Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

It curiously... well, not that "curiously", but "as usual" fails to mention that:

• the ships were actually built in sections in Lithuania and Estonia for labour cost reasons (in shipyards owned by the same holding for just that reason)
• only the final assembly was performed locally in Odense - and the shipyard went bankrupt
• all military installations and system integration on the ships as well as all tests and certifications were not performed as part of the shipbuilding contract, but later on by the Royal Danish Navy itself; the shipbuilding contract only involved the outfitted, engined basic hull (according to the EDA)

Yes, there have been a number of articles praising the virtues of the Iver Huitfeldt and Absalon class ships but they almost always leave out the important details on actual costs. In any event they do have some interesting features and likely will be competitive price wise. If the RFQ requires a GT option then there will be extra cost to design this requirement. If you can believe media reports the RCN brass favour the Type 26 but price and political considerations will make this choice difficult.

I like the Danish approach, In past even favored it during the initial tender phase of SEA5000 but have come to realise that approach while having benefits also has limitations. It's not nearly as cheap as he makes out the may be cheaper long term however at the same time for the cost savings (what ever they may be, Actual savings are debatable) you also end up with systems that inherintly by design held back in capability to ensure they fit within the alloted space (Stanflex module size). Great I'd imagine for an OPV allowing them to switch from role to role and wouldnt have minded having that ability for our OPV's (But that time has past) but for a full fledged war ship you either do it right or dont do it at all. Go for that approach and you are limited to exactly a 76mm gun, ESSM's and Harpoons as your offensive weaponry, Exactly what you would find on a modern Corvette. New vessels may be more reliable (in availability) then the current fleet but they would still leave the RCN as being nothing more then a Brown water navy as there armaments would be grossly inadequate for blue water operations.

Danish ships aren't limited to Stanflex modules, & nor would any other ship be that was designed to use them. The Iver Huitfeldt class have non-Stanflex weapons in addition to the Stanflex modules, for example.

Nor are they restricted to the current modules. Anything that could fit into the dimensions could be built into a new module.

So, for a future Canadian frigate/destroyer, for example, the adoption of Stanflex would not, in itself, prevent the fitting of a 127 mm gun (the Iver Huitfeldt class can take one), or Mk 41 VLS, or Sylver/Aster, or CAMM, or anti-ship missiles other than Harpoon. Some could be fitted as non-modular systems, such as the Mk41s Iver Huitfeldt has, & some as new modules.

kato said:

It curiously... well, not that "curiously", but "as usual" fails to mention that:

• the ships were actually built in sections in Lithuania and Estonia for labour cost reasons (in shipyards owned by the same holding for just that reason)
• only the final assembly was performed locally in Odense - and the shipyard went bankrupt

Click to expand...

• 
  The shipyard was closed by the owners - who were also its biggest customer, much bigger than the Danish navy - because they decided that building their freighters in Denmark was no longer economic, so they closed their in-house shipyard & have since bought ships from foreign yards, e.g. in Korea.
  
  Maersk (the owner) is far from bankrupt. It's still the biggest shipping line in the world, AFAIK.
  
  The Iver Huitfeldt contract was insignificant to the future of the Lindø yard. It certainly didn't bankrupt the yard. Maersk was going to close it anyway, & would have done so slightly earlier without that deal. There wasn't enough warship business to support the yard: it was always just a sideline.

It will be interesting to see if the OMT design will incorporate some of the suggested modifications that appeared on the now closed CASR site. The one that interested me was the Absalon modified with a hull plug and the addtion of GTs. The extra space along with the RoRo capability would make it a pretty flexible ship. The sticky point would be the cost.

The Danish Iver Huitfeldt / Absalon designs have been praised repeatedly by many naval commentators here in Canada, and I agree it's hard not to be impressed by amount of value these vessels offer compared to modern competitors - at least on paper. But adding to what was mentioned by vonnoobie, I would argue that these are NOT as suitable for the RCN as many are so eager to suggest.

First, as the article (briefly) points out, these vessels are built to commercial standards. This would present a (excuse the hyperbole) a radical departure from RCN doctrine which maintains that it's warships must be second to none with regards to damage control and survivability. The author dismisses the strict military requirements for warship survivability in the area of modern anti-ship missiles. But I would argue that a Danish warship would not have been able to survive a naval mine strike that hit USN warships Princeton & Samuel B. Roberts. This would be especially true considering the Danes typically run a leaner crew (again compared to similar sized frigates) further reducing is damage control & firefighting capabilities and ultimately survivability.

Second, as kato pointed out, the cost of much of the system and weapons installation and integration was not included in the cost. In fact one of these Danish frigates visited Halifax port a year or two ago and it was revealed that most of its MK 41 launchers sit empty, even the millennial gun on top of the hanger was a mock-up only - installed only so the helo flight crew could operate with the proper wind / air dynamics. Again, this is not something the RCN does - when it's combatants depart home port they are fully kitted up (weapons and crew) and ready to operate at fully capacity should they be required. The Danish vessels on the other hand would likely need many months of preparation (and lots of money) before they would be ready for a combat role.

Finally, once you Canadianize a design I suspect the cost difference would erode substantially. A RCN version would require GT's, acoustical signature reduction among many other modifications that would not be simple or cheap. The end result would likely price the ship closer to other Euro designs like Type 26 & FREMM.

In the end, these vessels offer 80% modern frigate capability for probably half the cost - but the RCN would not accept a warship with reduced capability and the recent defense review done does not allude to any such change in doctrine.

I agree that the cost advantage of the Danish ships will be much smaller after "Canadianization", especially if GTs are called for in the tender. I still think best commercial standards as opposed to milspec is appropriate for many components not related to weapons or propulsion can lead to some savings and increased Canadian content. This applies to the other designs as well.

With regards to how much this would effect a vessel's ability to absorb damage, probably marginal but perhaps others can weigh in on this. Vessel and crew size along with training are more important for damage control IMO. The recent accidents involving the USN's AB destroyers illustrate this. Six thousand ton frigates with 130 crew may not have survived. A well trained bridge watch would solve this problem however. The same applies to a supersonic cruise missile strike or torpedo, a well trained crew with the best ship defence kit is the best solution against such encounters because the best damage control efforts simply can't overcome the massive damage these weapons will inflict on a six to seven thousand ton warship.

kato said:

It curiously... well, not that "curiously", but "as usual" fails to mention that:

• the ships were actually built in sections in Lithuania and Estonia for labour cost reasons (in shipyards owned by the same holding for just that reason)
• only the final assembly was performed locally in Odense - and the shipyard went bankrupt
  

Click to expand...

The shipyard didn’t go bankrupt, Mærsk closed it down, they got out of shipbuilding, it was cheaper to buy from the Korean and Chinese yards than build ships for themselves.

KiwiRob said:

The shipyard didn’t go bankrupt, Mærsk closed it down, they got out of shipbuilding, it was cheaper to buy from the Korean and Chinese yards than build ships for themselves.

Click to expand...

Odense Steel Shipyard was operating at a (significant) loss throughout 2008 and 2009, in 2009 being responsible for one-third of Maersk's overall turnover losses. There were a number of attempts in the first half of 2009 to stabilize it economically, such as moving labour-intensive production to dumping-wage yards Odense owned in the Baltics (the ones the Absalons and Iver Huitfelds were built at), as well as a new business model that saw significant downsizing and selling off assets such as part of the real estate.

Since, however, Odense was unable to find anyone - outside Maersk - who'd order ships there and since it kept operating at significant losses Maersk decided to get rid of it. This was reasoned with as Odense being unable to compete with Asian shipyards - not for Maersk's own orders, but as a whole.
Despite it being sort of the "house yard" for Maersk, in particular around 2006-2008 they did manage to get significant orders from other companies, in particular Carras Hellas from Greece, Epic Shipping from Singapore and Pacific Basin from Hong Kong; by 2009 they were unable to find other such outside customers, which led to Maersk closing them.

What I have been following and thinking about of recently is the jetty improvements at Halifax and Esquimalt. In short it does not seem to be enough.

https://globalnews.ca/news/1720899/...lifax-dockyard-ahead-of-shipbuilding-startup/

A/B Jetty Recapitalization Project and Esquimalt Harbour Remediation Project

In terms of just overall fleet numbers the RCN will be expanding and in terms of tonnage massively so. We are getting in theory six AOPS and 15 FFH, plus the 2-3 AOR. Jetties are being built in Halifax and Esquimalt for the AOPS but nothing has really been said for the FFH. Then we have the the existing MCM and SSK as well. Which if replaced following all other shipping trends will be bigger both in overall size and displacement.

It just seems our naval bases will be maxed out in space, especially Halifax due to how strung out the base is along the shore line.

The vessel count isn’t changing by much with the exception of the AOPS but additional space above and beyond is the plan. The new vessels will be longer but this seems to taken into account. I am more worried about new vessels being available to dock at the new facilities.

J_Can said:

What I have been following and thinking about of recently is the jetty improvements at Halifax and Esquimalt. In short it does not seem to be enough.

https://globalnews.ca/news/1720899/...lifax-dockyard-ahead-of-shipbuilding-startup/

A/B Jetty Recapitalization Project and Esquimalt Harbour Remediation Project

In terms of just overall fleet numbers the RCN will be expanding and in terms of tonnage massively so. We are getting in theory six AOPS and 15 FFH, plus the 2-3 AOR. Jetties are being built in Halifax and Esquimalt for the AOPS but nothing has really been said for the FFH. Then we have the the existing MCM and SSK as well. Which if replaced following all other shipping trends will be bigger both in overall size and displacement.

It just seems our naval bases will be maxed out in space, especially Halifax due to how strung out the base is along the shore line.

Click to expand...

I can see Canada eventually looking at MCM replacement but in regards to submarines they are already to late in the game, short of jumping in with Australia or ordering a none modified submarine from Europe (Since when does Canada ever not modify something?) they will lose that capability with I imagine Australia heavily scavenging through there personnel encouraging them across the RAN and it's expanding submarine fleet.

vonnoobie said:

I can see Canada eventually looking at MCM replacement but in regards to submarines they are already to late in the game, short of jumping in with Australia or ordering a none modified submarine from Europe (Since when does Canada ever not modify something?) they will lose that capability with I imagine Australia heavily scavenging through there personnel encouraging them across the RAN and it's expanding submarine fleet.

Click to expand...

I imagine that this has already been discussed among the hallways of RAN planners.
And it will have a strong likelihood of happening as well. We already have ex-RN submariners in RAN submarines, and could easily have ex Canadian navy personnel for all I know.
MB

Milne Bay said:

I imagine that this has already been discussed among the hallways of RAN planners.
And it will have a strong likelihood of happening as well. We already have ex-RN submariners in RAN submarines, and could easily have ex Canadian navy personnel for all I know.
MB

Click to expand...

Not a submarine, but i'm fairly sure the first commander of HMAS Choules was either ex-RCN or ex-USN.

StevoJH said:

Not a submarine, but i'm fairly sure the first commander of HMAS Choules was either ex-RCN or ex-USN.

Click to expand...

He was ex RCN

vonnoobie said:

I can see Canada eventually looking at MCM replacement but in regards to submarines they are already to late in the game, short of jumping in with Australia or ordering a none modified submarine from Europe (Since when does Canada ever not modify something?) they will lose that capability with I imagine Australia heavily scavenging through there personnel encouraging them across the RAN and it's expanding submarine fleet.

Click to expand...

The recent defence review gave no indication of Canada's future submarine plans. Shortly thereafter a subsequent announcement was made about a 2 billion dollar life extension plan for the Victoria class subs. Whether junior is serious about this, who knows? More likely it was his way to divert the issue to the sidelines and end discussions about future requirements until the middle 2020s. As you said, it is late in the game and realistically where will only be two choices that can meet our range requirements , the future Australian sub or a French SSN. Only the latter meets the requirement for endurance under the ice. The life extension program is supposed allow the Victorias to operate out to 2040. If junior lasts another 10 years in office, Canada will be the first "first world" country to go bankrupt and sub replacement will be the least of our worries.

Well it depends on what Canada wants,i mean i don't see them getting nuclear subs but i could be wrong.

So the choices are limited when going for a conventional sub,keeping in mind the range demands there is an other option besides the Short Fin wich Australia's getting,i'm thinking of the Damen-Saab A-26 Oceanic Extended Range wich the Netherlands is eying to buy to replace the Walrus.

We're also in the proces of buying new MCM ships,maybe of interest too for Canada.(and new vMFF's to replace the M-class,ASW orientated)there's a lot to be replaced over here.

I would love for Canada to go nuclear but politic it would be near impossible, that said we have to replace our current subs and keep the fleet going. Without our SSK Canada goes to a one dimensional navy, and SSK are some of the most effective tools for naval sea denial.

I would be even willing to see a decrease in surface combatants if meant we would replace our sub fleet, Canada cannot afford not to have a SSK.

Frankly a reduction in surface combatants to fund new subs makes sense if the goal is sovereignty protection. However there are more Canadian jobs in the CSC program for pollies to consider. If the Canadian nuclear industry together with the province of Ontario were to lobby for SSNs they could be an option. Unfortunately the Ontario government is even worse than the junior’s abomination in Ottawa so this is unlikely.

John Fedup said:

Frankly a reduction in surface combatants to fund new subs makes sense if the goal is sovereignty protection. However there are more Canadian jobs in the CSC program for pollies to consider. If the Canadian nuclear industry together with the province of Ontario were to lobby for SSNs they could be an option. Unfortunately the Ontario government is even worse than the junior’s abomination in Ottawa so this is unlikely.

Click to expand...

Saying Ontario's government is worse then federal run one, is the understatement of the century. I cant speak for other provinces but I am not hopefully at all for mine.

I think a big inhibition to a Canadian SSN program is the elephant in the room, the Americans. Last time we tried and we were really close the Americans shit-canned us from getting either their design or the Trafalgar class. Also were do you think we could build up a SSN shipyard, maybe build the first few in France and the rest in Davie to appease Quebec into the program? While spreading out work contracts across the country coast to coast to force the government into continuing the program no matter what?