New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[suffolkowner]

No. There is only 16 to 19 feet of water

dredging?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

View attachment 95919
from google maps. Accurate?

OK. So I cant see either subs or CDC parking on the side where there are only two, but based on max length mentioned by the Admiral, there would be room for two nested together, perhaps three on the side with three MCDV's in the picture.

No. There is only 16 to 19 feet of water

That could be more than sufficient depending on the actual draft of CDC. The German corvettes of the Braunschweig class draw only 11 feet 4 inches (that's two feet less than the old Gate Vessels and about the same as the MCDV's.

 

[Czech_pivo]

OK. So I cant see either subs or CDC parking on the side where there are only two, but based on max length mentioned by the Admiral, there would be room for two nested together, perhaps three on the side with three MCDV's in the picture.



That could be more than sufficient depending on the actual draft of CDC. The German corvettes of the Braunschweig class draw only 11 feet 4 inches (that's two feet less than the old Gate Vessels and about the same as the MCDV's.

Just spitballing here but the CDC is being talked about as being ice strengthened and a possible PC6. Won’t that extra weight mean a greater draught than a ship of similar length?

 

[Nvlgzr]

OK. So I cant see either subs or CDC parking on the side where there are only two, but based on max length mentioned by the Admiral, there would be room for two nested together, perhaps three on the side with three MCDV's in the picture.



That could be more than sufficient depending on the actual draft of CDC. The German corvettes of the Braunschweig class draw only 11 feet 4 inches (that's two feet less than the old Gate Vessels and about the same as the MCDV's.

The subs are going to require as much water under the keel as River class. More than 25 feet.

I see a few problems here. I doubt Y has the electric or plumbing services to accommodate larger vessels, you’re now picking a ship to fit the space, there is little space on the jetty to place materials, no crane….maybe it would make more sense to extend one or both fingers of C jetty

 

[Underway]

dredging?

With dynamite. Solid rock under the mud. Honestly if they go there they should go whole hog and just dig that entire bay out to be very deep and expand the jetty right up to CFB Naden's main road.

 

[Underway]

Just spitballing here but the CDC is being talked about as being ice strengthened and a possible PC6. Won’t that extra weight mean a greater draught than a ship of similar length?

Possibly.

Oh and to your earlier question regarding CDC numbers, they don't seem to know. As they define the requirements and potential loadout (mainly sensors) it will better inform the numbers.

Somewhere along the line they are going to say, we need ships at sea doing Y job. This job requires them to cover A and B amount of water/airspace based on N, O and P systems for Z amount of time (endurance). Therefore based on this information the calculation of ships needed is X times 3 (so you account for maintenance time and crew training time).

As you can see the numbers are going to vary wildly as they define what continental defence looks like, how the ships will be employed, where they need to be employed and what they are using to do that mission.

As such over the course of the brainstorming and further definition I've heard 6 ships, 12 ships, and some mad lad threw out 20 ships at some point. I suspect that the last number didn't account for UXV's for example doing a bunch of those boring, dangerous, dirty or repetative jobs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

With dynamite. Solid rock under the mud. Honestly if they go there they should go whole hog and just dig that entire bay out to be very deep and expand the jetty right up to CFB Naden's main road.

Yes I recall underwater blasting was required. Considering the Graving dock was a natural cove that was blasted and extended, certainly doable, even with our environmental regs.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Possibly.

Oh and to your earlier question regarding CDC numbers, they don't seem to know. As they define the requirements and potential loadout (mainly sensors) it will better inform the numbers.

Somewhere along the line they are going to say, we need ships at sea doing Y job. This job requires them to cover A and B amount of water/airspace based on N, O and P systems for Z amount of time (endurance). Therefore based on this information the calculation of ships needed is X times 3 (so you account for maintenance time and crew training time).

As you can see the numbers are going to vary wildly as they define what continental defence looks like, how the ships will be employed, where they need to be employed and what they are using to do that mission.

As such over the course of the brainstorming and further definition I've heard 6 ships, 12 ships, and some mad lad threw out 20 ships at some point. I suspect that the last number didn't account for UXV's for example doing a bunch of those boring, dangerous, dirty or repetative jobs.

Can you see the CDC only being stationed on one coast, vs both, and the Rivers being more heavily focused on the other? If so, which coast?

 

[Underway]

Can you see the CDC only being stationed on one coast, vs both, and the Rivers being more heavily focused on the other? If so, which coast?

Both coasts. More ships total on the East Coast. Mainly because East Coast has more area to cover.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Possibly.

Oh and to your earlier question regarding CDC numbers, they don't seem to know. As they define the requirements and potential loadout (mainly sensors) it will better inform the numbers.

Somewhere along the line they are going to say, we need ships at sea doing Y job. This job requires them to cover A and B amount of water/airspace based on N, O and P systems for Z amount of time (endurance). Therefore based on this information the calculation of ships needed is X times 3 (so you account for maintenance time and crew training time).

As you can see the numbers are going to vary wildly as they define what continental defence looks like, how the ships will be employed, where they need to be employed and what they are using to do that mission.

As such over the course of the brainstorming and further definition I've heard 6 ships, 12 ships, and some mad lad threw out 20 ships at some point. I suspect that the last number didn't account for UXV's for example doing a bunch of those boring, dangerous, dirty or repetative jobs.

In the most recent interview, Topshee indicated a dozen corvettes. As an exercise I plotted out what that might mean and it seems like that would give one at sea on both coasts, one possibly in the Caribbean/port visits south and one going to Africa/Euro port visits, simultaneously and more or less at any given time.

The big question for me is what they have in mind when they say “combat capable”. What sort of combat is being considered given its primary purpose is purportedly continental defence. I think it was pointed out earlier by @Underway that the definition didn’t mean ballistic defence necessarily or even as a likelihood. It leaves me to wonder what engagements the ship is predicted to possibly need to be armed for in predominantly our waters. How likely is it to need a subsurface warfare suite or robust AAW system? Is a vessel armed with a 57mm, 2 30mm and a RAM launcher and survivability redundancy built in sufficient for the vast majority of its possible roles? Modular payloads, speed and range are all important considerations as well.

I think until they indicate more fully what is intended, it’s going to be simply speculation as to numbers and whether the ship is more a batch 2 River OPV, a Protector Class OPV or a Braunschweig style corvette.

 

[Maxman1]

I think until they indicate more fully what is intended, it’s going to be simply speculation as to numbers and whether the ship is more a batch 2 River OPV, a Protector Class OPV or a Braunschweig style corvette.

Or even the Finnish Pohjanmaa corvette, which is already designed for Polar Class 7 ice strengthening.

 

[YZT580]

Or even the Finnish Pohjanmaa corvette, which is already designed for Polar Class 7 ice strengthening.

did any of the Heddle proposals envision ice capability? If not, I wonder how long it will take for them to come up with an appropriate paper boat

 

[Maxman1]

The Vigilance proposal doesn't mention ice strengthening.

 

[GR66]

In the most recent interview, Topshee indicated a dozen corvettes. As an exercise I plotted out what that might mean and it seems like that would give one at sea on both coasts, one possibly in the Caribbean/port visits south and one going to Africa/Euro port visits, simultaneously and more or less at any given time.

The big question for me is what they have in mind when they say “combat capable”. What sort of combat is being considered given its primary purpose is purportedly continental defence. I think it was pointed out earlier by @Underway that the definition didn’t mean ballistic defence necessarily or even as a likelihood. It leaves me to wonder what engagements the ship is predicted to possibly need to be armed for in predominantly our waters. How likely is it to need a subsurface warfare suite or robust AAW system? Is a vessel armed with a 57mm, 2 30mm and a RAM launcher and survivability redundancy built in sufficient for the vast majority of its possible roles? Modular payloads, speed and range are all important considerations as well.

I think until they indicate more fully what is intended, it’s going to be simply speculation as to numbers and whether the ship is more a batch 2 River OPV, a Protector Class OPV or a Braunschweig style corvette.

To me, a towed-array - even if only a containerized system - and ideally a UAV with some ASW capability (sonobuoys and/or a light-weight torpedo) is a key capability. Hopefully they would have the capability of launching/recovering/monitoring/directing ASW UUVs and USVs as well.

Enemy subs are the primary naval threat to Canada and in my opinion detecting them should be a primary focus of the RCN and the Fleet Air Arm RCAF.

 

[Maxman1]

The Pojanmaa class is also designed with soundproofing for ASW operations.

 

[Swampbuggy]

To me, a towed-array - even if only a containerized system - and ideally a UAV with some ASW capability (sonobuoys and/or a light-weight torpedo) is a key capability. Hopefully they would have the capability of launching/recovering/monitoring/directing ASW UUVs and USVs as well.

Enemy subs are the primary naval threat to Canada and in my opinion detecting them should be a primary focus of the RCN and the Fleet Air Arm RCAF.

I’d agree with a containerized modular system and I’m certain the platform will be able to deploy TRAPS etc. What I meant in my original post is that I doubt the ship will have a hull mounted sonar or isolated plant machinery that are inherent in more ASW focused ships. I’m also not sure how likely a VLS system is to be part of the package either. Again, it depends on what they want this thing to do. Given the ship is meant to be in our own waters primarily, it’ll be in range of Aurora/Poseidon ASW aircraft and fighter cover too, for that matter. The other item to consider is that presumably by the time we have CDC in the fleet, there should already be CPS out there doing the business that are better suited for sub surface deterrence and prosecution.

I feel pretty confident that whatever the ship is, it’ll be able to deploy, recover and maintain autonomous systems. I can’t imagine anyone designing or procuring any type of warship without that aspect in mind, going forward.