New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Spencer100]

We aren't really seeing capabilities dropped; what we're seeing is the 'operator wish list' being pared down to what is realistic and affordable. Some of the things they wanted to do are competing priorities, so you need to figure out a balance, and others were just rectal plucks that don't actually fit into the ship.

If you think of the operators as a spoiled, whiny pre-teen with an insane Xmas list, this is just the adults putting their big person pants on and vetting what Santa is going to deliver.

I think if they come in as advertised. They will be some of the best in the world. (24 VLS maybe a little light LOL)

I think the institutional memory is playing apart too. The Patrol Frigate program was to be 18 ships. Cut to 12 but the last batch was to be the AAW units to replace the Tribals. The navy did not get them which has hamstrung them to this day. The navy only gets to do this exercise once every two generations so you better get everything you want as you will only have one shot at it.

To that end I have read that studies shown that the one class of do everything ship is unique Canadian requirement that makes the most sense for the RCN. The RCN is unique in that it is a really two navies. The thinking is having 4 to 5 GP ships and a couple of AAW C&C ships on each coast was not the right mix. Having 6-7 GP with AAW is a better plan. If one ship is down send the next they are the same.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think if they come in as advertised. They will be some of the best in the world. (24 VLS maybe a little light LOL)

I think the institutional memory is playing apart too. The Patrol Frigate program was to be 18 ships. Cut to 12 but the last batch was to be the AAW units to replace the Tribals. The navy did not get them which has hamstrung them to this day. The navy only gets to do this exercise once every two generations so you better get everything you want as you will only have one shot at it.

To that end I have read that studies shown that the one class of do everything ship is unique Canadian requirement that makes the most sense for the RCN. The RCN is unique in that it is a really two navies. The thinking is having 4 to 5 GP ships and a couple of AAW C&C ships on each coast was not the right mix. Having 6-7 GP with AAW is a better plan. If one ship is down send the next they are the same.

May I introduce you to the Type 31 ?

Type 31 frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Spencer100]

May I introduce you to the Type 31 ?

Type 31 frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yup

Here is the piece I was referring too. It mentions the T-31, Hunter and the Baseline T-26

The Future Canadian Surface Combatant

Canada’s next warship will be operationally focused, value conscious, and technology enabled.

www.usni.org

 

[childs56]

Only the Brits are going with dedicated hulls. The Brits don't have the 3 coast issues that we have , effectively forcing us to have two navies, the same effect forced major design limitations on the USN till post WWII and still influences their ships buying/building. Both Canada and the Aussies are going with one ship- two jobs, it's not perfect, but we are actually I think doing it better than the Aussies.

Britan has a worse issue the we do. They not only have a set of Island to protect, they have to monitor multiple areas close to the potential enemy. That they use regularly to transit through.
We have a large coast line which requires more

We aren't really seeing capabilities dropped; what we're seeing is the 'operator wish list' being pared down to what is realistic and affordable. Some of the things they wanted to do are competing priorities, so you need to figure out a balance, and others were just rectal plucks that don't actually fit into the ship.

If you think of the operators as a spoiled, whiny pre-teen with an insane Xmas list, this is just the adults putting their big person pants on and vetting what Santa is going to deliver.

Yet the bid was for X capabilities and accepted as such. Then we started to axe speed, then distance, while increasing cost substantially and possibly systems integration. But time will tell how this project pans out.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I think the reality is most frigates are really multirole ships now, and with VLS that gives us a lot of different options for the loadout.

We are way too small to support multiple classes of warships though, so aside from some kind of mission kit packup option, a good multirole CSC is probably the best option. Combined with JSS, that's the pretty good skeleton to add to a multi-nation task group, with pretty flexible standalone options for a wide variety of missions.

Might not do any one thing exceptionally well, but if we crew them properly and maintain the current level of training and experience, they will provide some pretty effective capabilities.

So the cynic in me says we'll probably dumb training down further, go down to a skeleton crew, skip maintenance, and then be surprised if it doesn't perform.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Yet the bid was for X capabilities and accepted as such. Then we started to axe speed, then distance, while increasing cost substantially and possibly systems integration. But time will tell how this project pans out.

The RFP had all kinds of caveats; requirements are still getting locked down. Pretty normal to have general high level performance goals, and then work through capability trade offs during the design spiral. At different points they'll run into something where they project will have to choose what performance spec wins.

Not on CSC, but one example that comes to mind was on one ship to meet the fuel/water storage requirements without changing the hull shape (which changes speed and other things) was the deck height would be way to low, so compromises were required.

As you add on a huge amount of weight, the top speed may drop, but if you need to double your horse power to get another knot, or spend $50M to redesign the hull (plus delay), can you live with that? Can you live with reduced weight?

It's complex, and no one on the planet would bid against fixed detailed performance requirements until the detailed design is locked in. Expecting them to deliver exaclty the ship that was in the broad strokes goal 12 years ago before a design was even selected is completely unreasonable.

 

[childs56]

The RFP had all kinds of caveats; requirements are still getting locked down. Pretty normal to have general high level performance goals, and then work through capability trade offs during the design spiral. At different points they'll run into something where they project will have to choose what performance spec wins.

Not on CSC, but one example that comes to mind was on one ship to meet the fuel/water storage requirements without changing the hull shape (which changes speed and other things) was the deck height would be way to low, so compromises were required.

As you add on a huge amount of weight, the top speed may drop, but if you need to double your horse power to get another knot, or spend $50M to redesign the hull (plus delay), can you live with that? Can you live with reduced weight?

It's complex, and no one on the planet would bid against fixed detailed performance requirements until the detailed design is locked in. Expecting them to deliver exaclty the ship that was in the broad strokes goal 12 years ago before a design was even selected is completely unreasonable.

How would you explain MAERSK how they design a ship from start to finish, come out with a good design that exceeds their initial expectations.

I don't understand why Canada has to cut apart a well designed ship and add length and weight to it without knowing if it even works as planned. This is an example of "at all costs we will make it work, sort of". Not a way to forge things ahead for a long term sustainable ship building program.
These ships will be the only of their kind and such will become orphan ships. Will be modified just enough that other suppliers will not be able to provide us with parts. Typical of us to do.

The Halifax class ships were suppose to be the beginning of a ship building mecca for Canada. Keeping experience and such in house. Instead we built our ships and closed the lines down. At the time our Allies were envious of those ships and what they could do.

They have said starting a scratch built ship would add billions to the current project, we do not have the expertise to do this at this time. Yet we are modifying a ship to the point it isn't even the same hull design. I just hope the engineering is proper for what they are doing.

 

[Underway]

How would you explain MAERSK how they design a ship from start to finish, come out with a good design that exceeds their initial expectations.

I don't understand why Canada has to cut apart a well designed ship and add length and weight to it without knowing if it even works as planned. This is an example of "at all costs we will make it work, sort of". Not a way to forge things ahead for a long term sustainable ship building program.
These ships will be the only of their kind and such will become orphan ships. Will be modified just enough that other suppliers will not be able to provide us with parts. Typical of us to do.

The Halifax class ships were suppose to be the beginning of a ship building mecca for Canada. Keeping experience and such in house. Instead we built our ships and closed the lines down. At the time our Allies were envious of those ships and what they could do.

They have said starting a scratch built ship would add billions to the current project, we do not have the expertise to do this at this time. Yet we are modifying a ship to the point it isn't even the same hull design. I just hope the engineering is proper for what they are doing.

MAERSK doesn't design ships nor build them. They are a shipping company not a shipbuilding one and buy ships off the assembly line in Korea generally.

As far as ships being modified, the hull design for CSC and JSS aren't changing and the internal layouts are staying relatively the same (with a few modifications) from 1 deck down. AOPS was a scratch build.

 

[Spencer100]

How would you explain MAERSK how they design a ship from start to finish, come out with a good design that exceeds their initial expectations.

I don't understand why Canada has to cut apart a well designed ship and add length and weight to it without knowing if it even works as planned. This is an example of "at all costs we will make it work, sort of". Not a way to forge things ahead for a long term sustainable ship building program.
These ships will be the only of their kind and such will become orphan ships. Will be modified just enough that other suppliers will not be able to provide us with parts. Typical of us to do.

The Halifax class ships were suppose to be the beginning of a ship building mecca for Canada. Keeping experience and such in house. Instead we built our ships and closed the lines down. At the time our Allies were envious of those ships and what they could do.

They have said starting a scratch built ship would add billions to the current project, we do not have the expertise to do this at this time. Yet we are modifying a ship to the point it isn't even the same hull design. I just hope the engineering is proper for what they are doing.

Maersk is a shipping company. They buy ships and operate them. Are you thinking of OMT (Odense)? They built the Iver Huitfeldts but they had closed their shipyards. The hulls were built in Lithuania. OMT shipbuilding is closed down. Iver Huitfeldts are the basis of BMT and Babcock's T31 ships for RN

No wanted to buy the buy the Halifax's they did a full count press to the Saudis but they didn't bite. The government even paid to close the yard.

One more point even if purchased an as is design we would still need to change things even if just hotel systems. But the reason for many of the changes is beyond the extra stuff the RCN wants is swapping out some European system for North American standard and/or Canadian. Reason to increase Canadian industrial participation and the other for closer supply chain.

Oh that British keg system wouldn't work with a Keg of OV plus did have a fridge? Warm beer?

 

[childs56]

Maersk is a shipping company. They buy ships and operate them. Are you thinking of OMT (Odense)? They built the Iver Huitfeldts but they had closed their shipyards. The hulls were built in Lithuania. OMT shipbuilding is closed down. Iver Huitfeldts are the basis of BMT and Babcock's T31 ships for RN

They owned that ship yard and closed it down in 2009 and delivered their last ship around 2012 sometime.
They partnered up (signed contracts) with DAEWOO to build the larger ships with more efficient engineering/ construction program. Which was a smart move on their part. They are heavily involved in their design, testing and building of their ships.

No wanted to buy the buy the Halifax's they did a full count press to the Saudis but they didn't bite. The government even paid to close the yard.

Lots of countries were interested in the Halifax Class ship. Canada had to many things they were not willing to change, or not allowed to sell to foreign countries that they priced the ships out of their class for a foreign buyer.

One more point even if purchased an as is design we would still need to change things even if just hotel systems. But the reason for many of the changes is beyond the extra stuff the RCN wants is swapping out some European system for North American standard and/or Canadian. Reason to increase Canadian industrial participation and the other for closer supply chain.

Oh that British keg system wouldn't work with a Keg of OV plus did have a fridge? Warm beer?

 

[childs56]

MAERSK doesn't design ships nor build them.

I think you should look up their history and their current cooperation with Daewoo ship yards.

They are a shipping company not a shipbuilding one and buy ships off the assembly line in Korea generally.

As far as ships being modified, the hull design for CSC and JSS aren't changing and the internal layouts are staying relatively the same (with a few modifications) from 1 deck down. AOPS was a scratch build.

Lengthening, and widening the hull is not considered changing, along with the mast structure. Interesting.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Do I hear 2025?

Arctic naval refuelling station set to open in 2024, 9 years behind schedule​

An annual report for the Nanisivik naval project was submitted earlier this month to the Nunavut Impact Review Board by Defence Construction Canada on behalf of the Department of National Defence.

It showed no construction work was completed in 2021.

It also included details on planned work for 2022 — including commissioning of the facility.

The creation of the Arctic naval base in Nunavut has been in the works for years.

Ground was broken for the project in July 2015, however, former prime minister Stephen Harper first announced the project in 2007 and it was supposed to open in 2015. After several delays, it was announced in 2017 that the project was on track and on budget to open in fall 2018.
Those includes challenges due to weather, which the department says can "change quickly from sunny and calm to foggy and extreme wind and cold at any time, which forces a short construction season."

"Other challenges include those posed by wildlife and icebergs," Lamirande's email reads.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nanisivik-naval-base-nunavut-2023-update-1.6717971

 

[Stoker]

Do I hear 2025?

Arctic naval refuelling station set to open in 2024, 9 years behind schedule​

An annual report for the Nanisivik naval project was submitted earlier this month to the Nunavut Impact Review Board by Defence Construction Canada on behalf of the Department of National Defence.

It showed no construction work was completed in 2021.

It also included details on planned work for 2022 — including commissioning of the facility.

The creation of the Arctic naval base in Nunavut has been in the works for years.

Ground was broken for the project in July 2015, however, former prime minister Stephen Harper first announced the project in 2007 and it was supposed to open in 2015. After several delays, it was announced in 2017 that the project was on track and on budget to open in fall 2018.
Those includes challenges due to weather, which the department says can "change quickly from sunny and calm to foggy and extreme wind and cold at any time, which forces a short construction season."

"Other challenges include those posed by wildlife and icebergs," Lamirande's email reads.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/nanisivik-naval-base-nunavut-2023-update-1.6717971

I think they were pretty clear in why the project is delayed. What they don't mention is the years spent getting the former site owner to remediate the area, stabilizing the sinking jetty and the EA that was a nightmare as its a refueling station, in the Arctic. To do any construction up there its an nightmare. This is the sort of facility that needs to have no issues the first time although personally I would rather go to Nuuk or Thule to get fuel myself. Interesting fact when commissioned it will be filled by commercial tanker out of St.John's.

 

[Dana381]

I think if they come in as advertised. They will be some of the best in the world. (24 VLS maybe a little light LOL)

Can the VLS be reloaded underway? or are they only loaded at port?

Interesting fact when commissioned it will be filled by commercial tanker out of St.John's.

So more money for Irving, They know how to get those defense dollars.

 

[TacticalTea]

Can the VLS be reloaded underway? or are they only loaded at port?

I've never seen it done so I'll defer to USNI:

Navy Tests Reloading Missiles on Destroyer in San Diego Bay, Open Ocean Tests Tougher Task - USNI News

A pairing of a guided-missile destroyer and a supply ship in San Diego Bay last week was the Navy’s latest test to learn how to resupply its warships with missiles during a high-end conflict. The Military Sealift Command-sponsored reloading test matched USS Spruance (DDG-111) with the offshore...

news.usni.org

 

[Underway]

I think you should look up their history and their current cooperation with Daewoo ship yards.

Lengthening, and widening the hull is not considered changing, along with the mast structure. Interesting.

Exactly, Daewoo is the shipyard, who builds and designs the ships. Maersk I thought stopped building ships in 2009 (checks internet, yes no new build started since 2009 and finished last ship in 2012). So I'll eat the comment regarding Maersk. Mea culpa.

As for lengthing and widening the hull... JSS didn't do that, and CSC may have changed the width by less then a foot but I'm unsure of where they are for final design review. As for superstructure, I'm not considering that part of the hull as the hull is traditionally defined as the part of the ship in contact with the water and below the main deck. Anything above the main deck is superstructure.

So yes CSC and JSS both changed the superstructure. JSS added another clamshell door on the stbd side for storing ship but otherwise didn't change the hull dimensions.

 

[Dana381]

I've never seen it done so I'll defer to USNI:

Navy Tests Reloading Missiles on Destroyer in San Diego Bay, Open Ocean Tests Tougher Task - USNI News

A pairing of a guided-missile destroyer and a supply ship in San Diego Bay last week was the Navy’s latest test to learn how to resupply its warships with missiles during a high-end conflict. The Military Sealift Command-sponsored reloading test matched USS Spruance (DDG-111) with the offshore...

news.usni.org

Interesting so basically what they sail with is what they have for the duration of the mission. They have to find a port or a sheltered Harbour to reload. It makes dropping the 8 cells more serious than I first imagined. I guess I assumed they sailed with spares in the magazine that they could reload ar will.

 

[Underway]

Interesting so basically what they sail with is what they have for the duration of the mission. They have to find a port or a sheltered Harbour to reload. It makes dropping the 8 cells more serious than I first imagined. I guess I assumed they sailed with spares in the magazine that they could reload ar will.

Pretty much exactly as things are.

JSS is designed to carry missiles to reload VLS, and has the crane to do it as well, but it needs to be at anchor or alongside to do it safely. Certainly not as sea. Way to dangerous.

 

[childs56]

Exactly, Daewoo is the shipyard, who builds and designs the ships. Maersk I thought stopped building ships in 2009 (checks internet, yes no new build started since 2009 and finished last ship in 2012). So I'll eat the comment regarding Maersk. Mea culpa.

MAERSK Engineering works alongside Daewoo to design their new ships, they are right alongside every step of the way. It works really well as both companies work with each other in a positive manner to design and build their ships. Canada could learn a thing or two about that

As for lengthing and widening the hull... JSS didn't do that, and CSC may have changed the width by less then a foot but I'm unsure of where they are for final design review. As for superstructure, I'm not considering that part of the hull as the hull is traditionally defined as the part of the ship in contact with the water and below the main deck. Anything above the main deck is superstructure.

The JSS not sure about the specs. The CSC has a few feet added and they had talks about widening it a bit. Not sure where they went with that. Changing the super structure is a big deal on the CSC due to the COG and profile. I guess we will see what they actually come up with there might be a few major design changes coming down the line.

So yes CSC and JSS both changed the superstructure. JSS added another clamshell door on the stbd side for storing ship but otherwise didn't change the hull dimensions.

 

[childs56]

Interesting so basically what they sail with is what they have for the duration of the mission. They have to find a port or a sheltered Harbour to reload. It makes dropping the 8 cells more serious than I first imagined. I guess I assumed they sailed with spares in the magazine that they could reload ar will.

I do not know why they don't build a loading arm at the VLS deck that can reach all the hatches to load remove and load missiles. A bit of a pain but workable to make a set up that works. Then you can jackstay, helo over Missiles to the for deck/ launch deck. Use your fancy lift arm to load your self. You could even stack missile reloads on the deck if required.