New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Underway]

How do we feel about the idea of building a couple of landing ships?

Navy ponders concept of Canadian-built amphibious landing ship for Arctic operations​

It's a good article from the CBC covering this topic. Thought experiment is certainly where we are at with this.

This issue will always be "does the army want this" because at the end of the day this is an enabler for the army. And they only dabble in amphib operations (Vandoos the most). This isn't anywhere on their radar for the big reorg. Fighting as a division will take all of their resources.

I think at the end of the day the RCN will have its hands full and more with just the RCD, Subs, more JSS and CDC. That's a good fleet honestly.

This won't be fully realized in the same time frame due to build times but...

15 Destroyers
12 Attack subs
4 AORs
12 Light Frigates
6 AOPVs
Bunch of patrol boats...

 

[Maxman1]

Maybe go for a full on light carrier like the  Cavour. Amphibious ooperations can be launched from a carrier, it just lacks the well deck for embarked landing craft.

 

[MacNav63]

It's a good article from the CBC covering this topic. Thought experiment is certainly where we are at with this.

This issue will always be "does the army want this" because at the end of the day this is an enabler for the army. And they only dabble in amphib operations (Vandoos the most). This isn't anywhere on their radar for the big reorg. Fighting as a division will take all of their resources.

I think at the end of the day the RCN will have its hands full and more with just the RCD, Subs, more JSS and CDC. That's a good fleet honestly.

This won't be fully realized in the same time frame due to build times but...

15 Destroyers
12 Attack subs
4 AORs
12 Light Frigates
6 AOPVs
Bunch of patrol boats...

Hmmm, maybe if it's only a thought exercise then take it one step further. What if a new defence policy said the navy is responsible for national security in -- and around -- the northwest passage. So now, if the army has its hands full with it's implementing its own future force, then perhaps the thought exercise extends to which service actually provides the ground forces to deploy from that amphibious landing ship. Marines anyone?

 

[Czech_pivo]

It's a good article from the CBC covering this topic. Thought experiment is certainly where we are at with this.

This issue will always be "does the army want this" because at the end of the day this is an enabler for the army. And they only dabble in amphib operations (Vandoos the most). This isn't anywhere on their radar for the big reorg. Fighting as a division will take all of their resources.

I think at the end of the day the RCN will have its hands full and more with just the RCD, Subs, more JSS and CDC. That's a good fleet honestly.

This won't be fully realized in the same time frame due to build times but...

15 Destroyers
12 Attack subs
4 AORs
12 Light Frigates
6 AOPVs
Bunch of patrol boats...

It’s a fleet worthy of a G7 nation, a nation with 3 Oceans to defend, a nation with the largest coastline in the world and a nation needing open sea lanes.

 

[GR66]

Hmmm, maybe if it's only a thought exercise then take it one step further. What if a new defence policy said the navy is responsible for national security in -- and around -- the northwest passage. So now, if the army has its hands full with it's implementing its own future force, then perhaps the thought exercise extends to which service actually provides the ground forces to deploy from that amphibious landing ship. Marines anyone?

Would the money be better spent on expanding the network of paved runways (including increasing length to support larger aircraft) and improved airport infrastructure in the Arctic to provide year-round logistical access to multiple communities rather than on a single ship that can only be one place at a time?

 

[PuckChaser]

This issue will always be "does the army want this" because at the end of the day this is an enabler for the army. And they only dabble in amphib operations (Vandoos the most). This isn't anywhere on their radar for the big reorg. Fighting as a division will take all of their resources.

You misspelled enabler for the CAF.

RCAF doesn't have the lift to support operations in Europe. We have vehicles that are badly needed in Latvia rusting in a dock waiting for civilian lift because RCN has no joint capabilities to work with other services. The ability to use a RORO with an embarked air det to support DART is massive as well. That fighting division isn't self deploying unless we're connected by rail to the conflict zone.

Unless you're suggesting CA get its own ships or aircraft, RCN should be looking to how it can support its friends in the CAF. We literally missed the boat on the Mistrals, time to strike while the irons hot, despite not being a "cool" naval capability.

 

[DBNSG]

Would the money be better spent on expanding the network of paved runways (including increasing length to support larger aircraft) and improved airport infrastructure in the Arctic to provide year-round logistical access to multiple communities rather than on a single ship that can only be one place at a time?

Do both

 

[DBNSG]

Maybe go for a full on light carrier like the  Cavour. Amphibious ooperations can be launched from a carrier, it just lacks the well deck for embarked landing craft.

Or Trieste

 

[childs56]

You misspelled enabler for the CAF.

RCAF doesn't have the lift to support operations in Europe. We have vehicles that are badly needed in Latvia rusting in a dock waiting for civilian lift because RCN has no joint capabilities to work with other services.

How can a Civilian company ship cars, trucks, Tractor Trailers and heavy equipment over seas every other day (once a week)? Yet here we are unable to ship our equipment, Funny how the past failures and lack of forethought fails us to this day.

The ability to use a RORO with an embarked air det to support DART is massive as well. That fighting division isn't self deploying unless we're connected by rail to the conflict zone.

Unless you're suggesting CA get its own ships or aircraft, RCN should be looking to how it can support its friends in the CAF. We literally missed the boat on the Mistrals, time to strike while the irons hot, despite not being a "cool" naval capability.

Canada should build a few RORO ships under Federal Services. Then lease them out for normal contracts. When we need to ship our own equipment we can.

 

[MacNav63]

Do both

Right? Presumably that is also part of the thought exercise. The ship also gives you another option outside of the north, say in responding to crisis in the Caribbean. And I would imagine you would need 2 in order to always have 1 available. But like the admiral said, it's a thought exercise.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I think the folks talking about how this "amphibious ship" would be a traditional flat top LHD are missing some potential context as to the Canadian situation here. Both the Liberals and Conservatives directly mentioned purchasing heavy icebreakers for the Navy back on the campaign trail, and Topshee has addressed this in the past. I would not be surprised if Topshee is trying to get out ahead of a government mandated prestige project of "military heavy icebreakers" by transforming them into something much more useful. If the Feds are going to force the hands of the Navy, it makes much more sense to procure some kind of ice strengthened joint support ship versus procuring militarized heavy icebreakers.

Effectively making the best out of a worst case scenario.

Davie is already ahead of the game with their G-LAAM concept they've had around for a few years, basically amounting to the same concept as the Dutch Karel Doorman JSS except it is ice strengthened to operate in the Arctic. It would be a vessel that can substitute in for the Protecteur's when required for supplying warships with fuel, supplies and munitions while also able to respond to humanitarian disasters at home/abroad and being able to do some limited sealift. Obviously it is a compromise which will make the vessel worse in theatres outside of the Arctic and North Atlantic however, having even a single Arctic capable joint support ship would be an exceptional capability for both ourselves and our NATO allies.

 

[PuckChaser]

Oh look, Canadian company and steel.

 

[GR66]

I think the folks talking about how this "amphibious ship" would be a traditional flat top LHD are missing some potential context as to the Canadian situation here. Both the Liberals and Conservatives directly mentioned purchasing heavy icebreakers for the Navy back on the campaign trail, and Topshee has addressed this in the past. I would not be surprised if Topshee is trying to get out ahead of a government mandated prestige project of "military heavy icebreakers" by transforming them into something much more useful. If the Feds are going to force the hands of the Navy, it makes much more sense to procure some kind of ice strengthened joint support ship versus procuring militarized heavy icebreakers.

Effectively making the best out of a worst case scenario.

Davie is already ahead of the game with their G-LAAM concept they've had around for a few years, basically amounting to the same concept as the Dutch Karel Doorman JSS except it is ice strengthened to operate in the Arctic. It would be a vessel that can substitute in for the Protecteur's when required for supplying warships with fuel, supplies and munitions while also able to respond to humanitarian disasters at home/abroad and being able to do some limited sealift. Obviously it is a compromise which will make the vessel worse in theatres outside of the Arctic and North Atlantic however, having even a single Arctic capable joint support ship would be an exceptional capability for both ourselves and our NATO allies.

Is PC4 enough for what is being envisioned? What trade-offs would have to be made to increase it to PC2? Space, more powerful engines?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

There are only a handful of PC2 ships operating in the world. PC4 is a respectable ice strength. I been calling for a amphibious capability for the arctic for a long time. Not to do opposed landings , but to be able to land heavy equipment, like bulldozers, cranes and something like the Viking or BV 210. Even a LAV that can function as a CP or overwatch vehicle at the landing site.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Is PC4 enough for what is being envisioned? What trade-offs would have to be made to increase it to PC2? Space, more powerful engines?

If I recall correctly, Davie has claimed they can make G-LAAM PC3 if required, but that will require further tradeoffs which will lessen its capability/ability to operate elsewhere.

A rating of PC4 allows you to operate in the populated sections of the Arctic Archipelago for most of, if not all the year in many cases. Even PC3 is arguable overspecialization, while PC2 is frankly ridiculous and would make the vessel effectively useless outside of the high Arctic. It would be exceptionally more costly and complex for little gain outside of prestige, while sacrificing the versatility for the vessel to operate abroad.

PC4 is the same as the highest strength areas of the AOPS, alongside the upcoming Multi-Purpose Icebreakers for the CCG. It would be capable of doing 90% of the work in the Arctic required, that additional 10% is of dubious value and will cost the design quite a lot to get.

 

[Underway]

You misspelled enabler for the CAF.

RCAF doesn't have the lift to support operations in Europe. We have vehicles that are badly needed in Latvia rusting in a dock waiting for civilian lift because RCN has no joint capabilities to work with other services. The ability to use a RORO with an embarked air det to support DART is massive as well. That fighting division isn't self deploying unless we're connected by rail to the conflict zone.

Unless you're suggesting CA get its own ships or aircraft, RCN should be looking to how it can support its friends in the CAF. We literally missed the boat on the Mistrals, time to strike while the irons hot, despite not being a "cool" naval capability.

There are ROROs that dock in Halifax (Darmouth side) all the time to offload cars from Europe (and take other cars back). Just commandeer one of them and escort it.

Precious time and money should not be spent in building ships that you can't just commandeer or hire.

That being said there is a discussion on what the next bunch of JSS would look like. And that might be more support to forces ashore etc... though there is a strong argument for just building more of the same.

GLAM is a nice thought experiment and drawing, but it's an imagination ship for stimulating discussion like we are having.

 

[Baz]

I think the RCN would do well to not use the term amphibious in conjunction with this, and it does not have to be "for the army."

What I would envision is a mother ship for the AOPS. I've talked before about the need to centralize air, sort of the way we used to do it with the AORs, but plused up. It becomes centralized everything for our Arctic, remembering that it is an archipelego.

Canadian Navy Eyes Ice-Capable Amphibious Landing Ships for Arctic Defence shows a ship I think would be about right. 4 spots, an air group of say 8-10, 2nd line aviation maintenance, a small well deck, C2 capabilities for sea basing (again, not amphibious), and the ability to resupply the AOPS on one side.

The purpose would not be to bring the Army to the beach, but to have any easy base for whatever you wanted to do ashore. Think what we tried to do in Somalia (successfully until it wasn't) with the AOR and Sea Kings. A nice cozy hoping off point.

Also note that rendering has smaller helicopters than Cyclones. You'll need more helos, so use the opportunity not to buy more Cyclones (notwithstanding the other conversations) but somewhere around 20-30 lighter aircraft (that will fit in AOPS). This thing could have a couple of Cyclones, or Chinooks, but the majority would be the smaller aircraft.

I think the other thing the Navy needs to focus on is using it to solve the manning issue, not make it worse. Make them cheap to put to sea and small crew. When not doing their sea basing roles all those extra C2 and shore support areas make excellent classrooms. Plus, all those extra berths. Use them to get people to sea to train, load em up with baby NWOs and whatever, plus training aircrew, every monday morning, and sail them until Fri as a schoolhouse and experience builder.

But don't call them amphibious. Because before you know it we're right back to trying to emulate the marine corps, which we will never be able to do.

 

[Baz]

There are ROROs that dock in Halifax (Darmouth side) all the time to offload cars from Europe (and take other cars back). Just commandeer one of them and escort it.

Precious time.should be spent in building ships that you can't just commandeer or hire.

That being said there is a discussion on what the next bunch of JSS would look like. And that might be more support to forces ashore etc... though there is a strong argument for just building more of the same.

I would argue that we never bought a JSS, we bought an AOR.

A made in Canada Arctic JSS that fits our needs I would also argue is one of the niche capabilities that we should home grow. Do it right and others may want it.

 

[Baz]

And one other side thought... don't try to use the same ship as an ASW carrier; completely different need and hull form. However, the RCN should be thinking about what an ASW mother ship would like like (helos, C2, UAVs, UUVs, ?); thinking quietly, not talking about it out loud but thinking none the less. It should be one of those things you have ready to go if you ever have the reosurces to execute.

 

[dapaterson]

And one other side thought... don't try to use the same ship as an ASW carrier; completely different need and hull form. However, the RCN should be thinking about what an ASW mother ship would like like (helos, C2, UAVs, UUVs, ?); thinking quietly, not talking about it out loud but thinking none the less. It should be one of those things you have ready to go if you ever have the reosurces to execute.

You're asking for quiet contemplation from a collection of Naval Warfare Officers.