above.  Any differences between it and the printed content are my errors alone.

This shows why the MQT process might be a better one.  Its doubtful (read no chance) that Canadian electronic and weapons requirements will be exactly the same as another countries.  The RCN wanting to maximize performance will want a build that properly deals with the competing electronic/electromagnetic compatibility issues (one of the main advantage of a fixed build over the FLEX concept).  So sure use the base hull design of a F125 but the entire superstructure might be different to account for RCN fire control, comms etc...  Thus an MCD (MOTS) might not necessarily be the best, but a 50% MOTS combined with MQT concept might be.

MQT might also be more important on the build side vs the design side, as described in the article the complexity of modular construction on a military vessel really needs a team that can take the drawings/plans and instruct/teach green warship builders.  With a MQT the integration process of all the systems might be better served in the Canadian context of the shipbuilding industry rebuild.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I like the following quote at the beginning of this article:

    "A modern warship is one of the most complex human-engineered systems on Earth, far more complex than any other single air or land vehicle. A warship is much more than a collection of systems, and a warship provider is anything but an equipment retailer."

(my underlining)

As I keep trying to explain, there is no such thing as a MOTS warship, because there are no shelves. Not even for the set of plans.

Imagine that you would want CSC to be a Type 124 frigate. Just the mods to make the electrical system compatible with Canadian standards means you have to generate a complete new set of different plans (unlike a house where the electrician comes in after the structure is up and then decides where to put his stuff, on a warship, every wire's location is carefully planned in advance and evaluated for interference with everything else.). Same thing for planning the "plumbing" and DC/FF systems so they are adapted to the type of equipment we use and method of attack we have developed.

Add to that the fact that, we like to carry systems for C4I that make us fully compatible to seamlessly integrate into our own, a NATO or an American battle group, plus whatever "joint" electronics we will have to incorporate for the future (i.e. electronics that let us integrate with the Army's C4I systems) and again you have to change everything and how to integrate it for maximum effect.

Then you have to adapt to your most likely local weather in how you design the ship itself. For example, the Type 125's double large enclosed antennas for "aegis" type radars make for a tremendous superstructure surface to accrue icing in winter in Canadian waters. You have to take these things into consideration - just as the waves and thus spray, you will get on the Grand Banks and off Haida Gwaii.

IMO, in the end, CSC will be a purely Canadian design even if it borrows from the better practices of European designers.

 

[Spencer100]

Something interesting in the national post.  Davie trying to get in on the act.

http://www.canada.com/shipbuilding+program+headed+trouble/11057727/story.html

 

[Kirkhill]

Once a ship has been launched and in commission for 10 yrs or so - and the world has changed in terms of capabilities available and capabilities required - aren't the designers now constrained in their compromises by the ship as it actually is?

Don't they then have to make sacrifices in crew comfort, maintainability, loss of some previous capability, inability to fully exploit the new capability?

How long does the perfect solution stay perfect?

Alternately - should we be looking at our local environment or should be we looking at our most likely operational environment?  We are regularly informed there is a low threat level in Northern Waters and therefore we don't need constabulary patrols locally.  Conversely, all of our operational deployments appear to be in places where air-conditioning and liquid-cooled flight suits are of greater concern than de-icing.  If the AOPS and MCDVs (backed by SSKs, CP-140s and CF-18s) are all that are required for local sea control then should we be planning the CSC as a dedicated expeditionary platform with the expectation that it will likely be employed in warm waters?

 

[Underway]

Once a ship has been launched and in commission for 10 yrs or so - and the world has changed in terms of capabilities available and capabilities required - aren't the designers now constrained in their compromises by the ship as it actually is?

Don't they then have to make sacrifices in crew comfort, maintainability, loss of some previous capability, inability to fully exploit the new capability?

How long does the perfect solution stay perfect?

Well there is no perfect solution and never will be, but many of the concerns you speak of are extrinsic to the ship design itself and more of a concern regarding the battlespace.  What you want is the ship as it is to be the best it can be.  Someone once told me a ship is out of date the moment it is launched, which I took to mean that somewhere out there someone else has already come up with a better design using the lessons of the one you're building right now.  However if you design ships with some future proofing then perhaps you can negate that to some extent.

Alternately - should we be looking at our local environment or should be we looking at our most likely operational environment?  We are regularly informed there is a low threat level in Northern Waters and therefore we don't need constabulary patrols locally.  Conversely, all of our operational deployments appear to be in places where air-conditioning and liquid-cooled flight suits are of greater concern than de-icing.  If the AOPS and MCDVs (backed by SSKs, CP-140s and CF-18s) are all that are required for local sea control then should we be planning the CSC as a dedicated expeditionary platform with the expectation that it will likely be employed in warm waters?

Most of our sailing is in local environments.  It's one of those things where if we can operate locally we can operate anywhere.  We are a bit blessed that way.  I had an Aussie onboard during a RAS that was in complete shock that we were doing it in fog and a high sea state.  She stated that they would never do an evolution like that in Australia because of the risk (I might be exagerating a bit but you get the picture).  I told her that if we waited till the weather was nice we would never do a RAS at all!

@Spencer100:  I suspect the resitance to this plan from DND is because they (we) are worried that we won't get the Berlins at all if we do a interim replacement.  Stopgaps becoming the actual solutions is a bit of a Canadian tradition (Cougars anyone??).  As described it would work fairly but I doubt that this is going to be the actual case.  Also there's the deployment of said resource as Davie wants to crew it as well.  So many questions on that.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

Isn't this a bit cart before the horse?  Since we have no idea what a future UUV launch/revcovery system would look like the UUV developers might work within the constraints that the ship already has.  Launch via davit or perhaps the torpedo tubes.  Perhaps VLS launched UAV's etc...  or a small enough launch/recovery system that can fit onboard the ships existing space.  A launch recovery system that can be set up or taken down quickly off of the flight deck.  There are so many options that don't require a ship to be redesigned.

I would say it makes more sense to anticipate the direction.  If they build without having thought through, everything will be jerry-rigged solutions. 

To my specific vision of designing a system of 5-6 tethered UUV's with their propulsion being fed from ship systems:
1.  That's a big electrical draw - Is there going to be an ability to add that electricity after the propulsion system is designed and installed?
2.  If you haven't figured out the deployment mechanism to get all of them out and back again, do you really think that's something you're going to be able to add with such limited deck space.

Bottom Line is these guys have one chance to build in the flexibility to make some of these retrofits later - they better do it right. 


Matthew. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

We had a very through brief from a member of the FELEX QA Det today, on what has gone on with the East Coast project.  The more I hear of some of the antics of the Irving yard the angrier I get.  I wish we could clone SeaSpan and have them in both coasts.

 

[Eland2]

I like the following quote at the beginning of this article:

    "A modern warship is one of the most complex human-engineered systems on Earth, far more complex than any other single air or land vehicle. A warship is much more than a collection of systems, and a warship provider is anything but an equipment retailer."

(my underlining)

As I keep trying to explain, there is no such thing as a MOTS warship, because there are no shelves. Not even for the set of plans.

Imagine that you would want CSC to be a Type 124 frigate. Just the mods to make the electrical system compatible with Canadian standards means you have to generate a complete new set of different plans (unlike a house where the electrician comes in after the structure is up and then decides where to put his stuff, on a warship, every wire's location is carefully planned in advance and evaluated for interference with everything else.). Same thing for planning the "plumbing" and DC/FF systems so they are adapted to the type of equipment we use and method of attack we have developed.

Add to that the fact that, we like to carry systems for C4I that make us fully compatible to seamlessly integrate into our own, a NATO or an American battle group, plus whatever "joint" electronics we will have to incorporate for the future (i.e. electronics that let us integrate with the Army's C4I systems) and again you have to change everything and how to integrate it for maximum effect.

Then you have to adapt to your most likely local weather in how you design the ship itself. For example, the Type 125's double large enclosed antennas for "aegis" type radars make for a tremendous superstructure surface to accrue icing in winter in Canadian waters. You have to take these things into consideration - just as the waves and thus spray, you will get on the Grand Banks and off Haida Gwaii.

IMO, in the end, CSC will be a purely Canadian design even if it borrows from the better practices of European designers.

For what it's worth - and I know I'm going off on a tangent here, but I recently saw a Youtube video about the new Australian frigates that are expected to come online in the next five years or so. They're based on a Spanish frigate design.

But what I found really interesting is that these ships will have a red kangaroo painted on the sides of the Aegis-style radomes the ships will have (our City class frigates have a red maple leaf painted on the exhaust funnel), and the Harpoon launchers are arranged in exactly the same way they are on our City class frigates. Forward of the bridge on the Australian ships there is a VLS array for Standard-2 and Sea Sparrow missiles, not unlike the old Tribal class destroyers. The new Australian ships even look a bit reminiscent of the City class ships when seen from a distance.

So it appears that our Australian cousins have 'Australianized' their new frigates to suit Australian maritime and operational conditions and borrowed a few features from our ships.

So yes, building a new class of ships involves customizing the basic design to fit national requirements, while other bits and pieces of useful features are borrowed from other ship designs and other countries' navies, and I would expect the upcoming CSC ships to be no different in this regard.

 

[Monsoon]

We had a very through brief from a member of the FELEX QA Det today, on what has gone on with the East Coast project.  The more I hear of some of the antics of the Irving yard the angrier I get.  I wish we could clone SeaSpan and have them in both coasts.

To be fair to Irving, SeaSpan has never delivered projects of the complexity we're asking of Irving with CSC. And I'm guessing the QA guy you talked to had mostly only worked with Irving. The job of QA is to spot faults; that tends to dim their view of whoever they work with.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

A fairer comparison would be to see what the QA differences are between Irving and Victoria Shipyards Ltd.

That would be genuinely interesting.

 

[FSTO]

To be fair to Irving, SeaSpan has never delivered projects of the complexity we're asking of Irving with CSC. And I'm guessing the QA guy you talked to had mostly only worked with Irving. The job of QA is to spot faults; that tends to dim their view of whoever they work with.

The HCM Upgrade is the same type of work for both shipyards. Irving's product for refits and upgrades have been A poor second to Seaspan for years.
Their (IRVING) history does not give me the warm and fuzzy when it comes to CSC.

(edit to clarify last sentence)

 

[jollyjacktar]

The HCM Upgrade is the same type of work for both shipyards. Irving's product for refits and upgrades have been A poor second to Seaspan for years.
Their (IRVING) history does give me the warm and fuzzy when it comes to CSC.

Exactly and bang on comment.

To be fair to Irving, SeaSpan has never delivered projects of the complexity we're asking of Irving with CSC. And I'm guessing the QA guy you talked to had mostly only worked with Irving. The job of QA is to spot faults; that tends to dim their view of whoever they work with.

Fair to Irving my ass.  The FELEX/HCM staff on both coasts speak to each other.  There's nothing complex about using the wrong materials to braze pipe and fittings together, then trying to cover their tracks when caught and causing even more headaches for down the road, just as one example.  SeaSpan actually tries to and delivers better quality workmanship without all the effing games played by the other yard. 

Now to be fair to Irving (even though it hurts me to do so), not all of their product is shyte.  Just far too much more than I, as an end user and taxpayer want to be willing to put up with.

 

[Good2Golf]

Something interesting in the national post.  Davie trying to get in on the act.

http://www.canada.com/shipbuilding+program+headed+trouble/11057727/story.html

Spencer100, given I'm a green flying guy with not much knowledge of grey stuff, how does this possibility (Davie) compare with, say, leasing or buying or whatever, one of those US Navy surplus AORs?  I look at the spec on those and while they seem like they would consume a lot of fuel aren't they a proven capability that could cover the gap between our decommissioned AORs and the JSS?  Couldn't we get one fairly quickly (not sure of the actual mechanism?) if the US Navy already has them in storage?

Regards
G2G

 

[George Wallace]

Now to be fair to Irving (even though it hurts me to do so), not all of their product is shyte.  Just far too much more than I, as an end user and taxpayer want to be willing to put up with.

Having seen some of their work on CN Marine ferries, I have little faith in Irving products. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

Agreed, George.  We don't either.  I have yet to come across anyone in the fleet who does.  Alas, we have to put up with it because it's out of our hands and we gets what we get...

 

[jollyjacktar]

Spencer100, given I'm a green flying guy with not much knowledge of grey stuff, how does this possibility (Davie) compare with, say, leasing or buying or whatever, one of those US Navy surplus AORs?  I look at the spec on those and while they seem like they would consume a lot of fuel aren't they a proven capability that could cover the gap between our decommissioned AORs and the JSS?  Couldn't we get one fairly quickly (not sure of the actual mechanism?) if the US Navy already has them in storage?

Regards
G2G

We'll be better off with contracting an ally to RAS us at sea as needed.  We're flat ass broke and having trouble putting certain trades at sea with enough bums in seats as it is right now.  If the wait was far longer than it "should" be for the first of the Berlin's maybe going the extra distance might be worth the effort.  I just don't think it's a viable option right now.

 

[Good2Golf]

JJT, thanks. From a frugality/pragmatic viewpoint, you're probably right. Would there be occasions where Canada would have ships operate where the USN or NATO wasn't? Definitely a cost vs capability thing to consider.  Seems that the discussions Spencer100 noted with Davie indicates that someone is putting some thought to a temporary capability.  How fast could a new pennant number be painted into a spare Fast Supply ship?

 

[jollyjacktar]

There can't be too many places I could think of that some allied tanker of sorts wouldn't be in the vicinity as needed.  The USN operate just about everywhere as do the RN on the Atlantic side of things.  The RN usually have an RFA tanker on station in the interesting places such as the Caribbean for example or the Med etc.  And of course there's nothing saying you can't pull in somewhere if you need to refuel as well.  When I did OP CARIBBE in 2011, we used the RFA Ware Ruler for a RAS once or twice and pulled into port for the other times we needed fuel/groceries.

That being said, I am sure there is "someone" who's been tasked to come up with various contingency plans for options on a way ahead until we get our legs back.

 

[Good2Golf]

Thanks JJT, good to know that kind of background.  Much obliged.

regards
G2G