New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Navy_Pete]

With how powerful missiles are, and nukes, it woukd take one missile or torpedo to wreck your fleets firepower. A larger quantity of smaller ships would be better. Id sooner want 36 corvette than 12 destroys.

If you are talking naval bombardment specifically, you get much better bang for your buck out of something like the 5" gun coming with RCD than a packup of missiles, and also the logistics of resupply is both much faster and much easier.

So you can keep it on station longer, doing a lot more damage, and have a much shorter resupply time, at a fraction of the cost and also manufacturing times for ammo.

You need a mixed fleet for the various threats, but that's exactly why we deploy ships in task groups (and the army does a battle group).

Drones swarms is probably the biggest and most realistic threat right now. If it gets to the point where someone is dropping a nuke on the fleet then probably already heading to a nuclear winter, so pretty irrelevant what happens to them as there won't be anywhere for them to resupply, and the ship citadels are only meant to be short term protection to get to somewhere safe so they can decontaminate the exterior and get back to normal ops. It is not a sustainable posture.

 

[Underway]

Keep in mind that BB were built to take hits from 2 ton AP projectiles travelling at roughly Mach 2 and to keep fighting, that encompasses the majority of the Anti-ship missiles out there.

At a specific angle. Of which the BB would try to be at range to have the enemy shells hit their armour belt at. One of the reason bombs worked so well, and why some missiles have a popup attack. The ships deck isn't nearly as armoured as the sides (or guns).

 

[Navy_Pete]

At a specific angle. Of which the BB would try to be at range to have the enemy shells hit their armour belt at. One of the reason bombs worked so well, and why some missiles have a popup attack. The ships deck isn't nearly as armoured as the sides (or guns).

The combat vulnerability assessment process for the RCD is really interesting with the modeling that has already been done using systems like Purple Fire.

There is a pretty interesting article in Nature about the process and outcomes on a fake ship; but they basically look at attacks from all kinds of angles with different munition properties and can map out what systems are actually impacted and if the redundancies survive as well.

An integrated analysis of naval platform survivability for mission resilience - Scientific Reports

For a bit of context, a 600 kW fire is about a standard wood pallet fire, so not very big, but still enough to get smaller compartment temps to 600 C (1000 F+), with bulkheads into adjoining compartments hot enough for the paint to ignite on the other side. You would expect 100% loss of all exposed cabling (that survived the blast) plus significant damage to structure, piping etc, plus a lot of damage in secondary compartments from the blast/fire/smoke.

 

[Halifax Tar]

At a specific angle. Of which the BB would try to be at range to have the enemy shells hit their armour belt at. One of the reason bombs worked so well, and why some missiles have a popup attack. The ships deck isn't nearly as armoured as the sides (or guns).

They do work well when the BB is stationary, unescorted, or making a suicide run down the coast of the Philippines. We like to use examples like the Bizmark, Yamato, Force Z or the Ostfriesland. To me this is akin to using unsupported tanks in an urban environment and claiming tanks are obsolete because they get knocked out. Its just bad tactics.

We also like to forget the absolute beating the behemoths take before heading Davy Jones locker.

I think a better study would be American use of their BBs in and after WW2. BBs make of the center point of a TG. Much like a CV. They need be protected.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

They do work well when the BB is stationary, unescorted, or making a suicide run down the coast of the Philippines. We like to use examples like the Bizmark, Yamato, Force Z or the Ostfriesland. To me this is akin to using unsupported tanks in an urban environment and claiming tanks are obsolete because they get knocked out. Its just bad tactics.

We also like to forget the absolute beating the behemoths take before heading Davy Jones locker.

I think a better study would be American use of their BBs in and after WW2. BBs make of the center point of a TG. Much like a CV. They need be protected.

Had the atomic bombs not happened, Allied BB's would have filled a critical role of turning coastal Japan into rubble and invasion prep.

 

[Cloud Cover]

They do work well when the BB is stationary, unescorted, or making a suicide run down the coast of the Philippines. We like to use examples like the Bizmark, Yamato, Force Z or the Ostfriesland. To me this is akin to using unsupported tanks in an urban environment and claiming tanks are obsolete because they get knocked out. It’s just bad tactics.

We also like to forget the absolute beating the behemoths take before heading Davy Jones locker.

I think a better study would be American use of their BBs in and after WW2. BBs make of the center point of a TG. Much like a CV. They need be protected.

One of the problems escorting the New Jersey Battle Group in the late 1980’s, is that the escorts couldn’t keep up to her speed for a sustained period (days on end) without breaking pretty much everything aboard ship. The Spruances and Perry class could, the Adams to a lesser extent. I think maybe the RN County class might have had good speed but not for the 40-50 hour high speed (not even full speed or flank speed) sprints the battle wagons would make.

 

[Halifax Tar]

One of the problems escorting the New Jersey Battle Group in the late 1980’s, is that the escorts couldn’t keep up to her speed for a sustained period (days on end) without breaking pretty much everything aboard ship. The Spruances and Perry class could, the Adams to a lesser extent. I think maybe the RN County class might have had good speed but not for the 40-50 hour high speed (not even full speed or flank speed) sprints the battle wagons would make.

The Big E is listed as having the same top speed as Iowa.

These TGs also had operating constraints that would involve the possible speed limits of their escorts and support ships.





That being said, 30 knots in moderate and above seas in a FF or DD wouldn't not make a comfortable ride, and would probably put undo strain on the ship itself over long periods of exertion.

 

[Czech_pivo]

They do work well when the BB is stationary, unescorted, or making a suicide run down the coast of the Philippines. We like to use examples like the Bizmark, Yamato, Force Z or the Ostfriesland. To me this is akin to using unsupported tanks in an urban environment and claiming tanks are obsolete because they get knocked out. Its just bad tactics.

We also like to forget the absolute beating the behemoths take before heading Davy Jones locker.

I think a better study would be American use of their BBs in and after WW2. BBs make of the center point of a TG. Much like a CV. They need be protected.

I have memories of seeing on the evening news the USS Missouri, I think, sending broadsides into the hills outside of Beirut in the early 1980s.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I don’t know what the top speed of an Iowa was, but I suspect it was quite a bit higher than published. I remember watching an oiler heading East a long way off in the horizon, and out of nowhere New Jersey came up on her starboard side, circled astern, turned right and ran parallel to her for a minute and then accelerated up her running side then ESE into the rising sun. And gone.
Whole thing took about 2-3 minutes. The OOW was speaking to another officer and commented she wasn’t supposed to be anywhere near us.
Minutes later we were overflown by 4 A6’s on both sides of our ship. They came right out of the sun from the East. Later that same watch it was our turn to be overtaken by New Jersey, from the North. She did the same thing, cut across astern, turned, slowed down, then made off at high speed. She must have circled (figure 8 I think) a good 100 miles in those few hours.
We were in EMCON with radars off. Might have been streaming the VDS, not sure. I have some pictures of all that. I’ll scan them and post!

Edit: in all of that I forgot to post the main point- in all of that she had no nearby or visible escorts. I’m sure they were lurking.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I don’t know what the top speed of an Iowa was, but I suspect it was quite a bit higher than published. I remember watching an oiler heading East a long way off in the horizon, and out of nowhere New Jersey came up on her starboard side, circled astern, turned right and ran parallel to her for a minute and then accelerated up her running side then ESE into the rising sun. And gone.
Whole thing took about 2-3 minutes. The OOW was speaking to another officer and commented she wasn’t supposed to be anywhere near us.
Minutes later we were overflown by 4 A6’s on both sides of our ship. They came right out of the sun from the East. Later that same watch it was our turn to be overtaken by New Jersey, from the North. She did the same thing, cut across astern, turned, slowed down, then made off at high speed. She must have circled (figure 8 I think) a good 100 miles in those few hours.
We were in EMCON with radars off. Might have been streaming the VDS, not sure. I have some pictures of all that. I’ll scan them and post!

Edit: in all of that I forgot to post the main point- in all of that she had no nearby or visible escorts. I’m sure they were lurking.

No doubt, and I'm sure Enterprises was as well. But them both listed at 33kts makes be believe they are in the same neighborhood.

 

[Stoker]

Up

Yamato turret armour - shot with a 16" projectile.hing like 400 yards

It's 26 inches of hardened (Face hardened I think?) Steel.

Theoretically, a modern RPG-7 Tandem Charge warhead could penetrate this.

Javelin (open source) says it could penetrate as well.

AT-4 could not, nor can the M-72.

View attachment 97753

Wasn't that a post war test of IJN SHINANO's armour from 400 yards?

 

[IKnowNothing]

The best solution is a mix of ship types to fill different roles and maximize the value of money spent.

You need a mixed fleet for the various threats, but that's exactly why we deploy ships in task groups (and the army does a battle group).

Could one argue that this speaks to having fewer Rivers and more CDCs/ Frigates?

A task group of 3-4 Rivers seems like a lot of C2 / sensor / tonnage /$$ /crewing overkill for the actual combat power and number of targets it represents.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Could on argue that this speaks to having fewer Rivers and more CDCs/ Frigate's?

A task group of 3-4 Rivers seems like a lot of C2 / sensor / tonnage /$$ overkill.

No, this actually speaks to why we need to be part of NATO and deploy in task groups with mixed fleets. Other countries do a much better job at focusing on core capabilities; we take really capable designs and reduce their effectiveness by trying to get them to do more functions with competing requirements.

Every class you add increases the 'tail' requirement significantly, so aside from not having enough sailors for any CDCs (or the current plan or RCD and subs), we have already maxed out Canadian SME capacity for technical support, and getting some really shit advice from class societies.

Dropping AOPs from the RCN completely might allow some CDCs, but doubt CCG has the people either, or wants to fix the things we did wrong on 6 ships that they are picking up and fixing on their variants.

 

[MilEME09]

Up

Wasn't that a post war test of IJN SHINANO's armour from 400 yards?

Shinano was sunk by a sub in 45, Nagato and a couple others survived and were used in nuclear tests

 

[Stoker]

Shinano was sunk by a sub in 45, Nagato and a couple others survived and were used in nuclear tests

It was armour leftover from Shinano after it was converted to a aircraft carrier. A bunch of this armour was brought back for testing in Virginia.

Artifact Spotlight: Yamato Armor

Join the Naval History and Heritage Command as we Spotlight interesting and unique artifacts from the collection of the U.S. Navy. This 26" thick section of armor plate, meant for a Japanese Yamato class battleship, was found at the Kure Naval Base in Japan after the end of WWII and brought back...

www.dvidshub.net

 

[Furniture]

Could one argue that this speaks to having fewer Rivers and more CDCs/ Frigates?

A task group of 3-4 Rivers seems like a lot of C2 / sensor / tonnage /$$ /crewing overkill for the actual combat power and number of targets it represents.

To have 3-4 RCDs available, we need 15. Cutting RCD numbers before a project to get CDCs even exists is just a cut to capability at a time when we needs to increase capability in all elements of the CAF.

 

[IKnowNothing]

No, this actually speaks to why we need to be part of NATO and deploy in task groups with mixed fleets.

Every class you add increases the 'tail' requirement significantly.... we have already maxed out Canadian SME capacity for technical support,

Accepting the realities of the latter, the former seems like a cop out of a long term solution for a G7 nation with our coastline. I get that we haven't had the Aussie's budget and are starting way behind- but with the money flowing we should be making every effort to eventually act our size in the long term.

To have 3-4 RCDs available, we need 15.

Isn't the standard availability relationship 1 in 3? One Available, one in refit, one in work up?

Cutting RCD numbers before a project to get CDCs even exists is just a cut to capability at a time when we needs to increase capability in all elements of the CAF.

Obviously cutting 1 would be linked to securing the other. Cutting ships that we won't see for 15 to 20 years to get ones we could see in 5-10 is the exact opposite of that. The Australian's literally just ran the same decision cycle in 2 years flat, with first of the new project slated to come online before the first of the Hunters

 

[Navy_Pete]

Accepting the realities of the latter, the former seems like a cop out of a long term solution for a G7 nation with our coastline. I get that we haven't had the Aussie's budget and are starting way behind- but with the money flowing we should be making every effort to eventually act our size in the long term.

For the size of our coastline, as well as remoteness of it from everyone else, we could invest in a lot of effective monitoring and defence other than warships, and the upgrade to the FOLs with give us a lot easier reach with plans for rapid deployment of real combat assets.

Warships are super expensive, with subs being insanely expensive. You can track ship movements via satellite and coast radars no problem, set up remote underwater listening stations and do all kinds of other things much cheaper than putting it on a ship, especially with the choke points up north.

RCD gives us a credible option to bring to a TG for a power projection, including support to ground troops with shore bombardment, but when you talk about defence of Canada in our own territory, 15 RCDs or 30 won't make any real difference if the US decides it wants our resources, or if China or Russia decide to invade. Pretending we can go it alone without NATO (minus US maybe) is crazy.

 

[IKnowNothing]

For the size of our coastline, as well as remoteness of it from everyone else, we could invest in a lot of effective monitoring and defence other than warships, and the upgrade to the FOLs with give us a lot easier reach with plans for rapid deployment of real combat assets.

Warships are super expensive, with subs being insanely expensive. You can track ship movements via satellite and coast radars no problem, set up remote underwater listening stations and do all kinds of other things much cheaper than putting it on a ship, especially with the choke points up north.

RCD gives us a credible option to bring to a TG for a power projection, including support to ground troops with shore bombardment, but when you talk about defence of Canada in our own territory, 15 RCDs or 30 won't make any real difference if the US decides it wants our resources, or if China or Russia decide to invade. Pretending we can go it alone without NATO (minus US maybe) is crazy.

"Act our size" =/= go it alone

 

[Furniture]

Isn't the standard availability relationship 1 in 3? One Available, one in refit, one in work up?

We have two fleets, so we need ships ready to go in both fleets for other commitments, while also sending a TG.

Obviously cutting 1 would be linked to securing the other. Cutting ships that we won't see for 15 to 20 years to get ones we could see in 5-10 is the exact opposite of that. The Australian's literally just ran the same decision cycle in 2 years flat, with first of the new project slated to come online before the first of the Hunters

There is no real reason to cut RCDs to have CDCs, apart from Canada not being a serious nation. If we are planning for that, just cut the whole lot and spend the money on UBI. It will be a wild party right up until it isn't...

We have one of the largest economies in the world, we should be more than capable of sustaining 25-30 surface combatants of various sizes and 6-12 subs.