New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Meanwhile....

keep the navy (US) out of shipbuilding.

‘Stop trying to control every step’ of shipbuilding, senator tells Navy

Focus less on requirements and more on outcomes, says Montana’s Sheehy, and the entire Pentagon might get on board.

www.defenseone.com

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yes. Montana, of course, is known as a hotbed of shipbuilding.

I think only Russian submarine X.O.'s would have liked to see it.

 

[Nvlgzr]

Yes. Montana, of course, is known as a hotbed of shipbuilding.

I think only Russian submarine X.O.'s would have liked to see it.

Red October…nice.

 

[Swampbuggy]

My numbers include the Martha L. Black-class which while they do work on the Lakes, are much larger than any USCG counterpart vessels and are also extensively used in the Atlantic while also having been sent to the Arctic before as well.

Much of the USCG Lakes fleet is made up of smaller ice strengthened buoy tenders that have much less capability than our own, larger vessels. They have something like 30~ of these ships all together, but they don't have the use cases outside the lakes that we require. Canada has up to 16 Multi-Purpose Icebreakers on order with Seaspan, alongside 6 Mid-shore multi-mission vessels (TBD yard) for coastal lakes work and 6 large Program icebreakers (Davie) as well. There isn't any plans for buy a bunch of smaller vessels like the US does, so they can respectfully pound sand on their complaints.

I would also suggest that the 4 “light” icebreakers of the current MEMTV (RISLEY/GREY/BARTLETT/LAMARSH) should be counted

Yes. Montana, of course, is known as a hotbed of shipbuilding.

I think only Russian submarine X.O.'s would have liked to see it.

And their round American women??

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I would also suggest that the 4 “light” icebreakers of the current MEMTV (RISLEY/GREY/BARTLETT/LAMARSH) should be counted

And their round American women??

Bartlett is retired

 

[Navy_Pete]

Yes. Montana, of course, is known as a hotbed of shipbuilding.

I think only Russian submarine X.O.'s would have liked to see it.

Pretty funny to see a former Navy SEAL saying the Navy should butt out of shipbuilding because it doesn't have the expertise it used to, but somehow has more relevant expertise on shipbuilding, contracting and complex project management than NAVSEA to tell them what they should do.

NAVSEA still has a lot of expertise, as does places like Bath Iron Works, but a lot of rules in place are because of things going extremely sideways as well as private companies cutting corners and things happening like ships burning to the waterline.

Similarly the a lot of the requirements output to the yards are based on significant in house expertise on things like combat survivability and other classified information so private industry doesn't actually have any relevant expertise to get the 'outcomes' he is talking about.

You shouldn't need to tell them how to do a weld to get to a certain standard, but you also don't want to let the industry decide for you that a lower standard is acceptable from a commercial perspective when it's all based on things like shock standards or similar that they have no idea about.

That's the big issue with using commercial marine standards; there is a really good reason we use 300 and 450 class hull valves vice the standard commercial 150 ones on warships, and it's not for geting cargo from point A to B so class societies saying we can safely replace that are talking right out of their ass.

 

[Kirkhill]

Pretty funny to see a former Navy SEAL saying the Navy should butt out of shipbuilding because it doesn't have the expertise it used to, but somehow has more relevant expertise on shipbuilding, contracting and complex project management than NAVSEA to tell them what they should do.

NAVSEA still has a lot of expertise, as does places like Bath Iron Works, but a lot of rules in place are because of things going extremely sideways as well as private companies cutting corners and things happening like ships burning to the waterline.

Similarly the a lot of the requirements output to the yards are based on significant in house expertise on things like combat survivability and other classified information so private industry doesn't actually have any relevant expertise to get the 'outcomes' he is talking about.

You shouldn't need to tell them how to do a weld to get to a certain standard, but you also don't want to let the industry decide for you that a lower standard is acceptable from a commercial perspective when it's all based on things like shock standards or similar that they have no idea about.

That's the big issue with using commercial marine standards; there is a really good reason we use 300 and 450 class hull valves vice the standard commercial 150 ones on warships, and it's not for geting cargo from point A to B so class societies saying we can safely replace that are talking right out of their ass.

Congratulations. We now own one exquisitely crafted and lovingly tended vessel that is 30 years out of date, made with technologies that are no longer available, and capable of tasks that are no longer required.

And no budget available to replace her.

Where do we find the compromise?

Armies know that all vehicles are at risk but that not all vehicles can be MBTs. Volkswagen Passats and Ford F150s straight off the assembly line are employed.

And people argue for many pleasurable hours on this forum and elsewhere over when the use of such vehicles is appropriate and where on the sliding scale of Passat to Leo is the sweet spot.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Congratulations. We now own one exquisitely crafted and lovingly tended vessel that is 30 years out of date, made with technologies that are no longer available, and capable of tasks that are no longer required.

And no budget available to replace her.

Where do we find the compromise?

Armies know that all vehicles are at risk but that not all vehicles can be MBTs. Volkswagen Passats and Ford F150s straight off the assembly line are employed.

And people argue for many pleasurable hours on this forum and elsewhere over when the use of such vehicles is appropriate and where on the sliding scale of Passat to Leo is the sweet spot.

Not really sure what you are on about, they are being actively replaced and we do have the budget for it. The issue was outside of any internal DND factor and more that it took a decade of effort to get the NSS in place to get it going, but it will also deliver the JSS on the third try (the 2nd failing due to PSPC insisting on a budget cap, the first never being supported by various governments).

If it wasn't for the Harper govt requiring us to get AOPs, we'd have gotten a CSC to FOC and would have 4 or so of them up and running, with a few others actively under construction.

Warships aren't mass production products that you build in the millions, and anyone telling you they are is confident they'll never have to personnally see if it survives some basic battle damage.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not really sure what you are on about, they are being actively replaced and we do have the budget for it. The issue was outside of any internal DND factor and more that it took a decade of effort to get the NSS in place to get it going, but it will also deliver the JSS on the third try (the 2nd failing due to PSPC insisting on a budget cap, the first never being supported by various governments).

If it wasn't for the Harper govt requiring us to get AOPs, we'd have gotten a CSC to FOC and would have 4 or so of them up and running, with a few others actively under construction.

Warships aren't mass production products that you build in the millions, and anyone telling you they are is confident they'll never have to personnally see if it survives some basic battle damage.

In 4 years we were able to build 122 Corvettes, that is with multiple shipyards working and the corvettes fitted with minimal gear to the point where they had to be completed when they got the the UK. That was part of a all of government thing, build incredible simple ships. In the same time frame, right now we could likely produce some 30 River Class OPV's equipped with simple radar suites and perhaps 25mm main guns.

 

[Navy_Pete]

In 4 years we were able to build 122 Corvettes, that is with multiple shipyards working and the corvettes fitted with minimal gear to the point where they had to be completed when they got the the UK. That was part of a all of government thing, build incredible simple ships. In the same time frame, right now we could likely produce some 30 River Class OPV's equipped with simple radar suites and perhaps 25mm main guns.

Sure, but we had a massive industrial base to start with, and we converted existing factories and shipyards to that. That Canada stopped existing in the 80s and 90s.

Modern ships are a lot more complex but massively more capable, and they didn't even have basic radar on those Corvettes. A single CPF would easily pick off all the corvettes at range with just the gun and have a reasonble chance to sink much larger tonnages from way over the horizon with a few well placed missiles so comparing that output doesn't really give you any useful comparison of the differences between WW2 and modern warships, any more than saying how many typewriters you could've built 75 years ago compared to PCs.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That is the point I am making about the abilty to construct and used the River Class as a relatively fair comparison of vessel complexity and could be built in as many yards as possible.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sure, but we had a massive industrial base to start with, and we converted existing factories and shipyards to that. That Canada stopped existing in the 80s and 90s.

Modern ships are a lot more complex but massively more capable, and they didn't even have basic radar on those Corvettes. A single CPF would easily pick off all the corvettes at range with just the gun and have a reasonble chance to sink much larger tonnages from way over the horizon with a few well placed missiles so comparing that output doesn't really give you any useful comparison of the differences between WW2 and modern warships, any more than saying how many typewriters you could've built 75 years ago compared to PCs.

Can't help but think it woild require 122 daft skippers to all run on to the guns of your single RCD.

At least 121 skippers should be expected to work around the threat.

Drones away!

 

[Halifax Tar]

Sure, but we had a massive industrial base to start with, and we converted existing factories and shipyards to that. That Canada stopped existing in the 80s and 90s.

Modern ships are a lot more complex but massively more capable, and they didn't even have basic radar on those Corvettes. A single CPF would easily pick off all the corvettes at range with just the gun and have a reasonble chance to sink much larger tonnages from way over the horizon with a few well placed missiles so comparing that output doesn't really give you any useful comparison of the differences between WW2 and modern warships, any more than saying how many typewriters you could've built 75 years ago compared to PCs.

You are correct. But there is another side. Our weapons and equipment have become so complicated and high tech that replacing battle losses and consumptions will be done with much less technically advance platforms and weapons, I submit.

As time lines and available raw materials shrink.

 

[Navy_Pete]

You are correct. But there is another side. Our weapons and equipment have become so complicated and high tech that replacing battle losses and consumptions will be done with much less technically advance platforms and weapons, I submit.

As time lines and available raw materials shrink.

I think realistically there will not be much replacing of anything, warship wise, advanced or otherwise if the conflict is big enough.

The supply lines for even steel, engines, piping, valves and other very basic things are all global now, and we saw that in COVID were production in one country shut down because they couldn't suddenly get widgets from another country, and most casting is done overseas. Similarly even basic electronics fully rely on some particular countries.

Even for regional conflicts could be a significant problem, and again, we just don't have the people or places to build much anyway, so expect we'll have whatever we have at the start of something, minus whatever we lose. Even the US took years to repair the USS Cole, and that was something the ship survived.

 

[Kirkhill]

Do people stop fighting due to lack of weapons? Or do they just find different weapons?

I think they just find different weapons.

And if a weapon that is no longer in production is rendered NS but the ship it is on can still float then I think the weapon would replaced by a different weapon.

And if that different weapon can be stuck on that ship then ti can be stuck on any ship.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I think realistically there will not be much replacing of anything, warship wise, advanced or otherwise if the conflict is big enough.

The supply lines for even steel, engines, piping, valves and other very basic things are all global now, and we saw that in COVID were production in one country shut down because they couldn't suddenly get widgets from another country, and most casting is done overseas. Similarly even basic electronics fully rely on some particular countries.

Even for regional conflicts could be a significant problem, and again, we just don't have the people or places to build much anyway, so expect we'll have whatever we have at the start of something, minus whatever we lose. Even the US took years to repair the USS Cole, and that was something the ship survived.

Replacements will have to be found or you're out of the fight. My suggestion is they will get less and less technical as a protracted war drags on.

It would take a momentous shift in not just economy but culture for the west. We can do it, the question is more if we actually want to ?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Of course not, but if you want to deploy a blue water navy to project power you need to have it ready to go; it's too late once things kick off. The WW2 idea worked because that was comparable to the level of technology the enemy had, but I don't think anyone we'd be fighting would have a .50 cal tacked onto a fishing boat.

Self defence is a lot easier, and using Ukraine's example short range drones does the trick, and you'd be much better off with a lot mobile shore batteries of ASW missiles to deter that vice a lot of random fishing boats with ineffective weapons bolted on, and some satellites for actual tracking/targetting. I think that's a reasonable level of technology you should expect someone to have if we are in their waters, even if we don't do that ourselves. That basically makes the WW2 concept suicide though.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Americans have long fretted over not having enough ships for all the jobs they want to do.

Even with the budgets they can support they struggled to achieve Reagan's 600 ship navy and have been unable to sustain it. Currently the USN is reported to have a strength of 465 hulls including hull in reserve and the ships of Military Sealift Command. 40 of those hulls are due to be paid off.

Meanwhile the PLAN is reported as having an active fleet of about 500 but 200 of those are corvettes and smaller, many of them equipped with not much more than MGs. The PLAN is strong in home waters and is only now learning the blue water trade.

We currently have a fleet of 8 active frigates, 4 active subs, 4 MCDVs and 6 AOPVs.

And 4 will get you 1. So a seagoing fleet of 2 frigates and one sub, 1 MCDV and 1 or 2 AOPVs.

For three oceans. Plus international obligations.

....

The reason the RN started turning out commercial whalers and arming them was precisely because they lacked the numbers of exquisites to all the jobs they needed to do. They armed them with whatever was available. Including wooden guns.

The US jeep carriers, the escorts, were similarly expedient conversions of available civilian ships.

....

My view is that Ukraine looks a lot more normal than perhaps we want to admit. Expediency and experimentation is the norm when war actually breaks out.

The big question is, how close to 1939 are we?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I am going to expect the PLAN having as many or more issues that we have. I suspect ship readiness is highly over reported there.

 

[NavyShooter]

I watched a video the other night that talked about the state of various navies at the beginning of WW2.

Consider the size of the German Navy in 1939: 103 ships, 7 capital ships, 8 cruisers, 22 destroyers, 24 torpedo boats and 72 subs.

Their famous "plan Z" was to have nearly 800 ships, with almost 250 U-boats in service by 1948.

Wars are fought with what you show up with.

Germany started with 72 subs (57 operational). They had no-where near what they'd hoped to when they kicked off Part 2.

That said, Canada had only 6 warships and 3500 people in our Navy in 1939.

Who had the industrial capacity and space to build more ships faster?

Well, Germany....but also our allies.

Canada was able to take various shipyards across the country that were designed to build coastal steamers or fishing boats, and build ourselves a Corvette navy. It's more complex than that, but the real way to build new capacity for wartime production is to repurpose non-military capacity and make it military.

You're right - we have very complex warships, and making those is really tough, specialized work that only a handful of shipyards in Canada can do.

So.

What do we do? We become, once again, a Corvette Navy. Simplified ships, with simplified armament, that are faster and cheaper to produce in series production by smaller yards/facilities that can be repurposed into wartime capacity.

How close are we to 1939? I suspect we're at about 1937....maybe '38.

Emelia Earhart is making her 'secret spy flight' over enemy territory, companies are looking seriously at defense production capabilities, governments are talking mobilization, and the world is edging closer to open conflict again.

The new 5-year plan to starve Ukraine 5 year (Holodomor-redux?) is already in progress, and has been since 2014 with the invasion of Crimea.

So. I suspect that part of the "Continental Defense Corvette" plan is to find a design that will be capable enough in combat, but simple/small enough to be able to be produced in great numbers by dispersed (read civilian) shipyards.

But.

What do I know....history doesn't repeat itself, does it?