Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Nellis_14_T-birds_1543-1.JPG

Nellis_14_T-birds_1441-1.JPG

Nellis_14_T-birds_1491-1.JPG

Nellis_14_GR4_0963-1.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Rebuilding a smaller mid sized Navy

This is a discussion on Rebuilding a smaller mid sized Navy within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by History1 Great endurance/range is not an issue. Look at a map. Endurance/range is very much an issue ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 1 votes, 5.00 average.
Old October 15th, 2012   #196
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by History1 View Post
Great endurance/range is not an issue.
Look at a map. Endurance/range is very much an issue for Canada.
Quote:
The vastness of the coasts make the need for greater numbers (far more numerous) of smaller (less port/harbor requirements and versatile), less-expensive ships, ever more apparent.
Smaller ships with less range will require a larger number of bases, not just ports, to adequately cover. That means additional personnel and facility costs. The bases need to be in ice free ports.

The number of ships required can be calculated by estimating the number needed on station at any time, then multiplying by the (E 2 * T P) / (E * A), where:
E = endurance
T = transit time to station from port
P = Time in port to resupply and perform maintenance.
A = %availability, mostly governed by the time between overhauls/refurbishment, but will also be reduced by the likelihood of a required port being iced up.
Look at the distances involved, and play with it. There will be a minima, but it will not be the same proportionately for Canada as, say the Netherlands.
Quote:
The enormous apparatus required by larger, more complex vessels are staggering.
Supply, maintenance, repair, governance of (administration), replacement, replacement equipment, training of crews, standing employment of active duty crews,......the list continues; all of these issues would be reduced in cost and operational effectiveness, while meeting the requirement of increasing needs over larger areas (having sufficient numbers realized and thus in place and in operation).
  • Much of maintenance cost is determined by the equipment on the ship, especially the electronics, not the size of the ship.
  • Crew savings is mainly realized by moving maintenance to shore facilities and putting it in a separate budget, i.e. hiding it.
  • Smaller crews increase the training requirements per person, because each has to capable of doing more jobs.
  • Governance/administration is generally a fixed cost per ship.
  • You are correct that operational effectiveness would be reduced.
My2Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2012   #197
Defense Enthusiast
Corporal
No Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 136
Threads:
When I use that formula I get a nonsense answer, but it might be a classic case of GIGO

Let's say we need one OPV to look after an EEZ fishing ground around an offshore island group.
Using simplistic thumbsuck numbers:
Endurance = 25 days
Transit time = 4 days
Port time = 25 days
Availabiliy = 0.7 (70%)

That formula says we need a fleet of -0.45714 OPVs - obvious nonsense!
If we increase the number required on station to two the formula says my total fleet must "grow" to -0.91429 still nonsense.
I'm a total noob on naval matters so I'm perfectly willing to accept that the absurdity lies with my hypothetical inputs.
Dodger67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2012   #198
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,099
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dodger67 View Post
When I use that formula I get a nonsense answer, but it might be a classic case of GIGO

Let's say we need one OPV to look after an EEZ fishing ground around an offshore island group.
Using simplistic thumbsuck numbers:
Endurance = 25 days
Transit time = 4 days
Port time = 25 days
Availabiliy = 0.7 (70%)

That formula says we need a fleet of -0.45714 OPVs - obvious nonsense!
If we increase the number required on station to two the formula says my total fleet must "grow" to -0.91429 still nonsense.
I'm a total noob on naval matters so I'm perfectly willing to accept that the absurdity lies with my hypothetical inputs.
I believe the formula itself is incorrect. I believe the below is a more correct version, though I admittedly do not know if the numbers/ratios are correct.

(E (2 * T+ P)) / (E * A),

E = endurance
T = transit time to station from port
P = Time in port to resupply and perform maintenance.
A = %availability, mostly governed by the time between overhauls/refurbishment, but will also be reduced by the likelihood of a required port being iced up.

Let the number crunching commence.
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 15th, 2012   #199
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
I believe the formula itself is incorrect. I believe the below is a more correct version, though I admittedly do not know if the numbers/ratios are correct.

(E (2 * T+ P)) / (E * A),

E = endurance
T = transit time to station from port
P = Time in port to resupply and perform maintenance.
A = %availability, mostly governed by the time between overhauls/refurbishment, but will also be reduced by the likelihood of a required port being iced up.

Let the number crunching commence.
No, it is still wrong.

I should have typed ((P + E) / (E - 2 * T)) / A

Thats what I get for being in a hurry.
My2Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2012   #200
Just Hatched
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
Look at a map. Endurance/range is very much an issue for Canada.

Smaller ships with less range will require a larger number of bases, not just ports, to adequately cover. That means additional personnel and facility costs. The bases need to be in ice free ports.

The number of ships required can be calculated by estimating the number needed on station at any time, then multiplying by the (E – 2 * T – P) / (E * A), where:
E = endurance
T = transit time to station from port
P = Time in port to resupply and perform maintenance.
A = %availability, mostly governed by the time between overhauls/refurbishment, but will also be reduced by the likelihood of a required port being iced up.
Look at the distances involved, and play with it. There will be a minima, but it will not be the same proportionately for Canada as, say the Netherlands.
  • Much of maintenance cost is determined by the equipment on the ship, especially the electronics, not the size of the ship.
  • Crew savings is mainly realized by moving maintenance to shore facilities and putting it in a separate budget, i.e. hiding it.
  • Smaller crews increase the training requirements per person, because each has to capable of doing more jobs.
  • Governance/administration is generally a fixed cost per ship.
  • You are correct that operational effectiveness would be reduced.
The choice is between MANY smaller vessels (obviously with shorter endurance and range) versus FEWER larger vessels (with better endurance and longer range).

A compromise would be for more of the former and less of the latter - what would that percentage of each be? Other questions arise; how small is small? How large is large? Where to base the ships? Are the bases in the right places?

Does a country like Canada, with it's global-sized coastline need many (far more in comparison) smaller vessels (many in number albeit less range and endurance), or a few (fewer) large vessels (that have long range and excellent endurance)?
History1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 10th, 2012   #201
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,099
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by History1 View Post
The choice is between MANY smaller vessels (obviously with shorter endurance and range) versus FEWER larger vessels (with better endurance and longer range).

A compromise would be for more of the former and less of the latter - what would that percentage of each be? Other questions arise; how small is small? How large is large? Where to base the ships? Are the bases in the right places?

Does a country like Canada, with it's global-sized coastline need many (far more in comparison) smaller vessels (many in number albeit less range and endurance), or a few (fewer) large vessels (that have long range and excellent endurance)?
The many/smaller vs. fewer/larger vessel question is not quite as straight forward as some seem to think with respect to RCN needs. There are of course the Atlantic and Pacific coasts which require assets and patrolling and have usable ports. However, there is also the Hudson Bay area, various northern islands, Arctic approaches, etc. Depending on the time of year, there might be a few usable ports, or there might not be.

Having a large number of small vessels set aside to patrol this area, when the closest port gets iced in during the winter, does not really work all that well. Similarly, if the vessels are small and have a correspondingly shorter endurance, having them transit to/from bases in northern Atlantic or Pacific coasts is not a very viable option either, since so much of their fuel, stores, etc would be depleted in transit, leaving little (or nothing depending on conditions and patrol area) time on station.

Some of the smaller vessels could work to patrol local areas off the East and West coasts, but anything further out or up north is going to require a bit more.

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2012   #202
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
The many/smaller vs. fewer/larger vessel question is not quite as straight forward as some seem to think with respect to RCN needs. There are of course the Atlantic and Pacific coasts which require assets and patrolling and have usable ports. However, there is also the Hudson Bay area, various northern islands, Arctic approaches, etc. Depending on the time of year, there might be a few usable ports, or there might not be.

Having a large number of small vessels set aside to patrol this area, when the closest port gets iced in during the winter, does not really work all that well. Similarly, if the vessels are small and have a correspondingly shorter endurance, having them transit to/from bases in northern Atlantic or Pacific coasts is not a very viable option either, since so much of their fuel, stores, etc would be depleted in transit, leaving little (or nothing depending on conditions and patrol area) time on station.

Some of the smaller vessels could work to patrol local areas off the East and West coasts, but anything further out or up north is going to require a bit more.
Seakeeping is also much better for larger vessels than small. Seakeeping is critical for operations given some of the routine sea states off the Canadian coast in winter.
My2Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 11th, 2012   #203
Deaf talker?
General
Todjaeger's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: New England
Posts: 3,099
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by My2Cents View Post
Seakeeping is also much better for larger vessels than small. Seakeeping is critical for operations given some of the routine sea states off the Canadian coast in winter.
Indeed, which is one of the reasons why the Kingston-class MCDV which were intended for MCM, patrolling and training have not been seeing as much service as appears to have originally been anticipated. While approaching 1,000 ton displacement, the vessels themselves are still only ~55 m IIRC, making them a rather rough ride in the "calm and gentle" North Atlantic, North Pacific and Arctic Oceans...

-Cheers
________________
"I'm doing the same thing I do every night, Pinky..." comment from one lab mouse to another.
Todjaeger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2012   #204
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 38
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Todjaeger View Post
From what I read of the CCG site, as well as the relevant Canadian acts, there appears to be virtually no provision for the CCG to perform law enforcement duties. The CCG does appear to be tasked with providing support/transport for other Canadian agencies (like the RCMP...) which can then perform their respective roles....

.....If a particular nation has its navy or a national police force tasked with performing EEZ patrolling, and/or other constabulary roles, that is fine. What matters is whether or not the allocation of assets, budgetary funding and personnel is appropriate for the roles required by Gov't, and if the roles mandated by Gov't are appropriate and realistic for a given nation's security situation.

-Cheers
Government to consider arming coast guard vessels - Nova Scotia - CBC News

It appears the Canadian government is considering arming the CCG. Reading between the lines (and a senate report) and its pretty clear imo that the CCG will soon have the constabulary responsibilities that the USCG does.

If they will be officially tasked with a constabulary role then they need an OPV. The PV85 will do the job nicely as it should be able to patrol within all of Canada's 200nm EEZ south of the ice. The helicopter pad should be reinforced / resized to handle Cyclone and Cormorant helicopters. (On a side note the CCG is going to need a new helicopter soon to replace the BO 105 and I think the AW 159 would fit perfectly in the hanger of the PV85 and would be a nice complement to the Cormorants performing SAR and the like. In general the CCG would probably not need a 6000 kg helicopter elsewhere as the BO 105 is only 2500 kg but the range and capacity of the 159 make it a good fit for a PV85.)

The 25mm gun is a little small and should be beefed up to a 40mm. A Stern launching ramp would be an asset. A missile / torpedo package similar to the Knud Rasmussen OPV would be ideal if we were going to go the direction of the USCG although the added weight may mean the PV85 may have to be increased in size slightly or forgo the ice strengthened hull. This would only make sense if the CCG is placed under the Navy's domain as the USCG is.

The PV85 design could also replace the 4 existing CCG Scientific and Oceanographic vessels that are due for replacement. Having OPVs, Scientific and Oceanographic vessels all using the same design should bring down building and maintenance costs.

Also, on this line of thinking the APS ships could be cancelled and replaced with 3 heavy ice breakers with a pc-1 rating. Heavy ice breakers would be able to remain in the Arctic most of the year adding to sovereignty credibility much more effectively than the slush breakers. Now that the Government is considering arming CCG vessels and the senate is reviewing a role change the Navy need not waste time and money retraining sailors to patrol waters the CCG already navigates.

Perhaps the government will decide in the end to keep the CCG performing the roles they have traditionally held but this is an excellent opportunity ensure Canadian waters are properly patrolled and free the navy from EEZ patrols.

Last edited by Future Fleet; November 19th, 2012 at 07:09 PM.
Future Fleet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 19th, 2012   #205
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 38
Threads:
Labor split on nuclear submarines

If the US is finally interested in exporting some of their Virginia's, we would be crazy to not buy some. 4-6 SSNs would be a great asset to defence, Arctic patrol, and task force deployment.
Future Fleet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2012   #206
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: USA,TN
Posts: 553
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Future Fleet View Post
Labor split on nuclear submarines

If the US is finally interested in exporting some of their Virginia's, we would be crazy to not buy some. 4-6 SSNs would be a great asset to defence, Arctic patrol, and task force deployment.
Would make sense i think they currently cost what less around 1 bil maybe even less? Not sure how well they would do in the arctic can they surface and such without causing damage to the skin?
Belesari is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2012   #207
Defense Enthusiast
Lieutenant
No Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Norway
Posts: 501
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belesari View Post
Would make sense i think they currently cost what less around 1 bil maybe even less? Not sure how well they would do in the arctic can they surface and such without causing damage to the skin?
Not sure about Virginia but Astute can surface through ice.
KiwiRob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2012   #208
Grumpy Old Man
General
gf0012-aust's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 14,933
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
Not sure about Virginia but Astute can surface through ice.
The Virginias have done so....
________________
A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
http://au.linkedin.com/pub/gary-fairlie/1/28a/2a2
http://cofda.wordpress.com/
gf0012-aust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2012   #209
Senior Member
Lieutenant Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,085
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by KiwiRob View Post
Not sure about Virginia but Astute can surface through ice.
I imagine the capability to surface through ice has been a standard requirement for all new designs since the Skate first did it in 1958. There was no other way to communicate with a sub under the ice cap back then, and what they developed since is not much better because of a very low baud rate and is receive only for the submarine.
My2Cents is offline   Reply With Quote
Old November 20th, 2012   #210
New Member
Private
No Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 38
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Belesari View Post
Would make sense i think they currently cost what less around 1 bil maybe even less? Not sure how well they would do in the arctic can they surface and such without causing damage to the skin?
Don't think they are that cheap, I imagine they'll come in closer to 1.5 to 2 billion. The Aussies are wisely reconsidering the SSN route since a SSK with their requirements would cost more and do less.
Future Fleet is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:43 PM.