New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[IKnowNothing]

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

But between those two fleets and the TG tasking, 15 should yield 5 at a given time yes?

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.

Did it make the Aussies unserious when they cut three future Hunters as part of a Pivot to get 11 frigates? Should they be cancelling it all and getting on with UBI?

Obviously figuring out the path to 15 Rivers +, 12-15 CDC's is ideal. But the status quo is 15 Rivers and zero CDC's. There are credible doubts in this very thread as to whether any number of CDC's is viable. I agree with the sentiment "we should be more than capable of sustaining 25-30 surface combatants of various sizes and 6-12 subs." But the fact is that the number (15) of Rivers was decided on when the planned number of surface combatants was also 15, and the planned number of subs was 4.

Short and sweet question- is a fleet of 12 Rivers and 12 Vigilance 100ish CDC's more desirable than a fleet of 15 Rivers and 12 autocannon armed OPV's?


What if its 9 Rivers and 15-18 CDC's, and the CDC's evolve into a full on 4000 tonne frigate akin to the Aussie pick?

 

[suffolkowner]

But between those two fleets and the TG tasking, 15 should yield 5 at a given time yes?

Did it make the Aussies unserious when they cut three future Hunters as part of a Pivot to get 11 of a tier II combatant? Should they be getting on with UBI?

Obviously figuring out the path to 15 Rivers +, 12-15 CDC's is ideal. But the status quo is 15 Rivers and zero CDC's. There are credible doubts in this very thread as to whether any number of CDC's is viable. I agree with the sentiment "we should be more than capable of sustaining 25-30 surface combatants of various sizes and 6-12 subs. But the fact is that the number (15) of Rivers was decided on when the planned number of surface combatants was also 15, and the planned number of subs was 4.

Short and sweet question- is a fleet of 12 Rivers and 12 Vigilance 100ish CDC's more desirable than a fleet of 15 Rivers and 12 autocannon armed OPV's?

the 15 always seems like the 65 F35s. Want more but no money
I dont think theres a firm idea or plan on what the CDC is or who is going to or can build it
plus if we dont have the people, how many carts do we want to put in front of the horse

 

[Czech_pivo]

the 15 always seems like the 65 F35s. Want more but no money
I dont think theres a firm idea or plan on what the CDC is or who is going to or can build it
plus if we dont have the people, how many carts do we want to put in front of the horse

A quick search on google says that the Type 26 will have a crew of 161 and berths for 208. For our Rivers is says a crew of 210 with no further breakdown.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Potential good new for Sydney Cape Breton -

Sydney, N.S., selected as the preferred maintenance port for new Arctic icebreakers | Globalnews.ca

Sydney, N.S., has the inside track on becoming the maintenance hub for the Canadian Coast Guard’s upcoming polar icebreakers.

globalnews.ca

 

[Furniture]

But between those two fleets and the TG tasking, 15 should yield 5 at a given time yes?

So three for a TG and two others for all the other tasks, mission, exercises, etc... That seems pretty minimal to me.

Did it make the Aussies unserious when they cut three future Hunters as part of a Pivot to get 11 frigates? Should they be cancelling it all and getting on with UBI?

A bit... They also made the Hunter into a monster that not even the RCD is expected to become. They did to Hunter what the Americans did to the Constellation. We have already scaled back on RCD so that we don't go completely down that route.

Before we even get to defining exactly what a CDC is, we should be considering cutting the RCDs? That's unserious, and send the wrong message to industry, allies, and adversaries alike.

There is zero reason Canada can't afford 15 RCDs and an equal number of CDCs(unless they become like the Hunter/Constellation themselves). T

For the naysayers, the CAF is seeing a huge boost in recruiting numbers, even for occupations that have struggled in the last 10 years or more. Last summer we couldn't fill a Met Tech DP1, this year we expect the serial to be at close to, if not max numbers. Not planning/building ships based on recruiting numbers from a few years ago is planning to fail for another 10-20 years. The last thing the navy needs is to go back to the
"bathtub" years, when we had far more sailors than ships, so people sat ashore bored and not getting training/experience.

 

[suffolkowner]

A quick search on google says that the Type 26 will have a crew of 161 and berths for 208. For our Rivers is says a crew of 210 with no further breakdown.

In the meantime we have to spool up the 2 AORs, actual personnel issues with the RCDs wont really come up until the 30s
presumably there will be some training adjustments

8400
AOR 2x200=400
AOPS 6x65=390
SSK 3x60=180
HAL 12x250= 3000
MCDV 4x45=180
4150

15x210=3150
2x200=400
6x65=390
12x50=600
4540

But between those two fleets and the TG tasking, 15 should yield 5 at a given time yes?

Did it make the Aussies unserious when they cut three future Hunters as part of a Pivot to get 11 frigates? Should they be cancelling it all and getting on with UBI?

Obviously figuring out the path to 15 Rivers +, 12-15 CDC's is ideal. But the status quo is 15 Rivers and zero CDC's. There are credible doubts in this very thread as to whether any number of CDC's is viable. I agree with the sentiment "we should be more than capable of sustaining 25-30 surface combatants of various sizes and 6-12 subs." But the fact is that the number (15) of Rivers was decided on when the planned number of surface combatants was also 15, and the planned number of subs was 4.

Short and sweet question- is a fleet of 12 Rivers and 12 Vigilance 100ish CDC's more desirable than a fleet of 15 Rivers and 12 autocannon armed OPV's?


What if its 9 Rivers and 15-18 CDC's, and the CDC's evolve into a full on 4000 tonne frigate akin to the Aussie pick?

interesting that the Australian general purpose frigate is referred to as a Tier 2 surface combatant with its 32 VLS. I guess its not a Tier 1 air defence destroyer or a Tier 1 anti submarine frigate but still seems a substantial ship
your 9 Rivers would match the Aussies
3 Hobarts and 6 Hunters and then add the 11? Mogamis but that seems to be the complete opposite of the intent of maintaining one major surface combatant and its resulting benefits of scale