New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Stoker]

Hmm. So they are a model for the Canadian service?

Get Davie or Heddle started building RoPax ferries at the rate of one or two a year, supply the subsidized vessels to the Canadian operators, have them use them for a few years then sell them on the open market or charter them out. That would keep the fleet current and in good repair and maintain a credible sealift capability.

Or just have 4 RORO ships built offshore and prepositioned on each coast where they sit, they take them out once a month and light their engines off once a week.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Might be a silly question but if all the 15 CSC’s are built, along with the 6 AOPS, the 2 or 3 AORS and let’s say 8 or 9 subs and say 8-10 replacements for the Kingstons, (let’s say at a min. of 90m in length), will we have enough dock space for all of this? I am aware of the jetty development going on the WC, but will it all result in enough space?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

We've packed as much as that in Halifax before and a little better than half in Esquimalt. Haven't done much of it of late in the RCN in view of the limited number of ships, but there is an age old naval practice called nesting where you put two, or three (or more, but not with very large ships) warships side by side at a single berth or jetty.

 

[Rainbow1910]

 

[Czech_pivo]

We've packed as much as that in Halifax before and a little better than half in Esquimalt. Haven't done much of it of late in the RCN in view of the limited number of ships, but there is an age old naval practice called nesting where you put two, or three (or more, but not with very large ships) warships side by side at a single berth or jetty.

So the future Kingston replacements would following the ‘nesting’ practice and the rest of the ships would be too large for this?

 

[Stoker]

So the future Kingston replacements would following the ‘nesting’ practice and the rest of the ships would be too large for this?

No one can say for sure but more than likely yes based on past practice. There's room in the dockyards.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So the future Kingston replacements would following the ‘nesting’ practice and the rest of the ships would be too large for this?

No, my reference to large ships was about nesting them more than three at a time. We have nested the two East coast AOR's together before in Halifax with no problems. I can see AOPS being nested to three at a time without any special problem (other than being a real hassle for the outboard one for storing ship because of limited crew). No particular problem with nesting three CSC's that i can see.

Nevertheless, with the fleet composition you mention up above, and splitting the fleet half and half, with the wharfage available in Halifax, you likely wouldn't need to do more than two ships nests.

 

[Stoker]

So the future Kingston replacements would following the ‘nesting’ practice and the rest of the ships would be too large for this?

For the Kingston Class its also about the duty watch requirements, we typically nest 5 ships which doesn't always mean all together but somewhat spread out at typically NB jetty Halifax. If there are other ships berthed there such as foreign ships or requirements such as RAS trials on NB the ships would tighten up the nest and sometimes be 3 ships deep. The duty watch requirements means instead of 5 separate duty watches we would have after hours one nest duty watch looking after 5 ships, during the workday each ship would have a duty watch on until secure. It makes it better for the ships company. AOPS is I believe doing the same thing but has a lot of issues doing it effectively but getting better.

 

[Navy_Pete]

So explain the Spruance Class vs the Ticonderogo Class then. Same hull and same powerplant. Completely different weapons and sensors. Though I suppose you could argue that the internal compartment layout had to change because of all the VLS that needed to be placed on the Tico's. But then we're in a chicken-egg situation because the weapon/sensor changes forced a compartmental change.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to drill down to get the answer. Or is this a US vs Canada labeling system difference.

I don't think there is any actual rule.

The reality is over time we end up with separate TDPs for each ship anyway, so different batches just gives you some configuration differences to deal with. On the CPFs, the different firemain configs and steering setups come to mind as some examples, but after a while in service you end up with different ECs and mods, etc etc and eventually particularized drawings for each ship.

The CPF class desk is just lying to themselves saying they have full config control and all the ships are the same.

 

[NavyShooter]

Sister Ships, not Twins.

No two are alike, and there are differences between the first 6 and the last 6. To the point that there are difference incident boards for each group.

 

[Maxman1]

So explain the Spruance Class vs the Ticonderogo Class then. Same hull and same powerplant. Completely different weapons and sensors. Though I suppose you could argue that the internal compartment layout had to change because of all the VLS that needed to be placed on the Tico's. But then we're in a chicken-egg situation because the weapon/sensor changes forced a compartmental change.

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to drill down to get the answer. Or is this a US vs Canada labeling system difference.

Pretty sure it was mostly political reasons for classifying them as cruisers, same as reclassifying frigates and destroyer leaders as cruisers because of the "cruiser gap" and the confusing classification scheme that was at odds with the rest of NATO.

United States Navy 1975 ship reclassification - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Underway]

Might be a silly question but if all the 15 CSC’s are built, along with the 6 AOPS, the 2 or 3 AORS and let’s say 8 or 9 subs and say 8-10 replacements for the Kingstons, (let’s say at a min. of 90m in length), will we have enough dock space for all of this? I am aware of the jetty development going on the WC, but will it all result in enough space?

To back up @Oldgateboatdriver and @Stoker

As far as room to put ships is concerned there is already an A&B jetty recapitalization going on.

B Jetty when its supposed to be complete has room for the JSS on one side and the two west coast AOPS on the other. In front of the JSS is supposed to be the submarine permanent berthing where they also nest. You can see AOPS nesting inside the circle of the graphic imposed over the image of the dockyard..


This image is both A and B replacement. You can see A jetty (the one parallel to the shorline) is very long. The images I've seen have two CSC not nested on that one. Given the C Jetties have five birthing areas then all the heavies are taken care of. This doesn't include Y jetty, the fueling jetty or the jetty alongside Seaspan. East Coast has even more space with NA through to NJ (the newest one).


B Jetty is a way's along with the last quarter of the end underconstruction. A Jetty is to be started after that, its going to be interesting as they are going to fill in all the shoreline and square up where the wooden piers are. It's going to add a ton of space along the water.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I signed the approvals under the NPA for A&B Jetty I think in 2017 or so. Surprised they are not yet complete.

 

[DBNSG]

To back up @Oldgateboatdriver and @Stoker

As far as room to put ships is concerned there is already an A&B jetty recapitalization going on.

B Jetty when its supposed to be complete has room for the JSS on one side and the two west coast AOPS on the other. In front of the JSS is supposed to be the submarine permanent berthing where they also nest. You can see AOPS nesting inside the circle of the graphic imposed over the image of the dockyard..
View attachment 79729

This image is both A and B replacement. You can see A jetty (the one parallel to the shorline) is very long. The images I've seen have two CSC not nested on that one. Given the C Jetties have five birthing areas then all the heavies are taken care of. This doesn't include Y jetty, the fueling jetty or the jetty alongside Seaspan. East Coast has even more space with NA through to NJ (the newest one).
View attachment 79730

B Jetty is a way's along with the last quarter of the end underconstruction. A Jetty is to be started after that, its going to be interesting as they are going to fill in all the shoreline and square up where the wooden piers are. It's going to add a ton of space along the water.

Have any Images of Jetty B under construction been released as the government has seemed to stymie information since Covid

 

[DBNSG]

To back up @Oldgateboatdriver and @Stoker

As far as room to put ships is concerned there is already an A&B jetty recapitalization going on.

B Jetty when its supposed to be complete has room for the JSS on one side and the two west coast AOPS on the other. In front of the JSS is supposed to be the submarine permanent berthing where they also nest. You can see AOPS nesting inside the circle of the graphic imposed over the image of the dockyard..
View attachment 79729

This image is both A and B replacement. You can see A jetty (the one parallel to the shorline) is very long. The images I've seen have two CSC not nested on that one. Given the C Jetties have five birthing areas then all the heavies are taken care of. This doesn't include Y jetty, the fueling jetty or the jetty alongside Seaspan. East Coast has even more space with NA through to NJ (the newest one).
View attachment 79730

B Jetty is a way's along with the last quarter of the end underconstruction. A Jetty is to be started after that, its going to be interesting as they are going to fill in all the shoreline and square up where the wooden piers are. It's going to add a ton of space along the water.

Second question about Jetty A . Has the project taken into account the extra length of the CSC's and will Jetty A be longer because of that?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Sister Ships, not Twins.

No two are alike, and there are differences between the first 6 and the last 6. To the point that there are difference incident boards for each group.

I'd go a step further and say they are now cousins with the number of temp ECs, rabbits and other untracked changes on them.

One of the LCMMs had a contractor onboard to install an EC and a non-watertight bulkhead that a power panel was supposed to be mounted on was missing all together.

And the EC process itself is so broken that ECs are being completed under NDs while the ECs are still jumping through the review hoops. One of the guys I work with had to resubmit the LSAR data 3 times because they kept changing it so he had to get it reapproved a few times because of the delays in getting to the SERG review board. And trying to close ECs when you never get certificate of compliance for the most part is such a pain that there are ones that were done 3 years ago that are still open, even though the work is long done. A lot of the drawings and pubs are out of date as well because they don't show the ECs.

It's crazy, think spend way more time fighting bureaucracy than actually doing things. Less of a Life Cycle manager as a triplicate form filler that occasionally does something technical by accident.

 

[suffolkowner]

We've packed as much as that in Halifax before and a little better than half in Esquimalt. Haven't done much of it of late in the RCN in view of the limited number of ships, but there is an age old naval practice called nesting where you put two, or three (or more, but not with very large ships) warships side by side at a single berth or jetty.

Is there going to be more ships than the late 90's-00's peak? Or maybe just much bigger ones

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

What I was refering to was the 1985 naval review for the RCN's 75th anniversary. We had the whole East coast fleet in (10 St-Laurent's, because ST-LAURENT and ST-CROIX in reserve were still there, 4 IRO's, 2 AOR's, 3 Submarines, CFAV Quest and five small patrol vessels [gate vessels, FORT STEELe and two R-Boats]), plus Stanavforlant's seven other destroyers and frigates, IRCC about 12 other nation's frigates and destroyers and about five small combatants, including three RN River class minesweepers, all alongside the Dockyard in Halifax at the same time.

 

[Grimey]

I signed the approvals under the NPA for A&B Jetty I think in 2017 or so. Surprised they are not yet complete.

Wow. I was at FMF in ‘99/01. Replacement was being discussed then, but expansion of Cape Breton came first. Still, 20+ yrs!!

 

[Kirkhill]

I don't know if this has been reported on this site yet.

Canada initiates new OPV project to replace Kingston-class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels | Shephard

A new Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) Project has been started by the Canadian Department of Defence (DND) with the ships to replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN’s) existing 12 Kingston-class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs) that are approaching 30 years of service.

www.shephardmedia.com

A new Offshore Patrol Vessel (OPV) Project has been started by the Canadian Department of Defence (DND) with the ships to replace the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN’s) existing 12 Kingston-class Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels (MCDVs) that are approaching 30 years of service.

A spokesperson from the DND told Shephard that the RCN has “initiated the project to inform timely governmental decision-making about a potential replacement for the Kingston-class.”

As part of the OPV Project the RCN’s Naval Force Development establishment is conducting studies to analyse the future operating environment so better understand the key capabilities and technologies that will be needed on its next generation patrol vessel.

Additional life-extension for Canada’s Kingston-class OPVs considered | Shephard

The Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN’s) 12 Kingston-class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), ships which are already being improved, could receive an additional life extension upgrade package.

www.shephardmedia.com

The Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN’s) 12 Kingston-class Offshore Patrol Vessels (OPVs), ships which are already being improved, could receive an additional life extension upgrade package.

The vessels, officially named ‘Maritime Coastal Defence Vessels’ (MCDVs), are already in the process of going through a life-extension programme to give the ships an additional five years of service life. This work started in 2021 but five years might not be sufficient time to allow the introduction of a replacement class of OPVs to succeed them.
A spokesperson for the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) told Shephard: “To support current and future operational needs, the estimated end of design life of the 12 Kingston-class ships has been extended