New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Colin Parkinson]

Start stripping out the stuff to meet environmental regulations and you can simplify the ships hotel systems and such. We also need to beef up our weapon and sensor manufacturing capacity. I suspect that we could make most of a Bofors 57mm here inhouse. We used to make a lot of rockets, so I expect we could make CRAM's and equip something like a River Class Batch II with 57mm, CRAM and two torpedo tubes to fire Mk 48's as a emergency wartime build ship.

 

[NavyShooter]

The problem with a 'River class batch 2" would not be the armament...it's the mechanical systems. The gearboxes and shafts and engines.

Going with a simplified build like the 'CDC' that uses relatively common engineering plant equipment would be a very good idea.

 

[Lumber]

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?

The rumours and specs I've seen for the CDC, if even half true, would mean the CDC is anything but simple.

 

[Lumber]

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.

We have 12 "active" frigate if you include the ones coming into, through, and out of DWP, but your numbers of operational ones is more accurate...

 

[GK .Dundas]

We have 12 "active" frigate if you include the ones coming into, through, and out of DWP, but your numbers of operational ones is more accurate...

Active, I suspect is an amazingly flexible term. And the answer I suspect depends on who is asking.

 

[dapaterson]

We have 12 "active" frigate if you include the ones coming into, through, and out of DWP, but your numbers of operational ones is more accurate...

Still optimistic.

 

[Kirkhill]

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?

But it may rhyme.

 

[Underway]

ISI is undergoing some large manufacturing process and equipment changes/upgrades as the AOPS are leaving the line. The comments are "surprised and impressed" with what is happening. Its' all very process and project management driven but they have taken the lessons learned from AOPS, and the BAE current build suggestions to heart for the CSC.

 

[Kirkhill]

Start stripping out the stuff to meet environmental regulations and you can simplify the ships hotel systems and such. We also need to beef up our weapon and sensor manufacturing capacity. I suspect that we could make most of a Bofors 57mm here inhouse. We used to make a lot of rockets, so I expect we could make CRAM's and equip something like a River Class Batch II with 57mm, CRAM and two torpedo tubes to fire Mk 48's as a emergency wartime build ship.

Modular has become a working standard.

Where Denmark's Stanflex designs were being sniffed at 10 years ago Ukraine has made them de rigeur.

If a solution works in one environment/domain it is immediately cross-decked to all others.

If there is a demand for a system then solutions are cobbled together from what is available.

The naval 35mm Millenium becomes the SkyRanger 30 and 35 and is parked on top of buildings, trucks, new APCs and old tanks.

Obsolescent Stingers and Hydras are being used up and new lines opened as they are stuck on anything that can carry them.

AGMs are being used as SSMs. SSMs are used as SAMs. Brimstones are fired from Coke delivery vans and Hydras are fired from F16s.

Proprietary missile systems are being retooled to accept competitors' missiles, and sometimes enemy missiles.

Missile launchers designed for ships are stuck in boxes and hauled around by plane, train and automobile, as well as civilian ships.

And, underlying everything, is the novel, the new, the unsuspected unknown unknowns. The intelligent drone.

Pretty soon we are going to have to stop calling them drones for real. Drones are not particularly bright. They don't need to be. These new devices are becoming increasingly bright.

 

[Underway]

The rumours and specs I've seen for the CDC, if even half true, would mean the CDC is anything but simple.

This is true. But if we go this way and we set up Canadian supply chains for the float move systems then you can arm them with whatever you've got available.

The ace in the hole is CMS330. It was designed to take any weapon and sensor and plug it into the system with minimal (relatively speaking), integration work. You take a Canadian supply chain ship, with a CMS 330 backbone and you can buy, build scrounge whatever weapon system you've got to place it onto that vessel. It's a lot less integration work than with pretty much any other CMS out there.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This is true. But if we go this way and we set up Canadian supply chains for the float move systems then you can arm them with whatever you've got available.

The ace in the hole is CMS330. It was designed to take any weapon and sensor and plug it into the system with minimal (relatively speaking), integration work. You take a Canadian supply chain ship, with a CMS 330 backbone and you can buy, build scrounge whatever weapon system you've got to place it onto that vessel. It's a lot less integration work than with pretty much any other CMS out there.

Time to dust off those old Bofors, lol.

 

[Underway]

Time to dust off those old Bofors, lol.

Jokes aside, refurbishing old weapon systems and upgrading them is not the worst idea. The old Protecteur CIWS has returned from the OEM and will be installed on the new Protecteur. Cleaned up, new software, upgraded/replaced some parts and ready to go. Kinda cool actually.

Just have to make sure whatever you use isn't obsolete.

 

[Underway]

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

Sure does rhyme though...

This is true. But if we go this way and we set up Canadian supply chains for the float move systems then you can arm them with whatever you've got available.

The ace in the hole is CMS330. It was designed to take any weapon and sensor and plug it into the system with minimal (relatively speaking), integration work. You take a Canadian supply chain ship, with a CMS 330 backbone and you can buy, build scrounge whatever weapon system you've got to place it onto that vessel. It's a lot less integration work than with pretty much any other CMS out there.

Addition to my last, there are some Canadian companies out there that can certainly fill in weapon system and sensor gaps.

MDMA were originally going to build the X band illuminator for CSC, but that was swapped out for a standard FCR to use with the main gun. They could easily do the same thing for a CDC should you really want to be Canadian about it. Just looking down the list of options the only thing we don't have are kinetic effectors. Everything else is Canadian.

 

[NavyShooter]

When the US finally retired their Bofors 40mm's from use in the AC-130, that spoke volumes about the long-term sustainability of that weapons platform. It had an 80+ year run (probably closer to 90?) that's really only exceeded by the M2 Browning. If the US isn't able to source parts to keep them running, then maybe we shouldn't either.

That said, there's nothing majorly wrong with the 57mm Bofors, which certainly would be a sustainable system for use on future ships. Even if you simply do a hand-loaded upper deck only mount with no deck piercing magazine/loading system, it'd be a pretty good capability to have. 120 (+1) rounds in a dual purpose mount?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Jokes aside, refurbishing old weapon systems and upgrading them is not the worst idea. The old Protecteur CIWS has returned from the OEM and will be installed on the new Protecteur. Cleaned up, new software, upgraded/replaced some parts and ready to go. Kinda cool actually.

Just have to make sure whatever you use isn't obsolete.

100% agree.

Would not be surprised if the 57's on the Halifax's get put on the new future CDC's.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The rumours and specs I've seen for the CDC, if even half true, would mean the CDC is anything but simple.

Some of their plans on paper for propulsion are frankly insane.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Some of their plans on paper for propulsion are frankly insane.

Why? Is Doug Ford pushing for Ontario built small modular reactors on them?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The problem with a 'River class batch 2" would not be the armament...it's the mechanical systems. The gearboxes and shafts and engines.

Going with a simplified build like the 'CDC' that uses relatively common engineering plant equipment would be a very good idea.

From Wiki, I know there is no longer any large diesel engine maker here, but you can throw together what is on the market as needed for these "Emergency measure ships"

• Batch 1:
  • 2 × Ruston 12R270 diesel engines, 8,250 kW (11,060 hp), 2 shafts
  • 2 × controllable-pitch propellers
• Batch 2:
  • 2 × MAN 16V28/33D diesel engines, 14,700 kW (19,700 hp), 2 shafts
  • 2 × controllable-pitch propellers

 

[Navy_Pete]

Why? Is Doug Ford pushing for Ontario built small modular reactors on them?

Battery technology and sizes that don't exist, and add a ship killer vulnerability with no real idea on how to mitigate. Also the land based support requirements for it is massive, and the support side of that also doesn't exist.

Also completely divorced from anything on the submarines, which would come with a wealth of expertise from either Germany or SK, which would have much higher built in standards and maintenance requirements through life, so very different context dropping something like that into a surface ship.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

When the US finally retired their Bofors 40mm's from use in the AC-130, that spoke volumes about the long-term sustainability of that weapons platform. It had an 80+ year run (probably closer to 90?) that's really only exceeded by the M2 Browning. If the US isn't able to source parts to keep them running, then maybe we shouldn't either.

That said, there's nothing majorly wrong with the 57mm Bofors, which certainly would be a sustainable system for use on future ships. Even if you simply do a hand-loaded upper deck only mount with no deck piercing magazine/loading system, it'd be a pretty good capability to have. 120 (+1) rounds in a dual purpose mount?

The Allies took the plans for the original Swedish Bofors and standardised them and simplified them for mass production. Prior to that all the imported ones were basically handbuilt and parts were not always interchangeable. If you can source barrels , breeches and ammunition, you could build a modernized gun around that. Although I think the 57mm offers far more advantages for the work and would be a good platform for us to build more of and as you mention we could make our own simplified mounts. We need a Crown owned armoury that can do short runs, hold and properly store the plans, IP, jigs, and other toolings for such weapons. A manned and RWS version of this using the modern 57mm would be great.
(Had his Coxswain known how famous this picture would be, he would have had the sailor fix his sweater first)