• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
925
Points
1,090

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
187
Points
530
Maybe an unpopular thought, but it might make some sense to build the extra 2 AOPS, and keep them with the Navy. If it appears that we'll be short of ships for missions in the next 5-10 years, flexible vessels like the HDW class, may be useful, particularly with their lower demands on crewing. I get that they're not replacements for frigates, but they are a better match for longer deployments than an MCDV.
The next 10 yrs should be ok ship wise if they manage things well but I can see the 10 after that getting rough. So on the surface we have some time to fix the neverending recruitment/training/retention issues. I think there will no doubt be some ship availability issues in the 30's and we will probably have to deal with lower ship numbers through the transition period just like we have dealt with the lack of AAD and AOR.

My initial reaction to your AOPS proposal was not great but I can see the value in it
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
59
Points
280
The next 10 yrs should be ok ship wise if they manage things well but I can see the 10 after that getting rough. So on the surface we have some time to fix the neverending recruitment/training/retention issues. I think there will no doubt be some ship availability issues in the 30's and we will probably have to deal with lower ship numbers through the transition period just like we have dealt with the lack of AAD and AOR.

My initial reaction to your AOPS proposal was not great but I can see the value in it
I agree, it's not the ideal fix, and there might be a certain "throwing good money after bad" angle to it. But, I think there is likely to be a time, some point soon, where quantity of hulls, particularly with low crew requirements, is going to bring a quality all its own.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
310
Points
860


An interesting read, essentially saying we are past the point of no return on the CSC so we might as well go full steam ahead.
I found this paragraph, among a few others, to be very interesting. I know that the SPY-7 radar has been talked about here before but I just wanted to capture this information:

"As noted earlier, the initial CSC concept was to commission three specialized AAW destroyers that were to complement 12 multi-purpose warships. However, by 2016 this concept had been scrapped in favour of consolidating all the ships under one design. This decision meant that all the CSC ships would require a highly capable radar system to undertake air defence, which would be complemented by a suite of surface-to-air missiles. To accommodate these changes, the Global Combat Ship design was extended by two metres and about a thousand more tons was added to the ship’s unloaded weight (Naval Technology Undated)." From pg. 34
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
219
Points
680
I found this paragraph, among a few others, to be very interesting. I know that the SPY-7 radar has been talked about here before but I just wanted to capture this information:

"As noted earlier, the initial CSC concept was to commission three specialized AAW destroyers that were to complement 12 multi-purpose warships. However, by 2016 this concept had been scrapped in favour of consolidating all the ships under one design. This decision meant that all the CSC ships would require a highly capable radar system to undertake air defence, which would be complemented by a suite of surface-to-air missiles. To accommodate these changes, the Global Combat Ship design was extended by two metres and about a thousand more tons was added to the ship’s unloaded weight (Naval Technology Undated)." From pg. 34
Your point?, I thought that this was common knowledge and talked about here already....
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
310
Points
860
Your point?, I thought that this was common knowledge and talked about here already....
Simply that there seems to been no change of direction in going down this path according to this document.
Basically building FREMM style frigates, AAW and ASW, except that all 15 of ours will have more powerful AAW radars, whereas our cousins T26's will have less over the horizon capabilities than us. I can definitely see our ships being much in demand because of this.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
62
Points
280
I can't find the piece that talked about this. But it is was British one detailing why the RCN is going with 15 of the same and the better radar. It was basically Canada has two fleets east and west. We need all the ships to be able to do all the functions at any given time. And that the CSC is a once in 2 generation thing we need to get it right. And that 15 of the mostly same ships will be less costly than the 3 and 12 over the long run. After I read that it all made super sense to me. Splitting the but into different classes to save cost may not in the long run.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
219
Points
680
Simply that there seems to been no change of direction in going down this path according to this document.
Basically building FREMM style frigates, AAW and ASW, except that all 15 of ours will have more powerful AAW radars, whereas our cousins T26's will have less over the horizon capabilities than us. I can definitely see our ships being much in demand because of this.
Sorry I don't get what you mean. Its been common knowledge that all 15 CSC's were always going to have the larger radar, increased size and tonnage resulting in the post powerful CSC of our allies, although with 24 VLS that may be not be the case.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
62
Points
280
Sorry I don't get what you mean. Its been common knowledge that all 15 CSC's were always going to have the larger radar, increased size and tonnage resulting in the post powerful CSC of our allies, although with 24 VLS that may be not be the case.
So it is 24?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
219
Points
680
So it is 24?
I'll put it this way, increased size, larger radar equals more tonnage for a ships propulsion plant that can only go so fast. The plants not changing so where do you think they will cut from? Of course that's only my opinion.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
62
Points
280
I'll put it this way, increased size, larger radar equals more tonnage for a ships propulsion plant that can only go so fast. The plants not changing so where do you think they will cut from? Of course that's only my opinion.
The biggest thing is the very costly missiles inside. 12 less....money saved! Beers all around!
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
183
Points
630
The biggest thing is the very costly missiles inside. 12 less....money saved! Beers all around!
Maybe my math is off and someone can correct me, but wouldn't the loss of 8 Mk 41 cells equate to a potential reduction of up to 32 weapons? (if ESSM) I guess there's always the CAMM in ExLS cells, and it's a trade-off for the better radar. Not surprising really.
 

Maxman1

Member
Reaction score
120
Points
680
So it is 24?

ball.jpg
 

calculus

Jr. Member
Reaction score
42
Points
380

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
688
Points
1,040
How much does however much of a cell is permanent actually cost?
The actual VLS cell isn't much; basically a metal tube with some interface for the missile and some monitoring, with basic safety related equipment.

It's a big footprint at an awkward spot though, with a lot of structural reinforcement etc in the area, and you also have to counterballast in the aft end to keep the nose from really digging in when you have the weight of the missiles. Not complicated, but not something you can just add in as an afterthought.

The really expensive parts are the combat systems, fire control systems, and the actual missiles.

For the 280 disposal, the VLS was really only worth the scrap value (minus the cost to remove and demil the electronics). It's all ITAR so really just a pain in the ass.

With the hull size to accomodate the big honking radar, the footprint may be available, but somewhat pointless to speculate I think, especially as we'd probably only buy a few ship sets worth of actual ammo.
 
Top