Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[hauritz]

Another bad news day for the RCN. Of the 12 firms bidding, 2 have already asked for an extension and 2 more are processing their requests for extension. It will be interesting to see what happens and which companies are requesting the extensions. Then there is the Adm Norman mess......

More time needed for Canadian Surface Combatant bids, industry says | Ottawa Citizen

A few companies have apparently threatened to withdraw from the bidding process.

Fincantieri has complained that the involvement of the warship designer is very limited in that they will simply be providing engineering and design services to Irving shipyards. They will be receiving very little return for handing over the intellectual property to Canada and want to be more involved in the construction of these warships.

Fincantieri have suggested that the winning bidder build the first 3 ships and Irving build the remaining vessels.

Sounds like the program is already off to a bad start.

I wonder if Fincantieri are going to try thr same thing with the Australian government?

Canadian warship project a mess, as one of world’s largest shipbuilders threatens minister it won’t bid | National Post

 

[John Fedup]

Although the Italian FREMM is a worthy design, I don't see Fincantieri as a contender. Frankly the program is turning into a cluster f... There might not be anything to win.

 

[John Fedup]

The National Post post article mentioned Fincantieri' suggestion they build the first 3 warships and Irving would build the remaining 12. An astute reader commented this was a brilliant way for Fincantieri to get 50% of the build as the Liberals will likely later downsize the project to 6 ships in order to cover "other" priorities.

 

[vonnoobie]

I wonder if Fincantieri are going to try thr same thing with the Australian government?

Unlikely. One nation is building them in an old ship yard with a government that has never shown any consitancy beyond scrapping deal's from election to election and management in the Canadian primes involved unable to run a raffle at your local church while the other nation has a world class shipyard with almost consistant bipartisan support, long term continuous production in mind (ie: Any winner could get more ship's ordered then these 9 frigates) and has already realised it's management issues and has already taken step's to fix it.

One's a major risk with little return while the other is a minor risk with big returns.

 

[John Fedup]

I think your comment is pretty much spot on, unfortunately! If we could buy 8 Virginias and forget about CSC and up arm the AOPS we might be better off. Neither will happen and we will end up with a reduced surface fleet with dubious capability that will be blue water in name only. Only our failed ex-drama teacher PM and his supporters will think otherwise.

 

[ngatimozart]

I think your comment is pretty much spot on, unfortunately! If we could buy 8 Virginias and forget about CSC and up arm the AOPS we might be better off. Neither will happen and we will end up with a reduced surface fleet with dubious capability that will be blue water in name only. Only our failed ex-drama teacher PM and his supporters will think otherwise.

It's not just the current govt at fault John, its both the major political parties in Canada, economic protectionism and the Canadian procurement bureaucracy. The whole system needs a major dung out and change.

 

[John Fedup]

It's not just the current govt at fault John, its both the major political parties in Canada, economic protectionism and the Canadian procurement bureaucracy. The whole system needs a major dung out and change.

You forgot the biggest problem, the Canadian electorate. The BS by pollies is only possible because of the dumbass citizens which vote them in. The population is what needs a major dung out so I do agree with Trump on immigration. We need a ministry of deportation.

 

[John Fedup]

I wonder what the minister will do if she only receives a single bid from BAE? With no timely ability to address vendor questions, many vendors must be wondering if the effort and expense is worth the bother.

Talk to us about the Canadian Surface Combatant Judy Foote, talk to us – companies want answers | Ottawa Citizen

 

[John Fedup]

The CSC program bidding has now been extended by 2 months to mid June.

Bidding on Canadian Surface Combatant program to be delayed, federal government confirms | Ottawa Citizen

 

[John Fedup]

The details on Admiral Norman's suspension remain unknown. He earlier criticized the progress of the National Ship Building Program and publically stated the 26 billion dollars allocated was far below the needed amount. Guess junior didn't like that, especially when his election campaign deemed the RCN as his defence priority. The attached link has a statement from his lawyer, the only comment from him so far in this affair.

Vice Admiral Norman denies any wrongdoing – lawyer says he served Canada honourably | Ottawa Citizen

 

[John Fedup]

The last Tribal class destroyer is being paid off this month. The RCN will be a frigate navy as long as the Halifax frigates last. If the CSC program doesn't start soon we will be a coastal navy in 10-15 years.

Final day sail for HMCS Athabaskan before being paid off | Ottawa Citizen

 

[Novascotiaboy]

I'm hoping for a sail past with its retirement pennant in tow. If it happens I plan on getting a couple of photos from the top of the building I work at. I will post tomorrow.

 

[John Fedup]

Great, looking forward to seeing.

 

[J_Can]

I really hope NDHQ gets the single surface combatant going soon, the navy is disappearing into nothing. Even if they divided the build into flights and build some overseas, we need hulls so badly:teary. Another option perhaps is to create a replacement specific to the Iroquois-class destroyer. All said though to be honest the current build plan imo is to much in some ways and completely inadequate in other ways.

Why do we need 15 front-line warships were is the threat for that? Even if we divided the build into two flights for a anti-air warfare flight and a more general purpose flight. Is 15 hulls really needed? I would argue we need at most 12 vessels (7 Atlantic and 5 Pacific), maybe less. I would argue the FREMM class fit the role best, being multi-purpose and large enough to allow us to play around with our outfit.

Build the two AOR not three, since were not going to be generating two let alone three task groups at once. Keep on the interim AOR and either seconded it to the Coast Guard or place it into a more active naval reserve. Also take a hard look at the Federal Fleet service the Quebec yard is offering, if not so much buying from the yard but in what navy or coast guard can buy the cheap from yards global. I dont really trust Quebec companies and defence needs in general due to politics, but what that yard is offering has real merit. The RCN or CCG can always use a multi-role salavage vessel, and there can never be enough ice breakers in Canada imo. New tugs, new fire boats, LCU, research/ test vessels the list goes on and on.

Build an additional two AOPV (call them flight II) but spec them to carbon copies of the Norwegian variant in terms of ice strength, and speed. Arm them with a heavier calibre (maybe 51mm?) and allow this second flight of the AOPV be the armed teeth for our arctic. Two hulls of a slightly more heavily armed AOPV is more than enough considering the threat level there now, and also base them in the Atlantic.

Replace the Kingston class sooner rather than later, and make the replacement far more multi-role and somewhat larger. So replace the 12 Kingston with 8 larger vessels (4 to each coast). This new class primary role will still be mine-warfare in the traditional sense but can also be used as a "mother ship" for unmanned assets (be this subsurface or surface). This would allow the replacement class to swing role massively, one day doing mine warfare the next running down drug smugglers in the Caribbean. Arm them enough for constabulary roles or protection against small craft protection (25mm no more) which would then still allow them to provide a secondary presence/ patrol role.

Also invest in the current fleet of SSK, and plan for a replacement sooner rather than later. We could latch onto a bunch of "Arctic" allied replacement programs: Norway or Sweden. Even though our SSK wont be operating constantly in the arctic both design are AIP and ice strengthened, an ability we still need if only to complicate potential adversaries threat calculus. Specifically I would recommended Sweden because of the excellent quality of their submarines and because their desperate for foreign cash injection into the A-26 replacement program to lower overall costs, so we might be able to cut a good deal.

Final buy a LHD class they are beyond necessary for Canada. We have the one largest navigable coastline in the world yet we have no sea-lift nothing. This has to change asap, but most likely wont. An ice-strengthened Mistral-class could be an option, but anything right now is better than nothing. Also these large vessels can always be used for allied ops, and would final allow us to operate independently if we need to.

So in short the model fleet I would say we need, and desperately hope we might aim towards is:

-2 LHD (ice-strengthened) [1 Atlantic/ 1 Pacific]
-2 AOR (ice-strengthened) [1 Atlantic/ 1 Pacific]
-12 FFGH [7 Atlantic/ 5 Pacific]
-8 AOPV [6 Atlantic/ 2 Pacific]
-8 MCM [4 Atlantic/ 4 Pacific]
-4 SSK (AIP/ ice-strengthened) [2 Atlantic/ 2 Pacific]

The other option to keep cost down more could be the fleet plan below. The biggest thing would writing any real heavy presence in the Pacific, and instead focus all effort on the Atlantic/ Arctic footprint of the RCN.

-1 LHD (ice-strengthened) [Atlantic]
-1 JSS/ AOR (Project Resolve) [Atlantic]
-2 AOR (ice-strengthened) [1 Atlantic/ 1 Pacific]
-10 FFGH [6 Atlantic/ 4 Pacific]
-6 AOPV [4 Atlantic/ 2 Pacific]
-10 MCM [6 Atlantic/ 4 Pacific]
-3-4 SSK (AIP/ ice-strengthened) [2-3 Atlantic/ 0-1 Pacific]

Once again sorry for the long post, and hopeful I did rant to much.

 

[John Fedup]

The 15 ship build was decided upon,rightly or wrongly, on our existing fleet that existed when the national ship building program was conceived. This consisted of the 12 Halifax frigates and 3 remaining Tribal class destroyers. All destroyers have been paid off. Same story for the AORs, 2 direct replacements. Although I am not a fan of the Quebec shipyard, the Resolve proposal is necessary because Seaspan can't build the Queenstons in time and we currently have no AORs. I will try respond to the rest of your post later.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

IMHO the fleet plan for the RCN is based on the past and does not reflect needs that are being ignored as J Can and others including myself have noted. We have ZERO transport capability. The RCN needs some type of organic sealift to be able to move the army or HADR supplies.

My feeling is the second option is more likely. A LHD type vessel of 200 m with five or six spots on deck and the ability to operate Chinooks would be very beneficial. Preferably a JC or a Mistral type to be our "Big Honking Ship" as promoted by former CDS Rick Hillier a decade ago.

A true multi purpose ship to act as a sea base, ASW mothership, HADR, battalion of infantry and hardware transport ship. So much opportunity.

An up gunning of the AOPS with a 57 mm would be nice but is unlikely. Would also like to see a light helicopter as an option for use from AOPS plus an RPAS. Can't see the Cyclone being available in enough numbers to allow deployment with the AOPS.

 

[J_Can]

Unless we take the 57mm and reuse them on the AOPV, what is the demand for 57mm up in the high north? There is not going to be any surface contacts and you do not need a 57mm to fend of some illegal fisheries or polar bears. Maybe it could be used as a CIWS but at the point your talking about a shooting war, and the AOPV wont fitted with the sensors or other necessary systems to probably exploit the the full potential of the 57mm.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The AOPS will be deployable assets like the Kingstons. Two of those are now headed to the Gulf of Guinea off Africa.

Just because they are called Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships they are still OPV's.

 

[J_Can]

The AOPS will be deployable assets like the Kingstons. Two of those are now headed to the Gulf of Guinea off Africa.

Just because they are called Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships they are still OPV's.

Ya very true, my time in was with the infantry so in my mind if can't hit inland it is not worth the interm caliber. I need to do some reading on the current thought about over seas ops of the RCN, I never realized the Kingston deployed outside the western hemisphere to be honest.

 

[Todjaeger]

So in short the model fleet I would say we need, and desperately hope we might aim towards is:

-2 LHD (ice-strengthened) [1 Atlantic/ 1 Pacific]
-2 AOR (ice-strengthened) [1 Atlantic/ 1 Pacific]
-12 FFGH [7 Atlantic/ 5 Pacific]
-8 AOPV [6 Atlantic/ 2 Pacific]
-8 MCM [4 Atlantic/ 4 Pacific]
-4 SSK (AIP/ ice-strengthened) [2 Atlantic/ 2 Pacific]

The other option to keep cost down more could be the fleet plan below. The biggest thing would writing any real heavy presence in the Pacific, and instead focus all effort on the Atlantic/ Arctic footprint of the RCN.

-1 LHD (ice-strengthened) [Atlantic]
-1 JSS/ AOR (Project Resolve) [Atlantic]
-2 AOR (ice-strengthened) [1 Atlantic/ 1 Pacific]
-10 FFGH [6 Atlantic/ 4 Pacific]
-6 AOPV [4 Atlantic/ 2 Pacific]
-10 MCM [6 Atlantic/ 4 Pacific]
-3-4 SSK (AIP/ ice-strengthened) [2-3 Atlantic/ 0-1 Pacific]

Once again sorry for the long post, and hopeful I did rant to much.

I have read the post with some interest, and have a few thoughts which bear mentioning.

The first is more in the nature of a question people should be asking, "Where are the areas of maritime interest and/or threat to Canada, both current and until ~2050?" Relating to that is the question of who Canada might have to/be facing off against in the maritime domain? The who and the where will have a great deal of influence on the sorts of capabilities the RCN will need.

As for the numbers, the Rule of Threes comes immediately to mind. In a nutshell, what the Rule of 3 means is that for every major asset which will be deployed, or needs to be ready to deploy, a total of three of said asset are needed. This is to provide sufficient numbers to meet requirements for training and maintenance/support, as well as operations. If there are too few assets, then either training, maintenance, or operations (or a combination thereof) will be neglected. For some of the support assets like AOR's, then sometimes the number can be dropped to two assets to provide the needed operations outputs, as long as things are managed carefully.

Unfortunately the RCN fleet composition is complicated by Canada's maritime approaches, and how they are likely be to changing over the next ~30 years or so.

Basically in order for there to be a pair of escorts (frigates or destroyers) either deployed or available for deployment from the West Coast, ~six escorts would need to be based on the West Coast. The situation is similar with subs, though they tend to follow the Rule of Fours.

What the RCN might be able to do (or it might need to do, depending on circumstances...) is split the fleet into West Coast and East Coast forces, with one of the forces (IMO the East Coast would be more likely) to having a larger establishment. This unequal distribution might permit that particular establishment to detach forces for overseas deployments, showing the flag missions, and periodic exchanges with the establishment on the opposite coast. Again, the numbers and deployments would need to be carefully managed to ensure that all forces could cycle through their needed maintenance, training and deployment cycles. Otherwise some vessels could suffer neglect due to lack of maintenance, overuse, or crew skill atrophy.

In terms of vessel numbers, honestly 15 skimmers sounds about right to me, that could permit 5 skimmers to be deployed, before surging additional vessels.

The number of subs IMO is too low. The RCN should either increase the size of the sub fleet to 8+, or get out of the sub business altogether. From my POV, it would be a poor decision to stop operating subs, especially given who Canada might find itself in conflict with in the coming decades. However, there is a certain sort of 'critical mass' needed to provide the number of trained sub personnel. Four boats is really too low for that, a problem made worse by issues the current subs have had in RCN service. If the RCN does end up replacing the current subs, I would suggest looking at the types of subs in Japanese, or Australian service, as these tend to be larger and more capable of deep diving, as well as long-ranged deployment. The Euro-designed subs tend to be more geared towards operations in and around European waters. To use Swedish subs as an example, their most likely adversary is only ~330 km away, across the comparatively shallow and confined waters of the Baltic Sea. The distance between major Canadian and Russian ports is nearly 20 times that, and crosses the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and/or Arctic Oceans.

Now I do think Canada should have a sealift capability, at present I do not think going so far as to get an LHD would make sense, it is a sort of crawl/walk/run type situation. Not to mention getting something as high value as an LHD would also require force planning to ensure adequate escorts. Using the RAN as an example, once the two LHD's and 3 AWD's are fully commissioned, there will be a pair of LHD's and 11 escorts in RAN service. When one of the LHD's deploys, unless the deployment is in a benign area (HADR, possibly) it will have an AWD and FFH escorting it. Keeping in mind the Rule of Threes, a single RAN LHD would require ~half the available RAN escorts to deploy. If the RCN reduces the size of the fleet to a dozen major surface units, then adds in a pair of LHD's, then Canada might end up defending the coasts with a single DDG or FFG per coast, if/when the LHD's deploy.