Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

My Linked in account was buzzing with this.

Spain looks for piece of shipbuilding pie | The Chronicle Herald

Navantia, the fifth-biggest shipbuilder in the world, brought a Spanish navy frigate to Halifax Monday in a bid to show what it can bring to Canada’s program to rebuild its navy.

Click to expand...

Obviously more hulls based off the F-105 would be a good think IMO for the RAN. I would imagine updated propulsion and systems (auspar?) would be useful.

StingrayOZ said:

My Linked in account was buzzing with this.

Spain looks for piece of shipbuilding pie | The Chronicle Herald


Obviously more hulls based off the F-105 would be a good think IMO for the RAN. I would imagine updated propulsion and systems (auspar?) would be useful.

Click to expand...

It would nice to see some movement to a design decision. For awhile I thought Odense had the inside track with the Iver Huitfeldt but who knows.

Worldwide Submarine Threat

While it was prepared with a Canadian Focus, this 8 page 'cover focus' article clearly shows that the western nations need to take heed of the requirement for a renewed focus on ASW assets.
Especially both SSN / SSK Submarines and Maritime Helicopters.
Something the UK should also take note of.
Enjoy.

5207-Submarine-Proliferation-and-Impact-for-Canada| FrontLine Defence

Frontline Magazines

Regards,
MR

CdnDefWriter said:

While it was prepared with a Canadian Focus, this 8 page 'cover focus' article clearly shows that the western nations need to take heed of the requirement for a renewed focus on ASW assets.
Especially both SSN / SSK Submarines and Maritime Helicopters.
Something the UK should also take note of.
Enjoy.

5207-Submarine-Proliferation-and-Impact-for-Canada| FrontLine Defence

Frontline Magazines

Regards,
MR

Click to expand...

Nice read. I am in total agreement with the author regarding SSN for RCN Arctic operations but it will never happen. I foresee an endless stream of kumbayah leftist governments in Canada's future just like the $hit one we have now. Combine that with DND's horrible PR department means nukes will never happen. Even if by some miracle a purchase was approved, by the time our procurement people placed an actual order, the Arctic would be ice free negating the need.

Here's a link concerning the progress of the RCN's Arctic offshore patrol vessels. Hopefully Irving gets their act together on this project long before the CSC program starts. I don't want to see a single dollar going to Davie on either of these two projects.
Irving facing significant challenges in building Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships | Ottawa Citizen

With a list of existing designs being whittled away and a final design yet to be chosen what will be your choice for a design, armament mix and numbers for the future Canadain fleet?

I believe that we need a navy that has the ability to operate far from Canada and for extended periods. I feel we need to deploy forces that are highly flexible in their ability to respond to numerous situations from open ocean to littorals. As such I would like to see a mixed fleet for operations worldwide.

C&C / AAW Destroyer: Iver Hutfeld class x 4 ( two per coast east and west)
General Purpose Frigate: Stretched Absalon x 10( Six east and four west)
Submarines: Six SSK of at least equal displacement as current Victoria's
AOR: Two Queenston class
One Resolve class
Multi Purpose Support: The two VS4220 from Davie to serve as forward repair and motherships in support of forces ashore as well as submarine support
Patrol: Five Harry DeWolfe AOPS based in Newfoundland
Six Hollande OPV ( three east / three west)
MCM: 12 vessels to replace the current Kingston class ( eight east / four west)

The Ivers to be built as designed for RDN service.

The Absalons to be stretched to accommodate a second pair of diesels. Armament to be same as built by RDN. Addition of a VDS deployed from the flex deck. CB90's to supplement the smaller units carried aboard the RDN vessels. The 900m2 flex deck offers true flexibility in operations. Allows for non combatant recovery from failed states as well as SOF deployment and support. HADR response with the Absalons would allow us to contribute far more than we were able to to hurricane and earthquake ravaged nations over the years.

The Hollandes give us a potent presence in low risk situations but with a very powerful sensor suite such as anti narcotic patrols and piracy interdiction. A full magazine needs to be available for helo operations.

The two VS4220 vessels offer the RCN the ability to forward base assets in support of operations far from home. Whether that be in the Arctic or off of some failed state. Their size allows significant capacity to support a variety of activities instead of using an AOR. One such deployment could see one supporting a couple of MCDV's and a Hollande on counter narcotic ops. The two would be invaluable in support of HADR ops.

We are a maritime nation. We are a leading contributor to security operations around the world. Our need to provide both war fighting and international support will only increase overtime.

From a who supplies it point of view, and I am no lover of Quebec, give the six Hollande and six subs to Seaspan. Transfer the Queenston AORS and the Defenbaker ice breaker to Davie and buy the VS4220 from them as well.

Irving keeps the fourteen combat hulls and the AOPS.

Any one else choose to pitch an idea?

Novascotiaboy said:

With a list of existing designs being whittled away and a final design yet to be chosen what will be your choice for a design, armament mix and numbers for the future Canadain fleet?

I believe that we need a navy that has the ability to operate far from Canada and for extended periods. I feel we need to deploy forces that are highly flexible in their ability to respond to numerous situations from open ocean to littorals. As such I would like to see a mixed fleet for operations worldwide.

C&C / AAW Destroyer: Iver Hutfeld class x 4 ( two per coast east and west)
General Purpose Frigate: Stretched Absalon x 10( Six east and four west)
Submarines: Six SSK of at least equal displacement as current Victoria's
AOR: Two Queenston class
One Resolve class
Multi Purpose Support: The two VS4220 from Davie to serve as forward repair and motherships in support of forces ashore as well as submarine support
Patrol: Five Harry DeWolfe AOPS based in Newfoundland
Six Hollande OPV ( three east / three west)
MCM: 12 vessels to replace the current Kingston class ( eight east / four west)

Click to expand...

I like the Danish designs and they would work for us. Of the two, I really like the concept of the up-powered and stretched Absalon as described by Jim Dorschner at the CASR site. Even if the French or Italian FREMM, Type 26 or Iver Huitfeld is decided upon as the CSC selection, a couple of these stretched Absalons should still be considered in lieu of two CSC hulls IMO.

As for the Hollande OPV, it might make more sense to add 3-4 DeWolfes and likely wouldn't cost more (assuming Irving gets better with each DeWolfe build).

Absolutely agree on the need for new subs. Would prefer nuclear but we will be lucky if we can manage SSKs. Unless we up the numbers to at least 8, I see no possibility of a local build, partial or otherwise. Hopefully the RCN will carefully monitor Australia's program and perhaps some collaboration could occur for a future Canadian sub based on whatever they finalize on.

As for naval procurement from a Quebec shipyard, no. A province continuing the threat to leave should not benefit from naval or for that matter coast guard procurement. Besides, Davie's Halifax builds weren't exactly stellar.

At the end of the day I fear we will be lucky to manage 10 CSC ships regardless of the design selected. Worse, the idiots running things in Ottawa may be planning to have the RCN exit the sub business as cost saving measure.

Like my response to your RCAF post our inability to go outside the box is our biggest problem after government procurement ineptitude. The Absalon flex deck is the one piece of the future frigate puzzle that has to happen. It offers the most capability gain for future operations.

We will never see TLAM as Jr won't allow that. BMD capability is a pipe dream as well IMHO. I agree some form of AAD is needed beyond ESSM but some of the stuff I have read indicates the RCN wants to standardize on ESSM solely. If this is the case why even bother with two separate designs? A simple solution is the stretched Absalon with a +/-30 knot speed and a VDS deployed from the flex deck.

As far as my suggestion of Hollande class the AOPS lack the sensors and speed for blockade and sea search capabilities. It is interesting that the Hollands are equal in all respects of aviation and size as the former steam powered DDE / DDH of the Cold War time frame. A quarter of the crew and automated weaponry combined with impressive sensors. AOPS is a one trick pony with limited value outside of slush breaking and wandering around oil rigs on the Grand Banks off of Newfoundland. I see the Hollandes as the go too vessels for counter piracy and counter narcotics taskings and as sea survellance vessels in the littorals of low risk conflicts.

I agree about Quebec fully. But we need hulls now. They have the facilities and it is under new management. The Asterix conversion will show how they do. The Cecon Pride is an impressive vessel and those two additional hulls could fill very niche roles for the RCN and Canada globally and at home.

Why Hollande class? Do you think that naming it in French (after the current French president?) would go down well in Quebec?

The Dutch call it the Holland class.

swerve said:

Why Hollande class? Do you think that naming it in French (after the current French president?) would go down well in Quebec?

The Dutch call it the Holland class.

Click to expand...

Not only must the "e" be used in the spelling but it would have to be built in Quebec as well to appease them properly. In any event, this OPV would be nice but it would beyond what we need assuming we are going to maintain a blue water navy. I would think the RCN would consider this class a threat to the CSC, especially considering the current person in charge. A 3700 ton OPV could be junior's idea for coastal CSC ship that ends the RCN's blue water fleet. A likely OPV replacement would be the PV85 design.

Apparently a civilian employee in DND's PR department earned $26,000 in overtime pay. Some find this strange. I don't know why. Putting a positive PR spin of DND's horror show procurement record for only an extra $26,000, a real deal IMO.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...ic-affairs-officer-who-made-26000-in-overtime

Junior's government has announced a new delay for the CSC because some bidders are pissed that BAE is allowed to bid an uncompleted design, the Type 26 and the government is not satisfied with the Canadian content. Not sure how junior's team can make an assessment of Canadian content without firm proposals from the bidders. Just the usual procurement BS. Clearly Canada has displaced India from the procurement basement. Junior will have us in the sub-basement in no time.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/natio...es-paper-ship-delay-bids-on-new-navy-warships

John Fedup said:

Junior's government has announced a new delay for the CSC because some bidders are pissed that BAE is allowed to bid an uncompleted design, the Type 26 and the government is not satisfied with the Canadian content. Not sure how junior's team can make an assessment of Canadian content without firm proposals from the bidders. Just the usual procurement BS. Clearly Canada has displaced India from the procurement basement. Junior will have us in the sub-basement in no time.

Concerns over Canadian content, BAE’s “paper†ship delay bids on new navy warships | Ottawa Citizen

Click to expand...

I've long suspected the Type 26 to be a favorite within the DND. On paper at least it seems to have all the capabilities the RCN covet in their frigates: Primary ASW design with strong multi-role capabilities (I suspect RCN would prefer a ASW hull over many of the other designs which build off of AAW hulls); it's fast - which is a requirement the RCN appears not willing to compromise (ruling out the cheaper diesel only propulsion designs). BAE has claimed that their Type 26 design can be affordably customized with the users choice of combat systems and sensors ie. Thales & MK 41 - likely for a RCN design. If this is in fact true I suspect that it would in fact be the front runner.

I'm not as enthusiastic with the Absalon / Iver Huitfeldt class vessels as others are. They look like fantastic value on paper but I don't think the RCN would prefer this option either as it would compromise many of their core principles with regards to large combatant vessels.

I do like the propulsion system for the Type 26, 4 MTU diesels and 1 RR MT30 gas turbine. Given the delay in the UK (apparently due to pricing), I really don't see how the RCN can expect junior to fund this design unless it is for a drastically reduced number. The CSC program started at 15 ships and the current number being thrown around is 10.

Champagne taste on a beer budget!!!!!!!

Type 26 is a very fine design and would suite the needs of our task group C&C ships to replace the Tribals but it is too much to expect to have all ships of this type in service.

Like the F35, the P8 and other overly expensive platforms we risk acquiring so few due to cost that our numbers are insignificant.

I am not advocating acquiring a fleet of "Flower Class" corvettes but I think we need to be realistic with our wants and needs.

The old steamers of the 1950's and 1960's were perceived as Cadillacs due to their molded lines but they were underarmed and over crewed.

Todays navy needs to be as flexible as possible in order to complete the myriad of tasks asked of them by the government of the day. For the last 25 years the City class frigates have travelled the world serving with distinction as general purpose warships serving side by side with allied navies and our main partner the US Navy.

The Type 26 doesn't offer a reduced capability for a general purpose lower cost platform, that's the Type 31. I was under the impression that a single hull form was being sought for as much commonality across the fleet as possible.

There is no doubt that speed is important for ASW operations but are we likely to be doing ASW the way we have in the past? High altitude P8's and ultra hi speed anti surface missiles fired from long ranges are going to have an impact on Nation vs nation warfare where any warship or submarine will be taken out regardless of construction standard, Milots / Cots.

As such I believe we need to focus on flexibility and numbers. I feel that an OMT hybrid design from the Iver and Absalon classes offer the best bang for the buck that Canada can invest in.

If higher speed is needed in this hull then lets engineer LM2500, a known commodity to RCN, into the Absalon hull along with its diesels to allow that sprint speed. As has been proposed at CASR a hull plug would solve the issue. Its already using the systems we desire or have in service. Its MK 41 cells could be increased and it already is designed for two large helicopters of the Cyclone class. The flex deck allows for so many opportunities from VDS, UAV's, special forces and their equipment, and so many other possibilities.

For the GP version I am a full on fan of the Absalon as is. Paint a big ass maple leaf on the funnel and slide them down the slips please and thank you.

Currently more heavily laden with missiles and guns than the City class CPF's they offer so much more than what we can currently accomplish. Its ability to be quieted down is an effort in engineering and can be done to reduce the acoustic signature. thru the expenditure of cash. As a general purpose frigate they are able to do many different things, albeit at a reduced capability than a dedicated specific vessel.

If this were to happen I would hope for a fleet of five high end and ten general purpose hulls. This allows 2 hi / 4 low on the west coast and 3 high / 6 low on the east coast. This allows for the deployment of two task groups, one from each coast each with one hi / two low ships plus an AOR and submarine. The remaining vessels would be in various stages of refit or training.

Each vessel would have twin helo capability, given that we will eventually field 28 Cyclones, allowing sixteen to deploy with the two task groups. A massive display of military capacity that hasn't been possible in decades.

I would rather have something than nothing. At the rate we are going if they soon don't get their !@#$ together we wont have a fleet in ten years.

The Flex deck is the key in my mind. But Admirals need to understand that they are part of a combined arms military and at some point they will need to accept that they will be supplied with and expected to transport the army to some far off place. I personally think that is part of our problem across our military, "Not my Job". Air force wants to fly fast jets and fire missiles and shoot down opposing fighters. Navy wants to hunt submarines. The Army just wants to get into or out of the fight zone safely.

If Jr really wants to influence the world with Canadian peacekeepers then please please give the navy the transport capacity of a flex deck to move at least some of the armys equipment from the sea to areas of operations. Better yet buy dedicated logistics vessels that can seabase our equipment like the Dutch JSS.

Either way we need reduced crews, reduced operating costs, increased firepower and flexibility from the future fleet.

Just me ranting.:

John Fedup said:

Junior's government has announced a new delay for the CSC because some bidders are pissed that BAE is allowed to bid an uncompleted design, the Type 26 and the government is not satisfied with the Canadian content..

Click to expand...

I read the story in the link & like all things reported in the press, articles are based on 'the opinions' of the writer.

Sometimes the context of an article draws on some facts, but doesn't quote others, meaning the whole story isn't laid out for the reader.

I'm not by any manner of means saying that the facts in the article are untrue, but some of the sub-plot is missing.


For instance, taken from your source article, Michael Fallon is quoted "Michael Fallon said last month he won’t sign a contract for the ship until he is persuaded it’s in the best interests of UK taxpayers and will provide value for money."

Yet, here's another quote from Micheal Fallon" Effective from April 2016, the 15-month contract extends the current demonstration phase ensuring continued momentum to further mature the detailed design of the Type 26 ships and to manufacture key equipment for the first three ships.

Speaking at the time that the contract was announced, UK Defence Secretary Michael Fallon said: “These highly advanced ships will help keep Britain safe and support our shipbuilding industry. Investing in them is part of our plan to increase defence spending so our armed forces have the most modern equipment they need.”"

Ministry of Defence progresses Type 26 programme


But getting back to my point - To help the context, issues relating to UK PLC's available budget, the changes that the UK MoD have put on the programme, meaning moving cut steel dates, etc. It's understandable that 'the design' isn't complete.

With all that said, there's another factor that needs to be mentioned. When a design is offered to a 'new' customer, such as possibly the Canadian / Australian / Indian / Brazilian navy/Govt, that Govt / Navy will attempt to 'influence' the design by changing certain aspects so that the design is 'tailored' to the respective countries wants & needs.

Type 26 & the GCS are 'the latest' design put onto the global stage. To do that means that although the ship design is on 'paper' (or rather designed as part of a Computer based CAD programme), it's a whole lot more than an idea, especially seeing as the UK Govt have invested a whole pile of cash on the design & wants to put it into production.

The question that needs to be put down is this..

Would the Canadian Navy prefer a 10 / 20 / 30 year old design, that is 'proven', or would they like to modernise to a state of the art / cutting edge design ?

I think by allowing the BAE design in, they are clearly defining the fact that they want cutting edge, not old hat.

SA

Systems Adict said:

I read the story in the link & like all things reported in the press, articles are based on 'the opinions' of the writer.


But getting back to my point - To help the context, issues relating to UK PLC's available budget, the changes that the UK MoD have put on the programme, meaning moving cut steel dates, etc. It's understandable that 'the design' isn't complete.

Click to expand...

The Ottawa Citizen article says the delay in the CSC program is due to Canadian content issues and complaints FROM OTHER VENDORS that the BAE design is not complete or proven. With regard to the latter, this is another example of a Canadian defence procurement cluster ?uck. It seems that a proven design that is actually floating in the water is no longer a requirement. I have no problem with that but I guess other bidders do. On another delay note, the CBC reported in July that vendors had serious issues with the Canadian government over IP issues.

With all that said, there's another factor that needs to be mentioned. When a design is offered to a 'new' customer, such as possibly the Canadian / Australian / Indian / Brazilian navy/Govt, that Govt / Navy will attempt to 'influence' the design by changing certain aspects so that the design is 'tailored' to the respective countries wants & needs.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is understood and the intent is to select a design that can accept minor modifications to meet Canadian requirements.

Type 26 & the GCS are 'the latest' design put onto the global stage. To do that means that although the ship design is on 'paper' (or rather designed as part of a Computer based CAD programme), it's a whole lot more than an idea, especially seeing as the UK Govt have invested a whole pile of cash on the design & wants to put it into production.

Click to expand...

Agreed, the design is has sufficiently progressed to the point where long lead items have been ordered (over 1 billion pounds, e.g. MTU diesels, MT-30 gas turbines) but again the procurement guys specified a proven design working design (which really isn't the case for the Type 26). As I said before, this restriction was dumb.

The question that needs to be put down is this..

Would the Canadian Navy prefer a 10 / 20 / 30 year old design, that is 'proven', or would they like to modernise to a state of the art / cutting edge design ?

Click to expand...

The RCN absolutely would prefer state of the art/cutting edge. The question is, can we afford it? The answer is yes for any government that believes in the defence of Canada in an increasingly dangerous international environment. Unfortunately, junior and his fellow clowns believe spreading some pixie dust will solve all needs.

I think by allowing the BAE design in, they are clearly defining the fact that they want cutting edge, not old hat.

Click to expand...

The RCN/DND are, but I see no sign from junior's government.

Concerning the Type 26's progress in the UK, it seems the date for cutting steel is slipping well into 2017 and is due to pricing, not design issues. This link outlines the latest on the Type 26.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7737/CBP-7737.pdf

Novascotiaboy said:

Champagne taste on a beer budget!!!!!!!

Click to expand...

Pretty much the Canadian way!

Type 26 is a very fine design and would suite the needs of our task group C&C ships to replace the Tribals but it is too much to expect to have all ships of this type in service.

Like the F35, the P8 and other overly expensive platforms we risk acquiring so few due to cost that our numbers are insignificant.

I am not advocating acquiring a fleet of "Flower Class" corvettes but I think we need to be realistic with our wants and needs.

Click to expand...

The current UK estimate for the Type 26 is 1 billion pounds or $1.6 billion CDN. I think most of the contenders will be in this range, certainly for any ASW platform. Canada has a GDP approaching 2 trillion dollars so many of these defence items can and should be purchased. The pollies need to grow a pair and get on with it.

The Type 26 doesn't offer a reduced capability for a general purpose lower cost platform, that's the Type 31. I was under the impression that a single hull form was being sought for as much commonality across the fleet as possible.

Click to expand...

The Type 31 is a concept right now and I don't know if it will be built along side the Type 26 or after the 8 Type 26s care completed. Four of five Type 26s for ASW and 6-8 less capable frigates from another design team might be an option but building 10-12 Type 26s might end up being a better solution.

There is no doubt that speed is important for ASW operations but are we likely to be doing ASW the way we have in the past?

As such I believe we need to focus on flexibility and numbers. I feel that an OMT hybrid design from the Iver and Absalon classes offer the best bang for the buck that Canada can invest in.

If higher speed is needed in this hull then lets engineer LM2500, a known commodity to RCN, into the Absalon hull along with its diesels to allow that sprint speed. As has been proposed at CASR a hull plug would solve the issue. Its already using the systems we desire or have in service. Its MK 41 cells could be increased and it already is designed for two large helicopters of the Cyclone class. The flex deck allows for so many opportunities from VDS, UAV's, special forces and their equipment, and so many other possibilities.

Click to expand...

I admit I like the concept of a stretched Absalon with turbine power added but the cost of doing this won't be cheap. Might as well just opt for a Type 26.

For the GP version I am a full on fan of the Absalon as is. Paint a big ass maple leaf on the funnel and slide them down the slips please and thank you.

Click to expand...

Again, 7-8 of these along with 4-5 Type 26s for ASW could be a solution. However, will two different hull types be acceptable or less costly for the RCN?

I would rather have something than nothing. At the rate we are going if they soon don't get their !@#$ together we wont have a fleet in ten years.

Click to expand...

This is the classic MO of our procurement operation. Procrastinate as long as possible so that DND will accept any piece of shit kit (that barely meets spec) out of sheer desperation to have something new.

The Royal Navy thread details the planned total number of destroyer and frigate hulls planned for the future RN at 19 hulls. The RN is but a shadow of its former self but in comparison to the RCN can we realistically expect a destroyer / frigate fleet three quarters the size of the RN?

We have no capital ships in the form of flat tops or amphibious to protect. Our largest ships will be the two or three AOR's.

As a three ocean navy with allied responsibilities to support defence agreements I do not see the likelihood of a deployable force such as this;
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/canada/photarch/fleet.jpg

As such flexibility is the key with open architecture to allow easy upgrade over time. Fully capable warfighters but at a reduced cost in crew and operational costs.

We could do far worse than buying the Absalon and Iver plans. The need for LM2500 and the ability to integrate them isn't something new or overly complex to those that do that stuff. Hopefully this is the direction they are going.

Novascotiaboy said:

The Royal Navy thread details the planned total number of destroyer and frigate hulls planned for the future RN at 19 hulls. The RN is but a shadow of its former self but in comparison to the RCN can we realistically expect a destroyer / frigate fleet three quarters the size of the RN?

Click to expand...

Given the size of our coastal shoreline and our obligations to NATO, 12-15 frigates is not unreasonable and our economy can support this. The RN plan calls for 8 Type 26 frigates along with some GP frigates. They already have their destroyers (Type 45 Darlings). Add in 2 carriers, 7 SSNs and 4 SSBNs and our planned fleet of 12-15 CSCs doesn't seem to be out of proportion compared to the RN

As such flexibility is the key with open architecture to allow easy upgrade over time. Fully capable warfighters but at a reduced cost in crew and operational costs.

Click to expand...

Agreed, this is the goal

We could do far worse than buying the Absalon and Iver plans. The need for LM2500 and the ability to integrate them isn't something new or overly complex to those that do that stuff. Hopefully this is the direction they are going.

Click to expand...

Again, I admit I like these Danish ships and I really like the stretched Absalon concept. In fact I like the concept so much that the RCN should have two of these in adddtion to the frigate fleet. They would enhance the RCN's HADR capability. I think it is important to note that the cost of these Danish ships will be more what Denmark paid. The Eastern European yards provided a real deal. When inflation and specific Canadian kit are factored in, these ships will certainly be over 1 billion. An enhanced Absalon will be in the Type 26 range IMO.

I have not seen much Canadian comment about the other competing designs. Have you?