New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

The Army’s new watercraft plan banks on autonomy, commercial ships

The Army's plan for establishing a fleet of watercraft in the Pacific includes a commitment to deeper experimentation with autonomous vessels.

www.defensenews.com

Maritime tech strategy thus here.

US Army figures it is short of both time and money therefore it will have to work with what it has on hand, what is already in the pipeline and what it can secure from industry. "What is on hand" includes manpower.

They will be leaning heavily on procuring civilian Offshore Supply Vessels by contract and purchase to be operated by service personel, civilians and, to the extent possible, autonomously.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Germany busy trying to make their Frigates more relevant. This was proof of concept, but the real work is marinizing all the components. Marine corrosion is a harsh mistress.

Missiles That Defend Ukraine Now Protect German Warships: IRIS-T Goes to Sea

Germany has tested the naval version of the IRIS-T SLM air defense system, marking a key development for maritime air defense capabilities.

united24media.com

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

Even more than that. While the hulls, power plant and hotel systems of the HAL's are getting long in the tooth, the post refit combat systems, sensors and weapons are quite up to date and in good condition. Some of the HAL's will have to be retired to switch their crew to RCD training. Their SMART-S radars are quite acceptable to build a CDC around, and Ops console can also be re-used, as are the ESSM's, 57mm Bofors, torpedo tubes, nixie, etc.

We may need not buy much in terms of the whole combat side of things to bring the CDC into production

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Babcock is looking at building 5 Type 31's in 10 years and that is for a ship that is simpler than the RCD's. I suspect under wartime conditions, they could likley launch 3 in 3 years. Even BB's back in the interwar period, generally took 2 years to build and they were the tech bleeding edge at the time.

 

[Underway]

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.

You're saying they exploring a battery powered corvette? Instead of just doing a rafted Diesel Gen with Electric motor?

Are there even any engineers in that staff?

 

[NavyShooter]

Ferdinand Porsche was an engineer as well, was he not?

(Shades of WW2 German Tanks with overly complex electric drive mechanisms....)

 

[Swampbuggy]

You're saying they exploring a battery powered corvette? Instead of just doing a rafted Diesel Gen with Electric motor?

Are there even any engineers in that staff?

Would it not make the most sense to use the same set up from AOPS?

 

[dapaterson]

Would it not make the most sense to use the same set up from AOPS?

They probably want potable water onboard instead.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

You're saying they exploring a battery powered corvette? Instead of just doing a rafted Diesel Gen with Electric motor?

Are there even any engineers in that staff?

Would it not make the most sense to use the same set up from AOPS?

Neither of these options make sense to me.

A battery powered corvette in the 2000 - 3000 tons range would be no different than a diesel/AIP submarine. You'd be capable of running for two or three days at loitering speed, with maybe four to six hours of sprint here and there in it, before having to recharge on diesel/AIP. Do we see this as the operating pattern of those CDC? I don't. So what would be the point of such system (other than let the government claim that they are reducing their carbon footprint)? Is it so they would be silent for ASW? The CDC are (from what is currently publicly available) not the sub-hunters, the HAL's and River's are. Besides, if you want to make them quiet, there are other ways that are simpler and cheaper.

On the other hand, if the idea is to develop a ship that can be quickly put together, much faster than the high end ones, to quickly come into service, with much built and designed in Canada and capable of fast ramping up of production if need be, don't go for the complex AOPS systems. Stick to simple, proven and effective. My own choice would be two diesel - two shafts - two VP props, but if you want a bit of redundancy, I could accept four diesel (two to each shaft) running two shaft in a CODAD configuration, still with VP props. This is the route that the Iver Huitfedt and Type 31 took and you can see how much faster they were to build compared to the Type 26, or European FREMM's.

The CDC are not ships on which to re-invent the wheel.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Neither of these options make sense to me.

A battery powered corvette in the 2000 - 3000 tons range would be no different than a diesel/AIP submarine. You'd be capable of running for two or three days at loitering speed, with maybe four to six hours of sprint here and there in it, before having to recharge on diesel/AIP. Do we see this as the operating pattern of those CDC? I don't. So what would be the point of such system (other than let the government claim that they are reducing their carbon footprint)? Is it so they would be silent for ASW? The CDC are (from what is currently publicly available) not the sub-hunters, the HAL's and River's are. Besides, if you want to make them quiet, there are other ways that are simpler and cheaper.

On the other hand, if the idea is to develop a ship that can be quickly put together, much faster than the high end ones, to quickly come into service, with much built and designed in Canada and capable of fast ramping up of production if need be, don't go for the complex AOPS systems. Stick to simple, proven and effective. My own choice would be two diesel - two shafts - two VP props, but if you want a bit of redundancy, I could accept four diesel (two to each shaft) running two shaft in a CODAD configuration, still with VP props. This is the route that the Iver Huitfedt and Type 31 took and you can see how much faster they were to build compared to the Type 26, or European FREMM's.

The CDC are not ships on which to re-invent the wheel.

Is the facility in Peterbourgh still available to build these engines?

 

[Underway]

Neither of these options make sense to me.

A battery powered corvette in the 2000 - 3000 tons range would be no different than a diesel/AIP submarine. You'd be capable of running for two or three days at loitering speed, with maybe four to six hours of sprint here and there in it, before having to recharge on diesel/AIP. Do we see this as the operating pattern of those CDC? I don't. So what would be the point of such system (other than let the government claim that they are reducing their carbon footprint)? Is it so they would be silent for ASW? The CDC are (from what is currently publicly available) not the sub-hunters, the HAL's and River's are. Besides, if you want to make them quiet, there are other ways that are simpler and cheaper.

On the other hand, if the idea is to develop a ship that can be quickly put together, much faster than the high end ones, to quickly come into service, with much built and designed in Canada and capable of fast ramping up of production if need be, don't go for the complex AOPS systems. Stick to simple, proven and effective. My own choice would be two diesel - two shafts - two VP props, but if you want a bit of redundancy, I could accept four diesel (two to each shaft) running two shaft in a CODAD configuration, still with VP props. This is the route that the Iver Huitfedt and Type 31 took and you can see how much faster they were to build compared to the Type 26, or European FREMM's.

The CDC are not ships on which to re-invent the wheel.

Straight diesel is good. But I think that Integrated Electric Propulsion is the way to go IMHO.

Cheap, no gearbox required, quiet, proven and easy to repair. Improves ship design flexibility as the Gensets don't need to be down in the ship, they can be placed more optimally for ventilation for example. Only the motors need to be connected to the shaft lines. Also it simplifies the design as the same generators that provide ships hotel power are available for engine power and vice versa. Which is good redundancy.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Straight diesel is good. But I think that Integrated Electric Propulsion is the way to go IMHO.

Cheap, no gearbox required, quiet, proven and easy to repair. Improves ship design flexibility as the Gensets don't need to be down in the ship, they can be placed more optimally for ventilation for example. Only the motors need to be connected to the shaft lines. Also it simplifies the design as the same generators that provide ships hotel power are available for engine power and vice versa. Which is good redundancy.

I am not disputing that. It's not the DG's or DA's or the motors that create the difficulty and the time consuming assembly, it's all the High-voltage electrical equipment that goes in between and between the DA/DG's and the operational and hotel loads. It was fairly complex on the AOPS and I can't imagine how much more complex it would have to be on the CDC with all the combat systems and weapons systems that are planned for them.

This High-voltage equipment also restricts who can go where and do whatever, as you also know from the AOPS. Now, the AOPS are not expected (fingers crossed) to get into combat situations, but the CDC's are, and they are planned to have a limited crew. If you have too many restrictions on who can go into too many compartments, you may blow that aspect of the plan.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Question:

If we build our 15 Rivers, obtained 12 subs and build these 12 CDC's, along with our 6 AOPS and a pair of JSS, will the RCN be the largest bluewater navy without a 'big honking ship' in its fleet?

EDIT:

Additional question, putting aside the 'big honking ships' in the RN, the French and Italian navies, how will the RCN stack up against those 3 navies on a 'ship to ship' level? I'm aware that the RN and French will have nuclear subs.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Pretty much!

 

[Czech_pivo]

Pretty much!

I added another supplemental question to my first question.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Additional question, putting aside the 'big honking ships' in the RN, the French and Italian navies, how will the RCN stack up against those 3 navies on a 'ship to ship' level? I'm aware that the RN and French will have nuclear subs.

Ignoring the Aircraft carriers and phibs, and considering the difference between nuclear subs and diesel ones, I would say we would be pretty well matched with the French and a little below the Brits.

The real question, however, is would the Americans also think so?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Ignoring the Aircraft carriers and phibs, and considering the difference between nuclear subs and diesel ones, I would say we would be pretty well matched with the French and a little below the Brits.

The real question, however, is would the Americans also think so?

That is the million dollar question. I would guess that building the proposed CDC's to be as robust as possible would most likely go a long way in deciding the question.

Throw in another JSS or two into the mix, add a few more P8's to enhance the CDC's coverage and I'd think it would.