Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Nothing official in any media just most of the actual ships have been to Halifax over the years showing off their attributes. The latest visitor was a French FREMM here during Cutlass Fury in September.

Of all the designs the Burkes are too expensive operationally and up front. FREMM ticks many of the boxes but the systems and weapons are all French / Italian so to design to accommodate American systems which we use would be very costly. The British ship designs suffer the same problem. The German F125 class lacks SAM capability beyond RAM which limits their ability as a warfighter IMHO yet the concept has possibilities. German F124 class uses most of the systems and weapons the RCN has or desires but is optimized for anti air. The Spanish offer of the F100 type or a Hobart offshoot tick all of the boxes but yet again these ships are primarily AAW and command vessels. This leaves the Danish offering.

If the Admirals look deep within themselves they would realize the benefits that Absalon offers across all of the deployments that are likely. Adding power via additional diesel or turbine engines is able to be done along with sound attenuation of equipment.

On another RCN note I drove by the Irving assembly hall today and the first Dewolf is truly taking shape as I could see a very substantial vessel inside. Won't be too long before they roll her out and get her floating. The sooner the better.

With OMT identified as working very closely with Irving the money has to be on a couple of modified Danish vessel designs. If I am wrong, and I have been many many times before, I would say the next likely option will be FREMM. Two reasons. FRENCH and Not British.

I still hope for a 5/10 split. So much possibility. Time will tell.

Novascotiaboy said:

Nothing official in any media just most of the actual ships have been to Halifax over the years showing off their attributes. The latest visitor was a French FREMM here during Cutlass Fury in September.

Of all the designs the Burkes are too expensive operationally and up front. FREMM ticks many of the boxes but the systems and weapons are all French / Italian so to design to accommodate American systems which we use would be very costly. The British ship designs suffer the same problem. The German F125 class lacks SAM capability beyond RAM which limits their ability as a warfighter IMHO yet the concept has possibilities. German F124 class uses most of the systems and weapons the RCN has or desires but is optimized for anti air. The Spanish offer of the F100 type or a Hobart offshoot tick all of the boxes but yet again these ships are primarily AAW and command vessels. This leaves the Danish offering.

If the Admirals look deep within themselves they would realize the benefits that Absalon offers across all of the deployments that are likely. Adding power via additional diesel or turbine engines is able to be done along with sound attenuation of equipment.

On another RCN note I drove by the Irving assembly hall today and the first Dewolf is truly taking shape as I could see a very substantial vessel inside. Won't be too long before they roll her out and get her floating. The sooner the better.

With OMT identified as working very closely with Irving the money has to be on a couple of modified Danish vessel designs. If I am wrong, and I have been many many times before, I would say the next likely option will be FREMM. Two reasons. FRENCH and Not British.

I still hope for a 5/10 split. So much possibility. Time will tell.

Click to expand...

The Evolved German F125 frigate that was bid for Australia's Future Frigate project included a full sized 48x cell Mk 41 VLS and appropriate radar, fire control and combat systems to allow employment of ESSM, SM-2/6 as well as Harpoon / Tomahawk as well as the option of RAM Block II or Phalanx BLock IB CIWS as we preferred. It was also bid with a Mk 45 Mod 4 gun, Vulcano long range, precision guided 127mm ammunition, Australia's choice of torpedo and self-defence / EW systems and sensor and the necessary hangars and maintenance facilities / armouries for employment of the MH-60 Romeo helicopter.

The F125 has a lot more capability inherent in the design than is employed at present by the German Navy...

https://www.aspi.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/26503/Kamerman-The-German-experience-slides.pdf

Very nice article ADMk2.

This has the inherent ability to accomplish the desired outcomes in a package that can be upgraded as desired. Same hull, same features, different weapons and sensor fit to accommodate AAW and general purpose plus support special forces. Still not as flexible as Absalon but as built with the systems Canada uses or desires.

Four of these in the full on AAW configuration, eight in a similar configuration as the German fit out but with only the forward VLS Mk 41 silos plus three Absalon. That could work as it would allow two task groups with one AAW, two GP and one Absalon plus an AOR and a submarine. Plus have vessels in training and refit.

It would be damn expensive but mighty impressive.

John Fedup said:

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.

Click to expand...

The Type 26 is designed to be continuously avalible and you can fly crews in and out (kind of what the Type 45 was hoped to be). You could station the ship in the Gulf for perhaps 2 or 3 rotations and simply fly crews in and out. Ideally the IEP would be better tested and more resilient than the one on the type 45. This would mean the ship would be avalible much more of the time and not wasting it transiting. IMO the MT30 is the future of gas turbines at sea. Its going to have more advantages into the future over the LM2500 in fuel/thermal efficiency, maxium power, etc.

I quite like the F-125 as well as it has other very modern ideas about crewing, IEP, redundancy etc. But the current German spec means to order a real ship means including a lot of systems that haven't been built into the ship before. I think the risk is manageable but it is still there.

Cut in numbers don't have to be terrible if you can gain really significant operational improvements (increased availability and lower running costs). Both the F-125 and the T26 are likely to gain those sort of improvements for any navy operating them.

If you were going from ~15 to 12 the compromises might be clearly worth it. But for smaller navies you run into other issues about total hulls and crew and crew training etc.

FREMM is arguably the newest proven hull in the water as a complete package. If you wanted the best hull ready to go today, you would go F-125 and can accept some integration risk (mostly in cost/time). If you can wait you would probably go Type 26 (some improvements, UK commonality), but that could be a big wait.

StingrayOZ said:

The Type 26 is designed to be continuously avalible and you can fly crews in and out (kind of what the Type 45 was hoped to be). You could station the ship in the Gulf for perhaps 2 or 3 rotations and simply fly crews in and out. Ideally the IEP would be better tested and more resilient than the one on the type 45.

Click to expand...

Both the Type 26 and the F-125 frigates have CODLAG based propulsion not IEP. IEP eliminates gearboxes as the diesels and GT produce electricity for electric motors that turn the screws. It is a better concept for propulsion but the Type 45 gave it a bad rap. Hopefully this tech proves itself in the QE and Zumwalt classes.

IMO the MT30 is the future of gas turbines at sea. Its going to have more advantages into the future over the LM2500 in fuel/thermal efficiency, maxium power, etc.

Click to expand...

I agree.

FREMM is arguably the newest proven hull in the water as a complete package. If you wanted the best hull ready to go today, you would go F-125 and can accept some integration risk (mostly in cost/time). If you can wait you would probably go Type 26 (some improvements, UK commonality), but that could be a big wait.

Click to expand...

Given the glacial pace of Canadian defence procurement, it is unlikely a delay in the U.K. will affect the TYpe 26's chances.

ADMk2 said:

The F125 has a lot more capability inherent in the design than is employed at present by the German Navy.

Click to expand...

The RCN likely sees a lot of merit in this design as well and it is MOTS.

When we had a Navy. Too bad our successive governments have failed to fund a credible defence force. Our navy was an impressive force at one point.

The glory days. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QmFD5bijrok

Novascotiaboy said:

When we had a Navy. Too bad our successive governments have failed to fund a credible defence force. Our navy was an impressive force at one point.

The glory days. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QmFD5bijrok

Click to expand...

....and after spending a bunch of money upgrading her, the dipshit PM of the day (junior's old man) ordered her to be sold off as !:flaming

John Fedup said:

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.

Click to expand...

Are you talking about the Absalon Class as a Command and Support Flexible Ship or as a frigate? Because a frigate they are not. If it is the frigate class that you are talking about then that is the Iver Huitfeld class and they are built to full military spec whereas the Absalon class isn't, they are built to civilian specs. My next question is would you gain anything by putting a gas turbine in the hull? Remember that a ships maximum speed though the water is a function of the length of the hull at the waterline. So you can get to a point that no matter how more powerful you make a ships engines, it won't make the ship go any faster. The reason why the Ivers don't have gas turbines is because diesels are cheaper to operate and run. The Danes designed some fairly significant cost saving measures into both classes.

You could have the option of a fleet made up of both Absalon class and Iver Huitfeld class ships which would not be silly. There is a lot of commonality between the two classes and it would make a lot of sense. The real trick would be not to Canadianise them to much, because that appears to add significant cost to the project.

John

Have you heard the rumour of Bonnie being switched for INS Vikrant? Makes for an interesting tale. I remember hearing these rumours before the internet growing up in a military family in Halifax. Far fetched.

Ngati

As a former serviceman in your navy is a speed of 24 to 28 knots not suitable for ASW operations? These are the speeds stated in various articles about Absalon. Do we need 30+ to be safe and effective hunting subs?

ngatimozart said:

Are you talking about the Absalon Class as a Command and Support Flexible Ship or as a frigate?

Click to expand...

The Absalon would be for the former application. A concept of stretching the Absalon and adding turbines was written up by Jim Dorschner awhile back. This could serve as a destroyer and command ship.
Multi-role Destroyer - Canadian Surface Combatant - Danish Absalon - Area Air Defence Destroyer - CASR Modest Proposal - Canadian American Strategic Review - Royal Canadian Navy - RCN Fleet - Destroyer Replacement - Absalon Class - Support Ship - Spe

My next question is would you gain anything by putting a gas turbine in the hull? Remember that a ships maximum speed though the water is a function of the length of the hull at the waterline. So you can get to a point that no matter how more powerful you make a ships engines, it won't make the ship go any faster.

Click to expand...

Yes, maximum hull speed is the square root of the waterline length times 1.34. The stretched Absalon would need more power to reach 30 knots and a diesel/GT system would address this requirement. I think in order to reach maximum hull speed you require 5 hp per ton of displacement. I believe the RCN favours a CODLAG propulsion system for the CSC but cost may see this requirement dropped.

You could have the option of a fleet made up of both Absalon class and Iver Huitfeld class ships which would not be silly. There is a lot of commonality between the two classes and it would make a lot of sense. The real trick would be not to Canadianise them to much, because that appears to add significant cost to the project.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Absalons as command and support ships (they also would provide an added HADR capacity) and the Ivers could be the frigate choice. The Canadianizing is a risk factor with regard to cost. This is why a stretched Absalon is not likely. Irving has consulted OMT so maybe these ships are more likely than not. The design RFP for the CSC should be out before the end of the year (fingers crossed).

AOPS Construction Timelapse January–September 2016 - Irving Shipbuilding

Irving have posted this short time-lapse video of work on the lead AOPS Harry DeWolf vessel.

Hat-tip to ThePointblank from the Warships1 forum.

Novascotiaboy said:

Ngati
As a former serviceman in your navy is a speed of 24 to 28 knots not suitable for ASW operations? These are the speeds stated in various articles about Absalon. Do we need 30+ to be safe and effective hunting subs?

Click to expand...

I didn't do ASW so can't really comment on the speed side. However from what I have gleaned from various sources is that hunting is done by being quiet and listening. There is not much open source material on ASW and those who do know keep quiet. A ship at speed upon the ocean is a noisy beastie.

ngatimozart said:

I didn't do ASW so can't really comment on the speed side. However from what I have gleaned from various sources is that hunting is done by being quiet and listening. There is not much open source material on ASW and those who do know keep quiet. A ship at speed upon the ocean is a noisy beastie.

Click to expand...

There are some tactical advantages that can be gained by speed in ASW (mainly in your ability to drive out of potential FOC/TDZs, which can be a real asset when you think of your threat mainly as diesels focused on employing torpedoes (vice ASCM). That isn't necessarily a reason to buy that speed (ie I wouldn't write my KPP or whatever the equivalent is for it), but if it's there it's useful.

Novascotiaboy said:

John


As a former serviceman in your navy is a speed of 24 to 28 knots not suitable for ASW operations? These are the speeds stated in various articles about Absalon. Do we need 30+ to be safe and effective hunting subs?

Click to expand...

That's a perfectly suitable speed for ASW ops. An escort is there to protect a high value target which means that the sub must come to you or certainly be aware of your movement to target weapons. If a sub penetrates the multi layers of ASW defence ( fixed and rotary wing ASW air and Escort subs) it's almost a lost cause but,...the escort screen will then come into effect.
The escorts can either operate remotely with towed arrays both passive and active or they will be close using hull mounted sonar and to give themselves the best detection chances and they will be operating at or below cavitation inception speed usually 12 to 15 knots ( unless these speeds have been dramatically increased since my time in the job).

Any high speed scrambling required to prosecute will be done by air assets so no, 30+ speeds are definitely not a requirement. Very few ASW a specialist hulls have ever been that fast, think OHP, Knox, Leander/Type 12, T23 etc.

Thank you Assail

I kind of had it in my mind that the quoted speeds would be acceptable.

So a hull stretch and two additional diesel engines would allow for a few extra knots and provide more space for improved weaponry.

I like the proposal of Jim Dorschner at CASR for top level Mk 41 VLS but I would limit the fit to quad pack ESSM for now. As an ASW platform it may be nice to have VL ASROC, a system once in use by the RCN on the Improved Restigouche class, and possibly VL Harpoon in place of the typical quad cell.

I have advocated on another thread for the upgrade from Phalanx to Millenium and I think that the RCN should consider this as well. So much more capability especially with AHEAD ammunition.

The idea of forward deploying vessels for as much as two years to a theater and flying crews in and out makes a lot of sense to me. The platform stays in service foregoing the long transit times back to Canada. In our case the RCN has been offered by Davie the opportunity to acquire the unsold offshore supply hulls that were partially completed as multi role ships. One of their ideas for a future RCN vessel was as a forward repair and depot ship. This to me would be an excellent use for these vessels and allow the RCN to make the most out of their limited number of hulls. Even though the RN has decided to retire their ship, Dilligence, the concept has worked for them.

We have been an expeditionary force since our militaries inception. We have no external threat to Canadian soil directly. Our forces fight overseas. Absalon type vessels allow our forces to self deploy and operate in areas of interest. Like the German F125 class the flex deck affords the area to support special forces but with the advantage of larger vehicle and logistical support capabilities.

Even though F125 seems to be a good option for both roles I think the sticker shock will exclude it from the final decision.

Defence Watch is saying that a shortlist is due anytime.

Industry reps expect Canadian Surface Combatant announcement | Ottawa Citizen

Its been five years since the two yards have been assigned and not a single new hull for the RCN or the CCG has touched the salt water yet. Hopefully soon we will see some splashes.

Recent frigate designs are trending towards CODLOG or CODLAG to meet propulsion and electrical generation. Both concepts eliminate multiple diesel types and offer reduced maintenance compared to an all diesel configuration using propulsion diesels and diesel Gen sets. Modern warships require increasing amounts of electrical power and this trend will continue as lasers and rail guns emerge from the R&D phase to actual deployment . The fore mentioned diesel/ GT systems address this trend and IEP will be the ultimate propulsion/generation system as it eliminates gearboxes altogether.

If the Iver Huitfeldt or Absalon (as is or stretched) are offered, the designs need to be modified for CODLOG or CODLAG IMO. The RCN's SOR specified an electric propulsion mode for low speed cruising but the government could ignore this requirement. The Halifax frigate is a CODOG design.

I believe the speed requirement is primarily driven by the need to integrate with the USN and it's carrier strike groups.

Look, I think the Absalon/Iver's are excellent ships, and I think many of their capabilities should be integrated into the CSC design. But as others have pointed out already I doubt a Canadianized Absalon design will be any significantly cheaper than the BAE or ThyssenKrupp offerings. We'd be talking about a hull stretch/redesign, adding GT, engineering changes to meet acoustical signature requirements ect.

Probably the main thing I've been able to learn from this site is the ability to understand military procurement within the context of our CONOPS. When looking at warship acquisition through this lens I don't think Absalon or Iver would be a good fit.

Basically, we need a modern replacement for our current Halifax class. With modern radar capabilities I think we could forgo the 3 AAW hulls and go with 12 advanced ASW hulls. Blue water escorts is what our navy does best. And if we ever have a shooting war with a near peer rival - there will be lots of sea lanes that will need protecting so it's not like these ships are no longer relevant.

NSboy,

I must admit I shuddered a bit when I read "expeditionary" and forward deployed forces in your previous post. IMO this is a can of worms that we shouldn't be opening. Creating a naval expeditionary force is no small feat and requires a vast amount of resources. We've been through this a bit with the JSS procurement - hoping to add some amphibious capability to our AOR - resulting in years of delay only to abandon the idea altogether and pick a more traditional AOR.

We should keep this requirement to a minimum IMO - have the ability to embark special forces, DART (disaster assistance response team) ect. But let's leave anything more to other navies that already have the capability.

Delta204 said:

I believe the speed requirement is primarily driven by the need to integrate with the USN and it's carrier strike groups.

Click to expand...

As this is what the Halifax Class is called upon to do more often than not, your comment rings true.

Basically, we need a modern replacement for our current Halifax class. With modern radar capabilities I think we could forgo the 3 AAW hulls and go with 12 advanced ASW hulls. Blue water escorts is what our navy does best. And if we ever have a shooting war with a near peer rival - there will be lots of sea lanes that will need protecting so it's not like these ships are no longer relevant.

Click to expand...

The AAW decision will depend on the RCN's CONOPS but as you say the ASW role is important and our allies would value it.

Creating a naval expeditionary force is no small feat and requires a vast amount of resources. We've been through this a bit with the JSS procurement - hoping to add some amphibious capability to our AOR - resulting in years of delay only to abandon the idea altogether and pick a more traditional AOR.

We should keep this requirement to a minimum IMO - have the ability to embark special forces, DART (disaster assistance response team) ect. But let's leave anything more to other navies that already have the capability.

Click to expand...

Sadly, you are likely right. If an amphibious ship were to be acquired, it should be totally foreign sourced. The HADR role would be its best selling point to the Canadian electorate. The other more realistic choice would be to add 1-2 Absalons, which with their flex-deck and RoRo capabilities, to perform HADR.

Delta 204 and John Fedup

Its been said that the RCN wants to standardize on ESSM as its SAM. If this is the case then why invest in the AAW platforms. I can see this side of your reply.

But I am adamant that the navy has to be available to transport the army in some way shape or form.

My comments regarding expeditionary are related to having frigates deployed far from home for extended durations acting in a presence and enforcement role. Why steam home only to be replaced by another hull to do the same thing for another six months? Leave the ships in place. Support them in place via a platform that can offer heavy maintenance and repairs as well as additional hotel and medical facilities if required.

I am not advocating an amphibious capability as that time passed when CDS General Rick Hillier retired. As much as I would have loved to see a BHS like the Red Mistrals in RCN livery I know its unlikely. Absalons flex deck can at least provide a limited ability to move hardware and people. I think of non combatant evacuations, SOF support, initial HADR responses. In no way could we mount an over the beach type of operation. I am talking ramp to dock type situations at best.

F125 and Absalon currently offer this type of flexibility.

As far as the original JSS was concerned that whole debacle illustrates the ineptitude of all involved in the acquisition. There appeared to be no willingness to compromise. Army wanted transport of a battalion with kit. Navy wanted full AOR as it had with Protector and Preserver hence a 30000 ton behemoth that couldn't be built. But alas the Dutch built a compromise in the Karel Dorman. Able to do transport and act as an AOR. Doesn't do either exceptionally well but gets the job done.

I hope we don't give up our ability to deploy a Canadian task group but I fear that we will end up as a navy of single deployments.