Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Fedup]

J_Can, while at the moment the Russian navy isn't that great of a threat you can't look at today and now and make that assessment, You need to look at the future and guesstimate what they could become while also allowing for any falling out with current allies or current allies becoming less powerful.

Agreed but the Canadian government is under no pressure by our electorate to do this.

On the topic of pacific trade through the Vancouver port authority trade isn't thatsmall with 2016 having 3,105 foreign ship's visit picking up or dropping off 135,538,055 tons of cargo 81% of which was Bulk and Break bulk cargo, And based off of 2014 figures (slightly more traded that year but inflation to account for) would be worth roughly $187 billion up from $43 billion in 2004 and it's growing. The Pacific is no side note but a key area of concern that should have appropriate resources put towards.

With Vancouver's moron mayor and the cost of doing business in Vancouver, I see a bright future for the Port of Prince Rupert. Shorter route to Asia and less expensive. Still, the government won't be doing much to enhance freedom of the Seas anytime soon.

 

[John Fedup]

This link discusses the latest stuff about Adm. Norman's situation. A desperate need by the RCN for a new AOR, a Quebec company once again at the plate after bankruptcy, pissed off shipyards in Halifax and Vancouver (SeaSpan, whose endless delays gave the Quebec yard the opportunity), and leak that junior wanted to cancel the deal. Good luck finding the leak if it came from th RCN side, only hundreds that would have been appalled if the RCN has to go for 3-4 years minimum without an AOR. Of course someone would have leaked this! Piss on junior, frigging wanker POS.

RCMP probe that led to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s removal is focused on $700 million supply ship

 

[Novascotiaboy]

John

I along with many many others are appalled decade after decade how governments of all colours have opennly praised the efforts of our serving men and women only to scuttle those very individuals abilities by so ineptly spending money greasing friends and lobbiests.

I have spent my entire adult life in the "If" business. If I was needed as a firefighter or industrial emergency responder it was then that all my training and that of my teams would have to be brought to bear along with the equipment we had. As a fire chief I made certain that I fought for the best of equipment from my elected board. It was their duty to ensure we were safe and that the equipment was proper for the task. That is the same duty our national elected members have. It's not to waste money. It's not to provide jobs to ridings that voted in these tards. It's to provide a service.

Our defence force is there for the times it's needed not when it's politically beneficial to those in the House of Commons.

Our navy has been crippled by a failure of all parties in Ottawa to work on a common vision for our premier national asset. It's been the navy at the sharp end of the spear since day one. Today our ability to deploy a national task force is gone.

The beureaucrats have played an equally destructive part in this as well. Dithering over plans and capabilities instead of just getting on with it. Spasmatic building programs instead of continuos build and product improvement to me is the main reason why we no longer have the capabilities offered by the Tribal destroyers.

There was no reason why a stretched and up armed Halifax class platform couldn't have taken over the tribals in the mid 2000's. When Provider was paid off that should have started the build program for new and improved AOR's. Some type of transport capability should have been built in the last 15 years to move army resources and provide and inherent national HADR capability.

I'm not a naval engineer nor have I deep ocean sea time but by god I could have made sure we had replacements in a timely manner. We had shipyards. We still have the shipyards. The biggest dry dock at one time on the North American east coast was in Saint John NB and after the frigate build the federal government paid Saint John Shipbuilding, aka IRVING, to shutter the site and get out of the ship building business. That site should have been the centre of excellence for a continuous build of frigates and destroyers. There would have been more than enough work for Davie and Port Weller and a west coast yard for large vessels if only the petty politics hadn't gotten in the way.

I am afraid of what is going to happen on the international stage. Our navy is a ghost of itself. As is the Royal Navy for similar incredulous decisions.

We have allowed our defences to wither and now the defence of our nations is at risk.

It's no wonder our service people are leaving in droves. So so sad.

 

[ngatimozart]

This link discusses the latest stuff about Adm. Norman's situation. A desperate need by the RCN for a new AOR, a Quebec company once again at the plate after bankruptcy, pissed off shipyards in Halifax and Vancouver (SeaSpan, whose endless delays gave the Quebec yard the opportunity), and leak that junior wanted to cancel the deal. Good luck finding the leak if it came from th RCN side, only hundreds that would have been appalled if the RCN has to go for 3-4 years minimum without an AOR. Of course someone would have leaked this! Piss on junior, frigging wanker POS.

RCMP probe that led to Vice-Admiral Mark Norman’s removal is focused on $700 million supply ship

No need for the bad language. You have been here long enough to know that. The Moderators do not want to see a repeat of this.

 

[byronicasian]

John

I along with many many others are appalled decade after decade how governments of all colours have opennly praised the efforts of our serving men and women only to scuttle those very individuals abilities by so ineptly spending money greasing friends and lobbiests.

I have spent my entire adult life in the "If" business. If I was needed as a firefighter or industrial emergency responder it was then that all my training and that of my teams would have to be brought to bear along with the equipment we had. As a fire chief I made certain that I fought for the best of equipment from my elected board. It was their duty to ensure we were safe and that the equipment was proper for the task. That is the same duty our national elected members have. It's not to waste money. It's not to provide jobs to ridings that voted in these tards. It's to provide a service.

Our defence force is there for the times it's needed not when it's politically beneficial to those in the House of Commons.

Our navy has been crippled by a failure of all parties in Ottawa to work on a common vision for our premier national asset. It's been the navy at the sharp end of the spear since day one. Today our ability to deploy a national task force is gone.

The beureaucrats have played an equally destructive part in this as well. Dithering over plans and capabilities instead of just getting on with it. Spasmatic building programs instead of continuos build and product improvement to me is the main reason why we no longer have the capabilities offered by the Tribal destroyers.

There was no reason why a stretched and up armed Halifax class platform couldn't have taken over the tribals in the mid 2000's. When Provider was paid off that should have started the build program for new and improved AOR's. Some type of transport capability should have been built in the last 15 years to move army resources and provide and inherent national HADR capability.

I'm not a naval engineer nor have I deep ocean sea time but by god I could have made sure we had replacements in a timely manner. We had shipyards. We still have the shipyards. The biggest dry dock at one time on the North American east coast was in Saint John NB and after the frigate build the federal government paid Saint John Shipbuilding, aka IRVING, to shutter the site and get out of the ship building business. That site should have been the centre of excellence for a continuous build of frigates and destroyers. There would have been more than enough work for Davie and Port Weller and a west coast yard for large vessels if only the petty politics hadn't gotten in the way.

I am afraid of what is going to happen on the international stage. Our navy is a ghost of itself. As is the Royal Navy for similar incredulous decisions.

We have allowed our defences to wither and now the defence of our nations is at risk.

It's no wonder our service people are leaving in droves. So so sad.

On the subject of continuous build. Does any of the more knowledgeable forumers know at what size (budget, inventory, etc) economy of scale kicks in?


I mean comparing Canada to the only other G7 nation that spends 1% GDP on defense, shouldn't it theoretically have around a third of JMSDF inventory? I mean I doubt the Japanese themselves are without some pork spending, given how expensive their F-2s became, or how expensive their service rifles are.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I mean comparing Canada to the only other G7 nation that spends 1% GDP on defense, shouldn't it theoretically have around a third of JMSDF inventory? I mean I doubt the Japanese themselves are without some pork spending, given how expensive their F-2s became, or how expensive their service rifles are.

you have to consider context as well

take away nukes and japan has the 2nd most powerful navy on the planet

like germany, if they shifted gears and went to 2% there would be a shift upwards in the levels of hysteria by some.

 

[hauritz]

No doubt a continuous build approach would be the most efficient way to do things. The Japanese do it, the Americans do it and shortly Australia will be doing it.

The only problem is that Canada may have left it too late.

In Australia's case the new frigate program has had to be brought forward to ensure that there won't be too much of a capability gap as the Anzacs would not be replaced as quickly as they would need to be in order to retain the fleet size. That means construction will start in 2020.

In Canada's case 20% of their frigate/destroyer fleet has already been withdrawn from service and I suspect the average age of the fleet may well be over 30 before construction of the replacements even begins.

If Canada were to deliver a new frigate every 2 years from the mid 20s onwards it would take 30 years to replace its current fleet. Even if Canada could squeeze 40 years out of its old frigates they would all be gone by the mid thirties which could see the Canadian fleet drop to 5 or 6 frigates.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

So true. As each day passes we can see the RCN wither ever more. Unless another yard is brought on to build full vessels or mega blocks for inclusion in the future CSC build program at Irving in Halifax it will be a serious challenge to field a credible fleet post 2030.

It's been more than five years since the shipyards were chosen for the NSPS program and there still isn't a vessel in the water. I know Harry Dewolfe is supposed to be launched this year but it can't come soon enough.

Same for the Queenstons. At this point I am all for buying additional converted merchant vessels as Davie is supposedly 15% ahead of schedule on Project Resolve according to information coming out related to the RCMP investigation into the dismissal of the Vice CDS back in January.

I expect we should soon see this "New" vessel coming down the St. Lawrence for sea trials.

 

[John Fedup]

Unfortunately I see no alternative but to allow Davie in on the NSPS if ships are to arrive in the required timeframe. SeaSpan should start on icebreakers and leave the AORs to Davie. Add a second heavy icebreaker to avoid political backlash. Also, one heavy really is not enough if we are serious about the Arctic. Irving's progress on the AOPS will determine if the CSC needs modification.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Well said John. I am no fan of Quebec but the RCN needs the capacity of building from multiple yards at one time. Give the whole AOR build to Davie. That puts their work load out until approximately 2025 if it were to happen. At that point hopefully a change in government or international situation will force the issue of some type of flexible transport vessels. Between Davie, Kewit in Newfoundland and Halifax modules can be barged in to build the mega blocks. Leave the full build to Irving of the combat fleet. I agree that more big ice breakers are needed. The Louis is in refit right now and ferries to and around Newfoundland are in need of more ice breaking capacity. The CCG fleet is rusted out. I can remember when there was always a dedicated rescue SAR vessel offshore. These were distinctive because they were red and yellow not red and white..

 

[John Fedup]

I guess the question is does the government have the political will to resign the AORS build? As I said, a second heavy icebreaker would be more than enough to quell BC backlash. A third Berlin at SeaSpan would never happen now and 2 heavies will provide more work. A second icebreaker is a easy sale to our pathetic electorate, just hype sovereignty and environment research/enforcement. An extra heavy icebreaker will be useful for freeing our slush breaking AOPS.

 

[byronicasian]

No doubt a continuous build approach would be the most efficient way to do things. The Japanese do it, the Americans do it and shortly Australia will be doing it.

The only problem is that Canada may have left it too late.

In Australia's case the new frigate program has had to be brought forward to ensure that there won't be too much of a capability gap as the Anzacs would not be replaced as quickly as they would need to be in order to retain the fleet size. That means construction will start in 2020.

In Canada's case 20% of their frigate/destroyer fleet has already been withdrawn from service and I suspect the average age of the fleet may well be over 30 before construction of the replacements even begins.

If Canada were to deliver a new frigate every 2 years from the mid 20s onwards it would take 30 years to replace its current fleet. Even if Canada could squeeze 40 years out of its old frigates they would all be gone by the mid thirties which could see the Canadian fleet drop to 5 or 6 frigates.

So is the issue just not having continuous builds?

From what I see, the Japanese shipyards don't seem to be as active as the Koreans in terms of building merchant shipping, so why can't the Canadian yards spread out the orders?

Even assuming 1/3rd the Japanese inventory here (or hell, the Spanish Navy), it still seems quite substantial in terms of orders.

2 DDGs,12-14 Frigates/Light DDGs, 6 SSK, 1 LST , 1 DDH and whatever OPVs and AORs seems like it could spread out quite nicely among the Canadian yards.

I'm apologize for the pestering, but I'm not Canadian and all the stuff I've read just says the Canadian yards are just "inefficient" which sounds like too simple of an excuse.

 

[hauritz]

So is the issue just not having continuous builds?

From what I see, the Japanese shipyards don't seem to be as active as the Koreans in terms of building merchant shipping, so why can't the Canadian yards spread out the orders?

Even assuming 1/3rd the Japanese inventory here (or hell, the Spanish Navy), it still seems quite substantial in terms of orders.

2 DDGs,12-14 Frigates/Light DDGs, 6 SSK, 1 LST , 1 DDH and whatever OPVs and AORs seems like it could spread out quite nicely among the Canadian yards.

I'm apologize for the pestering, but I'm not Canadian and all the stuff I've read just says the Canadian yards are just "inefficient" which sounds like too simple of an excuse.

Not all ships are the same. Building highly sophisticated vessels such as frigates, destroyers and submarines require very special skills and equipment.

If a yard has to gear up for a build of 15 frigates which get built over a period of 12 years then those skills will be subsequently lost once that project is completed. They may well go onto build other ships after that ... but the very specific skills required for building frigates and destroyers will eventually be lost.

You then find in another 20 years the cycle stats again when you then need to regain all those skills you lost.

As you can imagine this approach is not particularly efficient.

Continuous builds eliminate these problems.

 

[Volkodav]

Not all ships are the same. Building highly sophisticated vessels such as frigates, destroyers and submarines require very special skills and equipment.

If a yard has to gear up for a build of 15 frigates which get built over a period of 12 years then those skills will be subsequently lost once that project is completed. They may well go onto build other ships after that ... but the very specific skills required for building frigates and destroyers will eventually be lost.

You then find in another 20 years the cycle stats again when you then need to regain all those skills you lost.

As you can imagine this approach is not particularly efficient.

Continuous builds eliminate these problems.

This is where it becomes more cost effective building as a slower, supposedly less efficient rate of one major combatant every eighteen months to two years. With a life span of 22.5 to 30 years, you then have a continuous build and avoid the expensive rebuilding phase that would (looking at recent examples around the world) add 10 to 20% to the expected costs.

 

[John Fedup]

Twenty to thirty year timeframe, doubtful when you consider the ages of the recently paid off Tribals and AORs, forty years plus! I bet there will be several Halifax hulls that will be well past 40 years old before they are paid off. I also doubt the RCN will see 12 CSC ships to replace them let alone 15 as envisioned when the program was announced.

 

[Novascotiaboy]

There has been very little discussion about the design for the CSC since it was announced that a foreign design would be chosen to speed up the process. Is anyone aware of any progress on this or willing to offer any insight.

I have been giving the whole fleet mix issue a rethink as I believe that the discussion has been focused on replacing what we have, had, instead of what we need. Looking at what we have been doing for the last 30 years it is my opinion that we need to take a different approach.

On the west coast I would prefer to see a fleet composed of the following;

Three flexible frigates incorporating long endurance, small crew, SF support capability including SF RHIBS, AAW, SAM, NGS as deployable resources for high intensity operations. These would deploy as single units in support of coalition operations.

Three Holland class OPV's as national security patrol along the BC coast and for use in low intensity patrol and presence operations particularly on counter narcotic operations along the west coast of central and South America. These vessels are larger and more capable than the steam powered DDE and DDH's of the 1960's and 1970's but with a reduced crew and running costs.

All four improved Victoria submarines for training, patrol and deployment

One Resolve AOR

On the east coast I would prefer the following fleet;

Five flexible frigates

Three dedicated AAW Destroyers with long range SAM and enhanced C&C facilities

Six Harry Dewolfe class AOPS for east coast and northern patrol

Three Holland class for Caribbean patrol and anti piracy operations worldwide

Two Queenston AOR

One Resolve multi role vessel to support army logistics, HADR and sea base operations

Six SSN's of the French Barracuda class

Total fleet;

Eight Flexible frigates
Three AAW Destroyers
Six Holland OPV
Six Harry Dewolfe AOPS
Two Queenston AOR
Two Resolve AOR / Multi-purpose vessels
Four Victoria Submarines
Six Barracuda SSN's

Plus miscellaneous mine warfare and other minor vessels.

This fleet mix allows the deployment of a single Canadian Task Group consisting of one DDG, two FFG, one AOR, one SSN.

Additional single type deployments can occur concurrently.

The big difference from the NSPS is the addition of the SSN's and the Holland class OPV's. I think this is a responsible and effective fleet that is needed and affordable.

As to who would build these additional vessels I would invest in a SSN yard in the GTA ( Greater Toronto Area) as we already have the industrial capacity and the nuclear knowledge.

Send all AOR build to Davie and consider a modular build process involving numerous yards to send blocks to Davie for final assembly of the Hollands.

Seaspan should focus on CCG capitalization with 2 additional heavy ice breakers added as replacements for the loss of the Queenstons.

Additional helicopters will be required for operations beyond the current 28 CH 148 Cyclones on order. AW 159 Wildcats would be a good choice for the Hollands and the Harry Dewolfe's. Fully armed with torpedoes and ASM's these would offer some punch if required. A fleet of 16 should suffice with six in BC and 10 at Shearwater.

 

[John Fedup]

Well Nova, that's a pretty big wish list. Not sure what you mean by 4 improved Victoria subs. I think SSNs should be considered for two reasons, to keep our nuclear manufacturing infrastructure, and SSNs are the best solution for Arctic patrol. Adding and operating diesel subs as well seems a little much. I like the Hollands but by the time we "Canadianized" them it might be cheaper to build a few more DeWolfes and up-arm them. Your other suggestions are fine by me. Too bad my chances of winning the 649 are better than this proposed fleet!

 

[walter]

Well Nova, that's a pretty big wish list. Not sure what you mean by 4 improved Victoria subs. I think SSNs should be considered for two reasons, to keep our nuclear manufacturing infrastructure, and SSNs are the best solution for Arctic patrol. Adding and operating diesel subs as well seems a little much. I like the Hollands but by the time we "Canadianized" them it might be cheaper to build a few more DeWolfes and up-arm them. Your other suggestions are fine by me. Too bad my chances of winning the 649 are better than this proposed fleet!

I don't see Canda taking the Nuclear route,but that's me(needs a lot more money then,investment wise)the short fin could be a good option for Canada aswell(maybe join us in repacing the Walrus,also an option)

As for the "Hollands"they're fine vessels but we rather had new frigates,but that's how the cookie crumbled.(our hope is for 4 new vMFF class to replace the last 2 M's,also an option for Canada,since the decission keeps on getting pushed forward,same here,it will use the APAR2)

Again there's a gen 2(sort off)"Holland" it's the OPV 2600,maybe that's better(to have the latest version i mean)

http://products.damen.com/-/media/P...ore_patrol_vessel_2600.jpg?h=767&la=en&w=1300


gr,walter

 

[John Fedup]

Frankly, we will be lucky if there is a replacement for the Victoria class. The RCN could very well end up out of the sub business when they are paid off, a huge mistake IMHO. The nuclear option would be somewhat more expensive but Canada has substantial capabilities in the nuclear area and unless we start renewing reactors this infrastructure will die off. Maybe 6-8 SSNs, some Hollands, up the DeWolfes to 8 and call it a sovereignty protection navy.

 

[hauritz]

Frankly, we will be lucky if there is a replacement for the Victoria class. The RCN could very well end up out of the sub business when they are paid off, a huge mistake IMHO. The nuclear option would be somewhat more expensive but Canada has substantial capabilities in the nuclear area and unless we start renewing reactors this infrastructure will die off. Maybe 6-8 SSNs, some Hollands, up the DeWolfes to 8 and call it a sovereignty protection navy.

I wonder if Canada would even have any subs now if it weren't for the secondhand Upholders being available.