- Reaction score
- 4,848
- Points
- 1,160
We can't get surface combatants without major cost increases, yet someone is proposing we start a domestic submarine manufacturing capability from scratch? Waiter, I'll have what they're smoking...
PuckChaser said:We can't get surface combatants without major cost increases, yet someone is proposing we start a domestic submarine manufacturing capability from scratch? Waiter, I'll have what they're smoking...
Sorry to disappoint ArmyRick, but two carriers require more fighter planes than Canada currently owns and operates. :nod:
...
The maximum capacity for F-35s is reportedly 36 aircraft, but during routine operations, each carrier might have only a dozen F-35Bs on board...
http://breakingdefense.com/2015/09/uk-commits-to-2-carriers-fully-crewed-f-35b-numbers-tbd/
Italian Navy’s Offshore Patrol Vessel Plans (RCN?)
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/mark-collins-italian-navys-offshore-patrol-vessel-plans-rcn/
Seventh PPA ordered for Italian Navy
http://www.janes.com/article/55973/seventh-ppa-ordered-for-italian-navy
MarkOttawa said:JMT18325:
Or maybe a mix of CSCs and OPVs, especially if some hulls not built in Canada, er, Irving?
Orders:
Just one example.
Mark
Ottawa
Chris Pook said:I think the issue is, no matter what you call them, you always have a choice between high capability ships and low capability ships. Depending on how much water you want to put in you wine you can end up with 1 ship costing 20 Billion Dollars or 200 ships costing 100 Million Dollars. You can put 2800 people into the crew of you single 20 Billion Dollar ship or crew your 200 ships with 14 each.
Or you can build an assortment of ships on a sliding scale of capabilities for the same budget.
That discussion has to happen long before anybody starts asking me for any more tax dollars to build the ships they would like to sail.
Slainte.
Half Full said:What we need to do is stop trying to fit acquisitions to a fixed budget. Money should not drive strategy. We need the government to tell us exactly what their expectations of the Military are (capabilities, readiness levels, etc...), and then fund those requirements. I am hopeful that the Defence Policy Review will go a little ways towards that, however it will be flawed without an overarching Foreign Policy and National Security Policy reviews. All this talk about how many CSCs, how many OPVs, etc... mean absolutely nothing without a document/policy/strategy that indicates why, what, where and when we need the Navy (or the CAF for that matter).
Half Full said:What we need to do is stop trying to fit acquisitions to a fixed budget. Money should not drive strategy. We need the government to tell us exactly what their expectations of the Military are (capabilities, readiness levels, etc...), and then fund those requirements. I am hopeful that the Defence Policy Review will go a little ways towards that, however it will be flawed without an overarching Foreign Policy and National Security Policy reviews. All this talk about how many CSCs, how many OPVs, etc... mean absolutely nothing without a document/policy/strategy that indicates why, what, where and when we need the Navy (or the CAF for that matter).
Chris Pook said:Money drives everything. Full Stop.
Colin P said:In my perfect world you have a core of 1x AA/Command destroyer, 1x Mistral type ship, 1x full JSS, one of the Davie type light JSS, 1x sub on both coasts. Around that core you have a number of Halifax's, AOPS and Kingston class. That leaves 1 sub as a rover and one in refit
GENERAL
Basic functions
Amphibious transport, disaster relief, helicopter
operations, evacuation operations, operation
support, maintenance support, joint operations
command, training
Classification
Lloyd’s Register of Shipping: 100 A1,
Amphibious Transport Ship, both intact and
damage stability according SOLAS
DIMENSIONS
Length o.a. 133.00 m
Beam mld 24.80 m
Depth no.1 deck 15.00 m
Draught 5.20 m
Displacement full load 8300 tonnes
PERFORMANCE
Speed 16-20 knots
Range at 16 knots >6000 nm
Endurance 30+ days at sea crew only
15+ days at sea with full complement
PROPULSION SYSTEM
Propulsion system Diesel-Direct + PTI (hybrid)
Propulsion engines Diesel engines + Electrical motor
Propulsion power 12.000 kW
Propellers 2 x CPP
Bow thrusters 2 x
AUXILIARY SYSTEM
4 x Diesel generator sets
1 x Emergency diesel generator set
ACCOMMODATION
Air-conditioned spaces for 95 crew and 450 embarked marine
forces (troops), consisting of cabins, stores, galley, mess rooms and
sanitary spaces.
MEDICAL FACILITIES
Role 1, examination room, sickbay fitted for 6 patients and dentistry
facilities.
TRANSPORT CAPACITY
Flight deck 2 spots medium size helicopter (NH-90 o.e.)
1 spot suitable for heavy helicopter (Chinook o.e.)
Hangar 2 x medium size helicopter
Dock 2 x LCM-1706 or equivalent
Flight deck 1250 m²
400 lane meters
RoRo space 1100 m2
290 lane meters
Ship Stores 100 m2
Cargo/Ammo 480 m2
EQUIPMENT
Stern ramp 70 t
Side ramp 50 t
RO unit(s)
1 x Cargo elevator 25 t
2 x Deck crane 25 t
2 x LCVP in Davits
2 x fast RHIB
Cargo hatch
WEAPON & SENSOR SUITE
1 x 30mm gun
2 x .50 machine gun
2D Surveillance & target indication radar, IFF
Electronic support measures
Radar / electro optical fire control
Combat management system, CIC
Integrated internal & external communication system
NAUTICAL EQUIPMENT
Extensive navigational equipment, GMDSS, echo sounder, powerand
ship’s management system with integrated ECDIS.
OPTIONS
NBCD citadel
Wash down installation
Shock protection
Underwater noise reduction
Chris Pook said:What would happen if?
Rather than one BIG HONKING SHIP we were to consider basing our inshore/EEZ fleet on the small Enforcer class LPDs.
Instead of AOPS and MCDVs we were to base our EEZ force on the Enforcer 8000.
Consider putting 3 on each coast, two at sea at any time. They would provide a base of operations for helicopters, UAVs and high speed interceptors like the CB-90.
Baz said:Yep. If for no other reason as soon as the government said "what their expectations of the Military are,and then fund those requirements" every single empire and office in Ottawa would pile on about how thier pet project is part of those expectations, and the cost would run completely out of control. There is no way the government should, or will, give the military a blank cheque.
I think you are a little heavy: if you are going to have the Amphib it should be center of the task group and the Command ship, so:
1x Expediationary (ie Mistral or Canberra) type ship, 1x full JSS, one of the Davie type light JSS, 2 x sub on both coasts, around that core you have a number of Halifax replacements (like Type 31s with AAW capability, Strike [ie Tomahawk in VLS, with Standard SM-6, Harpoon until the replacement is here, and maybe ASROC], and basic littoral maneuver [ie maybe a stern ramp]) and AOPS. No destroyers, no Kingston (ie do not replace), and maybe as few as 4 Hailfax replacements per coast. Might need something light?
Rational: The Expeditionary, JSS, and light JSS are going to need down time, so it gives flexibility. Best case Expeditionary and JSS, pretty good Expeditionary and light JSS, acceptable JSS and light JSS, not desirable just one of them. Expeditionary stays with the task group while JSS / light JSS can make supply runs. Expeditionary makes a much better center of the TG and Command ship. However, those first three won't be cheap and need crew (and lot's of aircraft) so need to give somewhere, hence the much lower number of replacements for the Halifax's.
In my perfect world, international deployments would routinely be an Expeditionary, JSS, or light JSS plus one Halifax replacement to give flexibility forward all the time.
whiskey601 said:I think you may have just inadvertently made an argument along the lines of "quantity has qualities of it's own", in large or small numbers. Would not the concept of the two ships "at sea at any time" with their crews, helo's etc imply a very high operational cost and quickly induce a parts/life cycle attrition problem?
What is wrong with a a large number of far more basic (very basic) and cheaper to operate vessels and non shipborne maritime UAV's that do just as well. I realize this does not address the expeditionary capability, but we don't have one now.
I agree that nothing says "fuck off" to an adversary better than a fleet mix of heavy destroyers, submarines, fleet replenishment and support ships, along with LPH's and all the other kit. But again, the RCN does not have any of that now, except for the subs and some modernized frigates that (in a pragmatic sense) can barely defend themselves except for prosecuting a submarine. I think the case might be made for a better equipped RCN if it loses it's CF-18 aircover, the Aurora fleet fades away there is no suitable replacement for either. Not that I am wishing a pox on the RCAF...