New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Colin Parkinson]

You will improve retention and recruiting of sailors if you mange to get enough of them, so they can have a life outside of jumping from ship to ship. Also proper housing, decent educational opportunities for them and their families and amenities either on base or close by.

Life outside of the CAF is getting harder, so the opportunity to offer a good life and career in the CAF is something we need to grab now. Housing and new recreational facilities on bases need to be built ASAP.

Offer something involving the Cadet programs to make joining the CAF more attractive, that applies to all of the branches. Perhaps skipping basic and straight into trades if they have met criteria X in their program. A Cadet just showing up 1 night a week gets 960hrs of training from 12-19years, that's a 120x 8hrs of training. Throw in a summer course which mimics the requirements of basic and signing bonus and you have yet another stream of already basic trained young people, who can go straight into trade training.

 

[Stoker]

You will improve retention and recruiting of sailors if you mange to get enough of them, so they can have a life outside of jumping from ship to ship. Also proper housing, decent educational opportunities for them and their families and amenities either on base or close by.

Life outside of the CAF is getting harder, so the opportunity to offer a good life and career in the CAF is something we need to grab now. Housing and new recreational facilities on bases need to be built ASAP.

Offer something involving the Cadet programs to make joining the CAF more attractive, that applies to all of the branches. Perhaps skipping basic and straight into trades if they have met criteria X in their program. A Cadet just showing up 1 night a week gets 960hrs of training from 12-19years, that's a 120x 8hrs of training. Throw in a summer course which mimics the requirements of basic and signing bonus and you have yet another stream of already basic trained young people, who can go straight into trade training.

While it's great to look for creative solutions to CAF recruitment and retention challenges, we need to be cautious about overstating the role of the Cadet program as a direct pipeline into the Regular or Reserve Force. Cadets is a youth development program, not a military pre-enlistment system. It’s explicitly non-military in its legal and functional mandate, and attempting to turn it into a shortcut to bypass Basic Training undermines both programs. We are very fortunate that we gain some from the cadets as it, especially when there are quite a few people out there who see the cadet movement akin to training child soldiers and would love nothing more to remove the military culture altogether.

Yes, cadets receive structured instruction and develop leadership, fitness, and citizenship. But showing up once a week and attending a few summer courses is not equivalent to the rigor, standardization, and intensity of Basic Training. The environment, expectations, and responsibilities are fundamentally different. Fast tracking cadets into trades risks creating capability gaps and morale issues among those who came through the proper intake and training pipelines.

That said, there is room to create more formal CAF entry incentives for cadets, such as:

• Recognition of prior learning (e.g., PLAR credits for certain skills).
• Recruiting bonuses or educational grants for cadets who join.
• Streamlined processing for cadets with certain completed levels (e.g., leadership courses).

But skipping BMQ altogether? That’s a bridge too far it dilutes standards and misrepresents what cadet training is meant to be.

The real path to better retention is what you also pointed out: stable crewing, reliable housing, educational support for families, and modern base amenities. I would even go as far as access and providing medical care to families and guaranteed childcare. These are the structural reforms that matter. Not cutting corners on military training.
Let’s invest in the cadet program as a leadership incubator, not a fast track enlistment shortcut.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Cadets were formed explicitly for that role. Having a program within the overall Cadet program where Cadets who are interested in the CAF can use it and work towards that goal is a good idea. We have to move past that idea that it is separate, because it really is not. It's like any other apprentice program and can be used as such to speed up the career path of someone who is keen. As the program gets going, possibly have their medical and security clearance done between their 17th and 18th birthday.

 

[Swampbuggy]

CMMC is now Continental Defence Corvette (CDC). They changed the name to not pigeonhole the project.

If the role of continental defence includes some form of ABM, possibly directed by some other source though fired from the CDC, would it not require at minimum 16 VLS silos? 8 for quad pack ESSM but the second 8 for Standard family missiles?

 

[Stoker]

Cadets were formed explicitly for that role. Having a program within the overall Cadet program where Cadets who are interested in the CAF can use it and work towards that goal is a good idea. We have to move past that idea that it is separate, because it really is not. It's like any other apprentice program and can be used as such to speed up the career path of someone who is keen. As the program gets going, possibly have their medical and security clearance done between their 17th and 18th birthday.

Originally yes but that has changed over the years and for good reason. The Cadet Program is not a military apprenticeship anymore, the expectations today is to develop citizenship, leadership, and fitness, not to serve as a recruiting pipeline. While some Cadets do join the CAF, most do not, and suggesting the program should formally prepare youth for joining the CAF undermines its broader purpose and risks alienating participants.

Doing medical and security screening within Cadets raises serious privacy and consent issues, especially for minors who haven’t committed to joining. The CAF already has multiple entry paths forcing recruitment infrastructure into Cadets is unnecessary and inappropriate.

If we want to support interested Cadets, optional bridges to the CAF can be built without turning a civilian youth program into a military prep school. If they are truly interested they will upon being aged out walk into the nearest recruiting office.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You don't need to adapt the program, but have those Cadets who are interested, opt into that portion of the program and yes they would need parental consent for the screening and medical bits. You find that you have sign a lot of consent form as your kid gets into their teens, so a few more will not make a huge difference.
Your option does not give them anything for the hardwork they have already put in, which kind of sucks, or are you trying to prepare them for all the sucky bits of the CAF and bureaucratic fumbling?

If the military does not want to use it as a potentiel pipeline, why are the officers commissioned and a portion of the funding comes from the DND budget? A holdover from when it was a pipeline, perhaps?

 

[Kirkhill]

If the role of continental defence includes some form of ABM, possibly directed by some other source though fired from the CDC, would it not require at minimum 16 VLS silos? 8 for quad pack ESSM but the second 8 for Standard family missiles?

You want ABM? Try SM3s. The launcher is the Lockheed Martin Mk70 Payload Delivery System. It has the footprint of a 40 ft Sea Can. It has 4 strike length cells capable of launching anything that the Mk 41 VLS can launch.

All you need is adaptable deck space. Maybe you only want two containers with 8 SM3s and enough deck space for UAV launch and recovery.

SM-3 Launched From Containerized VLS For The First Time - Naval News

A groundbreaking Ballistic Missile Defense test of the U.S. Navy Mark 70 Mod 1 Payload Delivery System was conducted last month in Hawaii.

www.navalnews.com

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to...

Vigilance Class and the Possibilities: Part 1 – Canadian Naval Review

By Mikael Perron, 20 July 2024 There were a lot of comments on the post concerning the Vigilance-class design. There were legitimate concerns and questions that remain unanswered. In the next few posts, I will let myself be optimistic and try to see what good that proposal could bring to the RCN.

www.navalreview.ca

Vigilance Class and the Possibilities: Part 2 – Canadian Naval Review

By Mikael Perron, 22 July 2024 Following my previous post about the Vigilance-class, let’s now take a closer look at Flight II. It is quite interesting that there is such a lot of capability for such a small ship, and that usually requires many specialized sailors for maintenance and operation.

www.navalreview.ca

 

[Stoker]

You don't need to adapt the program, but have those Cadets who are interested, opt into that portion of the program and yes they would need parental consent for the screening and medical bits. You find that you have sign a lot of consent form as your kid gets into their teens, so a few more will not make a huge difference.
Your option does not give them anything for the hardwork they have already put in, which kind of sucks, or are you trying to prepare them for all the sucky bits of the CAF and bureaucratic fumbling?

If the military does not want to use it as a potentiel pipeline, why are the officers commissioned and a portion of the funding comes from the DND budget? A holdover from when it was a pipeline, perhaps?

What you're proposing sounds reasonable in theory, but in practice, it risks undermining the very foundation of the Cadet Program and could realistically lead to its end.

Turning the program into a formal military pipeline, even as an opt in track, fundamentally changes its nature. Once you start integrating medical screenings, security clearances, and career fast-tracking into a youth program, it stops being a leadership and citizenship initiative and becomes a recruiting apparatus. That would trigger serious public backlash from parents, schools, and communities who support the Cadet Program because it’s explicitly not about pushing kids into uniformed service.


That perception shift alone could cause a political and public relations disaster. The Cadet Program has survived and thrived for decades precisely because it is non compulsory, inclusive, and civilian in spirit even with DND support. Trying to militarize it, even partially, could lead to calls to defund it, sever ties with DND, or shut it down altogether.


And let’s not pretend Cadets don’t already get something out of it. They walk away with leadership skills, resilience, summer jobs, life experience, and a leg up on any path they choose including the CAF. But turning that into a pipeline doesn’t reward their hard work it risks destroying the very program that gave them those opportunities in the first place.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I get your concern, but I still disagree with you, I think it can be done in a way to mitigate the concerns you have.

Back to the thread subject, Canadian firms are busy with positioning for the US icebreaker contracts:

A consortium of Finnish and Canadian firms aims to construct two medium-sized Arctic Security Cutter icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard.

According to reports Finland’s Rauma Marine Construction (RMC) is proposing to team up with Canadian builder Seaspan. RMC would adapt and build Seaspan’s Multi-Purpose Icebreaker (MPI) design under license as bases for the Arctic Security Cutter. Finnish engineering design company, Aker Arctic, who did original work on the MPI would round out the consortium.

With an established design and RMC’s track record of completing comparable vessels in under 36 months, the two icebreakers could enter into service by the end of 2028; before the end of President Trump’s time in office.


Rival Canadian builder Davie continues to position itself to produce icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard. Weeks after it secured shipyard assets in Texas it bought a Finnish steelmaker last week to complement its prior investment in Helsinki Shipyards. The investment in Enersense Offshore Oy, a specialized steel and fabrication operation, gives the Helsinki yard access to its own steel production facility, key to streamlining all aspects of vessel construction and meeting the 36-months stipulation for the Arctic Security Cutter.

Finnish and Canadian Firms Make a Move to Build ‘Arctic Security Cutter’ Icebreaker for U.S. Coast Guard by 2028

A consortium of Finnish and Canadian firms aims to construct two medium-sized Arctic Security Cutter icebreakers for the U.S. Coast Guard. According to reports Finland’s Rauma Marine Construction is proposing to team up with Canadian builder Seaspan. RMC would adapt and build Seaspan’s...

gcaptain.com

 

[Rainbow1910]

If the role of continental defence includes some form of ABM, possibly directed by some other source though fired from the CDC, would it not require at minimum 16 VLS silos? 8 for quad pack ESSM but the second 8 for Standard family missiles?

If you are operating as a relatively local extension of the NORAD defensive grid, you generally won't need to be carrying a robust self defence capability. Ideally the vessel will retain something like its main gun, RAM and various other countermeasures to protect itself if absolutely required.

 

[Underway]

If the role of continental defence includes some form of ABM, possibly directed by some other source though fired from the CDC, would it not require at minimum 16 VLS silos? 8 for quad pack ESSM but the second 8 for Standard family missiles?

Its seems that the CDC will likely not be part of an BMD option. There are other effector options that should be optioned first. Trying to cram a strike length VLS into that hull, may not be cost or size wise possible. (yes I go back and forth on this).

I think the ideal Corvette loadout would be.

24 Sea Ceptor from 6 ExLS launchers (self defence missiles, small footprint, cold launch, CMS 330 integrated already).
40mm or 57mm forward
30mm gun aft (same as the RCD's if possible) - self contained optics for fire control
1x 3D radar
1x FCS
Hull mounted sonar

The payload packages would be:

NSM launchers (8)
Towed array sonar (CANTASS style, like the COBRA or somesuch)
UXV control stations and launching points
Surface Launched Torp Tubes to launch torps or a torp magazine to supply UAV dropped torps.

As for containerized SM3's or SM2's thats a neat concept, but its a lot of container for limited effect. I'm not convinced by them at all.

 

[MTShaw]

Its seems that the CDC will likely not be part of an BMD option. There are other effector options that should be optioned first. Trying to cram a strike length VLS into that hull, may not be cost or size wise possible. (yes I go back and forth on this).

I think the ideal Corvette loadout would be.

24 Sea Ceptor from 6 ExLS launchers (self defence missiles, small footprint, cold launch, CMS 330 integrated already).
40mm or 57mm forward
30mm gun aft (same as the RCD's if possible) - self contained optics for fire control
1x 3D radar
1x FCS
Hull mounted sonar

The payload packages would be:

NSM launchers (8)
Towed array sonar (CANTASS style, like the COBRA or somesuch)
UXV control stations and launching points
Surface Launched Torp Tubes to launch torps or a torp magazine to supply UAV dropped torps.

As for containerized SM3's or SM2's thats a neat concept, but its a lot of container for limited effect. I'm not convinced by them at all.

Or a Mk49 launcher for RAM. Or 2x like the K130 from Germany.

Braunschweig-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Underway]

Or a Mk49 launcher for RAM. Or 2x like the K130 from Germany.

Braunschweig-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm not a huge fan of RAM as the only hard kill missile intercept, especially when it overlaps in ranges with the main gun. I wonder about layering the defense correctly and not running interference between system.

RAM is a close in defence, but ESSM or Sea Ceptor has some reach.

You could forgo a 30mm gun and take a RAM instead. So Sea Ceptor, RAM and 40mm is a prickly procupine, but then I wonder about the number of people required for something like that.

Braunschweig class is one of my favourites. I like that it has MASS. It's clearly designed for the Baltics though.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I'm not a huge fan of RAM as the only hard kill missile intercept, especially when it overlaps in ranges with the main gun. I wonder about layering the defense correctly and not running interference between system.

RAM is a close in defence, but ESSM or Sea Ceptor has some reach.

You could forgo a 30mm gun and take a RAM instead. So Sea Ceptor, RAM and 40mm is a prickly procupine, but then I wonder about the number of people required for something like that.

Braunschweig class is one of my favourites. I like that it has MASS. It's clearly designed for the Baltics though.

I imagine when we’re starting to talk about a ship, even in the size they’re forecasting, with true combat capability, it will need to be built to a higher survivability standard than AOPS/MVDC etc. Would you see this ship have a CBRN citadel, for instance?

 

[MTShaw]

I'm not a huge fan of RAM as the only hard kill missile intercept, especially when it overlaps in ranges with the main gun. I wonder about layering the defense correctly and not running interference between system.

RAM is a close in defence, but ESSM or Sea Ceptor has some reach.

You could forgo a 30mm gun and take a RAM instead. So Sea Ceptor, RAM and 40mm is a prickly procupine, but then I wonder about the number of people required for something like that.

Braunschweig class is one of my favourites. I like that it has MASS. It's clearly designed for the Baltics though.

M initial problem is the adoption of the exVLS. Canada is the only user of this system afaik. I should have made that clearer in my initial post. Dead end system when one 8 cell will do. Unless CAMM can’t be launched from and standard mk41. The MK49 is used b multiple nations.

 

[Underway]

M initial problem is the adoption of the exVLS. Canada is the only user of this system afaik. I should have made that clearer in my initial post. Dead end system when one 8 cell will do. Unless CAMM can’t be launched from and standard mk41. The MK49 is used b multiple nations.

Brazil is using the ExLS but point taken. However an 8 cell Mk41 VLS uses about tfour times the space an ExLS will with only a third or less more firepower.

You could still have Sea Ceptor but go with the "mushroom farm" launcher configuration the Chile, NZ and UK are using.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I'm not a huge fan of RAM as the only hard kill missile intercept, especially when it overlaps in ranges with the main gun. I wonder about layering the defense correctly and not running interference between system.

RAM is a close in defence, but ESSM or Sea Ceptor has some reach.

You could forgo a 30mm gun and take a RAM instead. So Sea Ceptor, RAM and 40mm is a prickly procupine, but then I wonder about the number of people required for something like that.

Braunschweig class is one of my favourites. I like that it has MASS. It's clearly designed for the Baltics though.

It is either going to be RAM or CAMM, not both on a single ship. I could have seen CAMM if it had been maintained aboard the River class but now that such a ship has sailed, I don't see it as especially smart logistics to readopt that missile system yet again. Nobody on Earth is running CAMM and RAM combined on a ship except for Saudi Arabia on their monstrous LCS variants, and I can't say anybody should be taking advice from their procurements besides what not to do.

The newest Blocks of RAM can reach out to 15km as a publicly disclosed range, the modern variants of the 40mm have a range of 12.5km, the 57mm is something like 17km and CAMM is listed as 25km maximum. If RAM only isn't viewed as acceptable, I'd rather see ESSM adopted instead (50km+) versus an entirely different missile/VLS combo that we already cast aside once. It might have a larger footprint, but it's providing a substantially more capable system within a VLS that can be also used for other purposes vs ExLS. It's also a system we have a direct development stake in given we're part of the ESSM Consortium.

 

[Navy_Pete]

So what ships in the fleet do we park to sail the corvettes when we don't manage to double the number of trained sailors (including generating POs and Chiefs) in the next 10 years?

 

[FSTO]

So what ships in the fleet do we park to sail the corvettes when we don't manage to double the number of trained sailors (including generating POs and Chiefs) in the next 10 years?

I guess the Navy needs to get some training done!