New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[GR66]

… or, hypothetically, would a mix of 60Rs and 60Ss, replacing the Cyclone with a larger number, accomplish the same goals.

I bought the MH-60 for Microsoft Flight Sim today, and started on the Queen Elizabeth in the Halifax harbour approaches. Does that make me qualified on type?

Not sure what the final size on the River-class hanger is compared to the Type 26, but from what I've read the Type 26 can fit 1 x AW101 or 2 x AW159. If the River-class hanger is the same size then would the ability to embark 2 x MH make up for the difference in the capability between the AW159 and the Cyclone?

 

[Czech_pivo]

Not sure what the final size on the River-class hanger is compared to the Type 26, but from what I've read the Type 26 can fit 1 x AW101 or 2 x AW159. If the River-class hanger is the same size then would the ability to embark 2 x MH make up for the difference in the capability between the AW159 and the Cyclone?

I pray God we are not designing the hanger for the Rivers based on the Cycline solely.

 

[Baz]

I pray God we are not designing the hanger for the Rivers based on the Cycline solely.

The T-26 is able to take a Merlin, and a Cyclone is smaller.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

ROROs require a port and docks, none of which exist up there. Therefore the references to amphibious capability comes clearly into focus.

Not quite. In waters, like the Arctic, where there are numerous locations and days with little to no sea or swell, they can also carry mexeflotes that they can then lower the ramp to and load as a ship to shore connector.

 

[Baz]

Not sure what the final size on the River-class hanger is compared to the Type 26, but from what I've read the Type 26 can fit 1 x AW101 or 2 x AW159. If the River-class hanger is the same size then would the ability to embark 2 x MH make up for the difference in the capability between the AW159 and the Cyclone?

It depends… if you want to keep the current CONOPs, no. It’s half the weight, and half the crew. Something has to give.

If you de use to back up and re-think how we use MH, maybe. But don’t forget, trying to operate two helicopters off a single spot brings it’s own complexities.

Have the ability to pick and choose is the best case. We’re currently not big enough for that.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

But don’t forget, trying to operate two helicopters off a single spot brings it’s own complexities.

It already had its complexity on the IRO's and the hangars/bear trap arrangements had the two helos side by side. To have them one in front of the other as in the T-26 is even more fun at playing Tetris.

 

[Kirkhill]

ROROs require a port and docks, none of which exist up there. Therefore the references to amphibious capability comes clearly into focus.

Qikiqtarjuak is a deep water harbour seeking docks for ships like RoRos.

Ramps don't have to be the only way off a RoRo.

 

[Baz]

It already had its complexity on the IRO's and the hangars/bear trap arrangements had the two helos side by side. To have them one in front of the other as in the T-26 is even more fun at playing Tetris.

A year ago Navy Lookout did show two Wildcats side by side at The Type 26 Frigate – more than just a submarine hunter, but I have no idea if that’s been OBE.

 

[YZT580]

I would argue a true JSS is a mobile base. In this case it also needs to be ice strengthened. Someplace to operate helos and boats safely and securely.

It does not have to be huge or through deck, just get as big a flight deck as you can. Maybe put the hangar below with an elevator?

Also agree don’t want it huge. Maybe two medium (Cyclone) spots or 3-4 smaller spots aft?

I’m not sure were disagreeing here…

Just an observation from a great lakes recreational sailor. This notion is perhaps going to result in a ship that is good for nothing: it seems like it is neither fish nor fowl. You can build a ice-strengthened tanker or container ship but they are not ice breakers and they are not be able to go everywhere. If they are designed as ice breakers they will probably be too slow to be effective and would always require escort. wouldn't it be better to spend the money on doubling the heavy ice breaker order, paint two of them grey and use them to clear the path for a Mistral style vessel with an ice-strengthened hull order or just double the number of JSS.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

A year ago Navy Lookout did show two Wildcats side by side at The Type 26 Frigate – more than just a submarine hunter, but I have no idea if that’s been OBE.

Interesting. Still a lot of "take one on deck, unfold it, start it, send it somewhere to do something, land it back, cool it, fold it, take the second one out, unfold it, start it, send it somewhere, land it back, cool it, fold it, take it in" rinse-and-repeat type of ops. Or do one after the other while the first one is away, but still have to watch deck availability for emergencies or early returns.

Also, is the Wildcat a type of air asset/capability that either the RCN or the RCAF are looking at for the RCD's? Or even in general?

 

[Baz]

Interesting. Still a lot of "take one on deck, unfold it, start it, send it somewhere to do something, land it back, cool it, fold it, take the second one out, unfold it, start it, send it somewhere, land it back, cool it, fold it, take it in" rinse-and-repeat type of ops. Or do one after the other while the first one is away, but still have to watch deck availability for emergencies or early returns.

Also, is the Wildcat a type of air asset/capability that either the RCN or the RCAF are looking at for the RCD's? Or even in general?

The whole deck cycle on the 289s was designed to launch one, then pull out the other, to put two in the screen. On the later deployments, when we did manage to take two, they were rarely flown that way. It was more having two meant it was easier to keep one serviceable.

To answer your second para, as I’ve said in other contexts, the RCN and RCAF need to sit down and actually figure out What embarked aviation effects they need and how they want to operate them… ie rewrite the embarked aviation CONOPs. I’m not sure they have the institutional capacity to do that.

Certainly if the government is serious about making the RCN larger than they’re going to need a larger embarked aviation force, and at the point it probably does not make sense to have them all “Big Dippers” (ie Merlin or Cyclone like). Once you know that, and how much of the effects requirements can be met with unmanned, then you can determine whether any remaining gaps are best filled with something like the Wildcat.

Add to that whether there is an emergent need for littoral lift (he junglie EH-101 / USMC UH-1 like)?

And all of this is best decided before the future of Cyclone is.

The RN FAA is a good model for what an enlarged embarked aviation might need, but obviously bigger than all but outr grandest aspirations… the also gave to support the carriers and true amphibious capabilities (if they ever sort out where they’re going). An embarked AEW kit for Cyclone isn’t even that much of a stretch.

So, might we need a Wildcat like capability in the fullness of time if we are serious in becoming a high end middle power…