Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Can hardly wait to hear the backlash from Western Canada if Davie takes the heavy icebreaker project from SeaSpan. Assuming a third AOR isn’t happening junior needs to think about something to replace SeaSpan’s icebreaker project. A LHD project for SeaSpan seems like a useful idea, even if the hulls are produced in Spain like the Australian LHDs.
 
Sorry everyone for using a term that isn’t universally understood. Most of my early education in marine confined space rescue came from navy firefighters here in Halifax. The term Lightening Hole is all we ever knew these openings as. Is there another term used overseas?
 
@Johnfedup by LHD do you mean a big honking ship as proposed by General Rick Hillier a decade ago?

If Junior won’t give Davie a second Asterix why not bite the bullet and let them convert Oblix into the enhanced logistics support ship with less fuel storage and more lane meters. It’s not like we are ever going to go with an opposed beach landing. We need logistics transport to get the Army’s equipment to some port close to the area of operations.

I think Seaspan will be hard pressed to complete what they have in a timely manner. If Davie is going to be the center of excellence for ice breaking it makes sense to build all ice breakers in Quebec. The conversion of Oblix would keep them busy until the ice breaker designs are finalized.

As to additional compensatory work for Seaspan why not build a series of three or four Damen LST 120s. These would allow the RCN to move wheeled and tracked equipment into all coastal areas of Southern Canada and the Caribbean for training, HADR and other operations. Plus these could serve as motherships or forward operating bases to support SOFs in hostile areas where we lack land bases. A slight modification to the design to offer a hangar would be welcome to allow the protected carriage of up to two Militarized Bell 429s to support SOF activities. During the summer months these could also be used in northern waters into Hudson Bay and other areas where support from the sea is required.

Instead of four LCVP maybe a mix of LCVP and CB90 giving the vessel insertion capability at high speed.

Ou navy is too frigate focused. We have no logistical support capability where we can drive on / off with mobile equipment and supplies. This failing was highlighted during hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and Igor in Newfoundland to name but two events. I can see suck vessels being in high demand by various government services and with the rising seas along our coasts the existing infrastructure is becoming difficult to rely upon. It may sound odd for a first world nation but we here in Canada have a huge area to support and very finite amounts of resources to help out when shit goes bad.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
Sorry everyone for using a term that isn’t universally understood. Most of my early education in marine confined space rescue came from navy firefighters here in Halifax. The term Lightening Hole is all we ever knew these openings as. Is there another term used overseas?
Click to expand...

Actually, you used the correct term, just spelled it wrong. You can google lightening hole and it describes them perfectly, but a lightning hole is another question.

Cheers
 
Novascotiaboy said:
@Johnfedup by LHD do you mean a big honking ship as proposed by General Rick Hillier a decade ago?

If Junior won’t give Davie a second Asterix why not bite the bullet and let them convert Oblix into the enhanced logistics support ship with less fuel storage and more lane meters. It’s not like we are ever going to go with an opposed beach landing. We need logistics transport to get the Army’s equipment to some port close to the area of operations.

I think Seaspan will be hard pressed to complete what they have in a timely manner. If Davie is going to be the center of excellence for ice breaking it makes sense to build all ice breakers in Quebec. The conversion of Oblix would keep them busy until the ice breaker designs are finalized.

As to additional compensatory work for Seaspan why not build a series of three or four Damen LST 120s. These would allow the RCN to move wheeled and tracked equipment into all coastal areas of Southern Canada and the Caribbean for training, HADR and other operations. Plus these could serve as motherships or forward operating bases to support SOFs in hostile areas where we lack land bases. A slight modification to the design to offer a hangar would be welcome to allow the protected carriage of up to two Militarized Bell 429s to support SOF activities. During the summer months these could also be used in northern waters into Hudson Bay and other areas where support from the sea is required.

Instead of four LCVP maybe a mix of LCVP and CB90 giving the vessel insertion capability at high speed.

Ou navy is too frigate focused. We have no logistical support capability where we can drive on / off with mobile equipment and supplies. This failing was highlighted during hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and Igor in Newfoundland to name but two events. I can see suck vessels being in high demand by various government services and with the rising seas along our coasts the existing infrastructure is becoming difficult to rely upon. It may sound odd for a first world nation but we here in Canada have a huge area to support and very finite amounts of resources to help out when shit goes bad.
Click to expand...

I believe Hillier wanted to grab an end of build SAN Antonio class ship which I think would been have ok as the price and quality was established. A JC class ship is above and beyond but the flexibility it adds would be worth while IMO. Several Damen LSTs would be more to junior’s liking, especially if Davie builds them. I am happy as long as no fighting ships get built in Quebec. LHDs for SeaSpan works for me.
 
You are correct about the San Antonio but I feel it would have been too much of a manpower pig and would have eaten too much $$$$ from the navy budget. This LPD is more appropriate for aggresive landings which we wont be doing.

Having the ability to locate two per coast allows redundancy. I would prefer these built by Seaspan so the Defenbaker(s) can be built at Davie. With there modest size they should go together quickly. Built in modules they could come together from all three yards quite easily.

As a training platform these vessels would offer a low cost ocean going vessel suitable for deployment to the Great Lakes and coastal regions. Prepositioned in the Caribbean during storm season along with Asterix these could form a potent foreign aid task force able to assist the islands when required.

IMHO the RCN needs to be more expiditionary and starting with HADR operations allows lessons to be learned as we work our way to a future BHS. The BHS could be built at Seaspan but as we have discussed would be stupid expensive.
 
 
As a suggestion for a less expensive LPD alternative, the South Korean designed Makassar-class has been built in three countries and is in service with four (perhaps, soon five). As mentioned in other posts, some LST designs lack helicopter hangers and some only load/unload via the bow. This can reduce flexibility.

The Makassar-class appears to be big enough to handle many tasks with a reasonable capacity dock.

Sorry for Wikipedia as my prime source, but finding another link that covers all the countries is difficult. The Philippine variant/class has some useful differences. The YouTube video includes many Asian examples along with a competing Singapore LPD design.

Makassar-class landing platform dock - Wikipedia

Tarlac-class landing platform dock - Wikipedia

 
Last edited:
An LPD / LPH / or BHS for the RCN would be welcome but crewing will be the challenge. The LST 120 has a 22 person crew and for this reason primarily I feel this provides us a capability we lack at a cost we can afford and manage initially. As time passes and we develop the skills we can look to move to the larger platform. Even the basic vessels such as the Makasaar type have 122 crew each.

My want is for the RCN and the GOTD to have an organic capability to move outsize cargo when called upon. I realize that these vessels are modest in size but we have to start somewhere. Jumping right into a large 200 m LPD or LPH would be too big of a step as we have no experience operating such vessels.

In Halifax these two vessels could be based at a new pier on the Dartmouth side of the harbour at the former naval armaments depot. CFB Shearwater as a point of interest is the only base in Canada with road, rail, air and sea access. Currently the home of naval aviation on the upper base airfield. The lower base is home to Fleet Diving Unit Atlantic and a NATO mandated pier for nuclear submarine docking. Many small vessels supporting dive operations are based here as well at Eastern Passage. Mobilization of land assets from this location is straight forward.

As i noted in a previous post, tasking two LST 120s with Asterix for HADR would allow Asterix to serve as the mothership able to provide fuel/ water and electrical power to shore. With her cargo capacity and medical facilities the LSTs could move the heavy equipment to port to assist in clearing damage and debris as well as moving large numbers of engineers and troops to the beach. The Haiti earthquake was another event Canada was poorly prepared to assist with. The Caribbean is our backyard and we should be able to assist. The experience gained here annually would be cheap training for military operations where these skills would be required to move our hardware ashore in support of peace making operations in less developed areas. As the UK regularly deploys a Bay to the Caribbean our LSTs could work with the RNs Bays to create a HADR Taskforce.

And if Oblix is converted that would only add to the capability. The current crewing model of Asterix could be utilized for the Oblix conversion and with the LSTs as these are not warfighting vessels. With the downturn in the offshore here in NS we have a dearth of mariners who would relish the opportunity to be able to be home instead of away the majority of the year. The more I think about this the more I see how this could be implimented at little cost to the Navy budget and more from the foreign affairs budget.
 
With many decades as a naval architect and marine engineer, I think that I would find a detailed crewing breakdown for the Makassar-class and LST 120 interesting. If you started adding a helicopter with aircrew to the LST, as was suggested, the 22 would grow. Even a small amount of automation would probably be cost effective at reducing the 121 in the higher crew cost Canadian environment. Also, there could be inconsistencies in who is being counted as “crew.” The devil is in the details with crewing.

IMHO, you want your amphibious ships to be as “military” as you can afford and a ship with a dock is handy. But something is better than nothing and Damen LSTs are certainly way better than nothing. You just have to be careful to not make a major mistake and end up with a ship that needs a lot of work to be satisfactory like HMNZS Canterbury.
 
Navantia Australia released the design of their new jss a couple months back someone linked it on the Australian navy thread I'm fairly sure anyway it is a supply ship crossed with a amphibious ship buy 2 put them on the east coast leave the seaspan jss on the west coast problem solved
 
As "military" as possible is not the Canadian way unfortunately. As much as I would like it that way its just not going to happen especially with our politicians.

Operating alongside the Asterix or an AOPS would provide up to a Cyclone size helicopter. In hindsight I agree that modifying the design would add time and cost that would likely derail the acquisition process.

Long Range your suggestion of two vessels on the east coast makes sense but the navy wants atypical AORs the same as they had in order to provide a task group as they always have. Its going to take some situation to seriously embarass the government or the navy in order for change to come.

With all the concern about global warming I am at a loss as to why we have not started the process to acquire some form of naval sealift regardless of its size.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
An LPD / LPH / or BHS for the RCN would be welcome but crewing will be the challenge. The LST 120 has a 22 person crew and for this reason primarily I feel this provides us a capability we lack at a cost we can afford and manage initially. As time passes and we develop the skills we can look to move to the larger platform. Even the basic vessels such as the Makasaar type have 122 crew each.
Click to expand...
You have to start somewhere and you also have to consider the CONOPS that CANDEF and the RCN have. Those CONOPS are the most important consideration. Secondly, the AOPS that the ships will cover also are important. What are the transit areas and distances to be covered? Will the vessels be able to comfortably and safely handle the seas and weather encountered in all seasons? In Canada's case can they operate in the Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic Oceans? Why the Arctic? Because you will need to be able to project force up there as the ice retreats further and the Arctic Ocean is ice free year round.
shipJGR said:
With many decades as a naval architect and marine engineer, I think that I would find a detailed crewing breakdown for the Makassar-class and LST 120 interesting. If you started adding a helicopter with aircrew to the LST, as was suggested, the 22 would grow. Even a small amount of automation would probably be cost effective at reducing the 121 in the higher crew cost Canadian environment. Also, there could be inconsistencies in who is being counted as “crew.” The devil is in the details with crewing.

IMHO, you want your amphibious ships to be as “military” as you can afford and a ship with a dock is handy. But something is better than nothing and Damen LSTs are certainly way better than nothing. You just have to be careful to not make a major mistake and end up with a ship that needs a lot of work to be satisfactory like HMNZS Canterbury.
Click to expand...
Ahh Canterbury. You are right there and it's acquisition and the stuff ups were purely political in nature because the pollies wanted it done on the cheap and didn't listen to the RNZN and the experts. You are correct in that a welldock is a necessity.

As far as platforms go, I would suggest the Singapore Technologies Endurance series. It's comprised of a LPD E120 / 140 and a LHD E160 / 170, neither of which are large and could be automated. The LHD has spots on the flight deck for 5 medium helicopters, or 2 Chinooks. The Makassar are built for tropical service, but as built, I wouldn't want to serve on them in the roaring forties or furious fifties, so I would think that the design would have to be modified quite a bit for Canadian service. Both the Navantia LPD and LHDs are scalable, as in the image below.
Navantia Athlas family.jpg​
So there is choice out there. I do recommend the Navantia link that I've provided because it has some good general detail in it. The above graphic was taken from it.
 
Ngati I agree with you about the seakeeping abilities but I see these initially as coastal, inland and Caribbean use vessels. Travel over open water for long distance would have to be well planned and undertaken laden. As noted these are flat bottomed so could definetely be a sloppy ride for embarked forces.

At 120 m these shouldnt be too bad in most waters but one must remember what these are. They are heavy roro transport but I wouldnt want to be going from Portsmouth to Port Stanley in one.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
Ngati I agree with you about the seakeeping abilities but I see these initially as coastal, inland and Caribbean use vessels. Travel over open water for long distance would have to be well planned and undertaken laden. As noted these are flat bottomed so could definetely be a sloppy ride for embarked forces.

At 120 m these shouldnt be too bad in most waters but one must remember what these are. They are heavy roro transport but I wouldnt want to be going from Portsmouth to Port Stanley in one.
Click to expand...
Not sure if the bottom shape has a huge influence, many, most large ships have quite flat undersides.
I’ve done half necklace dive searches on a number of ships including Majestic Class carriers and they seem to have handled rough weather without problems.
Bow shape and the transition of the lines from bow to midsection are far more important.
 
shipJGR said:
With many decades as a naval architect and marine engineer, I think that I would find a detailed crewing breakdown for the Makassar-class and LST 120 interesting. If you started adding a helicopter with aircrew to the LST, as was suggested, the 22 would grow. Even a small amount of automation would probably be cost effective at reducing the 121 in the higher crew cost Canadian environment. Also, there could be inconsistencies in who is being counted as “crew.” The devil is in the details with crewing.

IMHO, you want your amphibious ships to be as “military” as you can afford and a ship with a dock is handy. But something is better than nothing and Damen LSTs are certainly way better than nothing. You just have to be careful to not make a major mistake and end up with a ship that needs a lot of work to be satisfactory like HMNZS Canterbury.
Click to expand...
You need to be careful here. Canterbury has limitations but they are largely exist due to the cost allocated to the construction and the specification issued. There were some arrangement issues with boats that needed to be rectified but the ship essentially met the specification.

The issue is clearing understanding the desired capability and potential growth. Something that has been safely lacking in some builds.

Crew numbers are even murkier. The Bay Class LSA work in the RFA with a complement of 60. This does not include aircrew which are an embarked capability where required but the ship can perform its main task with 60. The vessel arrives in Australia and promptly increases to over 100. No change in automation. It comes down to the operating matrix you apply.

Out of curiosity which yards or designers did you work with as an NA?
 
Out of curiosity which yards or designers did you work with as an NA?
Click to expand...
Retired earlier this year after four and a half decades. In addition to NA/ME degree, I also have an ancient Computer Science Masters degree. Started out working in a ship model tank. Did many things, but testing, hydrodynamics and computer software were recurring themes. Being that old means that any attempt to go into detail turns into a rambling tome.
 
Last edited:
There was a New Zealand government evaluation of Project Protector that I read years ago. I doubt that I will be able to find it again, but it had a great conclusion that I will never forget. It said that the whole procurement was an example of “wishful thinking.”
 
Last edited:
shipJGR said:
There was a New Zealand government evaluation of Project Protector that I read years ago. I doubt that I will be able to find it again, but it had a great conclusion that I will never forget. It said that the whole procurement was an example of “wishful thinking.”
Click to expand...

If only the NZ Government had taken notice of the earlier evaluation pre-contract that was completed by BMT as was noted in the Coles Report at Part 1 1(d).

Following the evaluation but pre-contract, the Project Team sought to clarify aspects of the Tenix design and, as part of this process, commissioned a high level assessment of the Tenix MRV proposal (undertaken by BMT Defence Services Ltd (BMT); dated April 2004.) This assessment identified high level risks for which BMT recommended that the MoD request further information. These high-level risks encompassed sea keeping, stability, aviation operations and aircraft handling, powering and electrical generation, structural integrity and aspects of design that impact on sea keeping issues and operational effectiveness. Many of these have subsequently come to be issues of substance.

The proposal should have been eliminated at that stage.

Anyway steering this all back to the RCN here is an article in the CANADIAN NAVAL REVIEW VOLUME 13, NUMBER 1 (2017) on Why Canada Needs a Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Ship

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c230/0a8e30c03befc4d2eb4996bf32eac612f35c.pdf

Have to say though I have reservations on the authors proposed solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top