Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Colin Parkinson]

Since we are not going to have Mistral like ships, I agree ASW is a skillset we can focus on, but also I would throw in Mine hunting as a skillset that seems to be ignored and would suit us well. It could also be used to increase leverage Canadian companies into the underwater robotics and detection game which we have done well in already. Harbour and approaches mine hunting could be also tasked to Naval Reserve units near major harbours who can practice the skill sets right in their own backyard. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, Colin, what do you think the KINSTON's are?

Their MM designation means Mine warfare Multi-purpose.

They can sweep, but they also have the electronics to do route survey and, if you fit the type of remote control equipment you are talking about onboard, to mine hunt. In fact, they have tested all sorts of such equipment and, I am sure will continue to do so.

There are however, snags with what you are proposing. First of all, most of the European navies already have very developed and advanced mine hunting forces, and are therefore years ahead of us (and need them since, to this day, they still find mines from all the past wars suddenly showing up along their coasts and harbours).

Second, as historically demonstrated, there is little to no mine threat to Canada, and North America in general, and in both world wars, we ended up using the sweepers as coastal escorts. There is a good reason why this is so: we are so far away from other countries that we might end up at war with. As a result, the chances of an "enemy" surface vessel making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific to our close coasts or harbour entrances to lay a reasonable number of mines is pretty insignificant.  And if you wish to do it by submarines, you face two difficulties - first, again, making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific without being detected, and second, the fact that a submarine can only carry an extremely limited number of mines, and only at the cost of landing some or all of its torpedoes. Much more economical and efficient to send submarines to actually do their job with their own torpedoes.

As fora "covert" limited mining operation by merchant ships in peace time, as I have discussed a long time ago in another post, it would also be extremely difficult and could have repercussions. First, Merchant ships are not designed to lay mines - second, a good deal of the crew, if not all of the crew, would have to be involved (and what are the chances of that) because laying mines at sea is a difficult undertaking that required cranes, booms or tracks of some sort and onboard handling equipments (mines are not light), which merchant ships don't usually carry, The highest likelihood then, is that it is done on government's order, and if so, it can be traced back to such government and laying mines in another's waters by any government is an act of war.

 

[GR66]

I understand a smaller ship can be fitted with a containerized towed-array sonar to allow it to detect enemy submarines, but how difficult would it be to fit them with weapons to engage what they detect?  Can the Kingston-Class or AOPS (or something similar) be fairly easily fitted with something like an ASROC launcher if necessary or would they also need new control systems?  Would they instead rely on a helicopter or MPA to engage the targets they detect?

I'm guessing both of those types of air assets would be just as difficult to obtain quickly in a conflict as the new ship itself would.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I know the Kingstons were designed for that in mind, but how often do they practice that skillset? I hadn't considered the European experience, thanks for that, my main thought is to back up the US which appear to have limited interest in that field, despite throwing some big bucks at it with little result.

 

[Kirkhill]

....

There are however, snags with what you are proposing. First of all, most of the European navies already have very developed and advanced mine hunting forces, and are therefore years ahead of us (and need them since, to this day, they still find mines from all the past wars suddenly showing up along their coasts and harbours).

Second, as historically demonstrated, there is little to no mine threat to Canada, and North America in general, and in both world wars, we ended up using the sweepers as coastal escorts. There is a good reason why this is so: we are so far away from other countries that we might end up at war with. As a result, the chances of an "enemy" surface vessel making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific to our close coasts or harbour entrances to lay a reasonable number of mines is pretty insignificant.  And if you wish to do it by submarines, you face two difficulties - first, again, making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific without being detected, and second, the fact that a submarine can only carry an extremely limited number of mines, and only at the cost of landing some or all of its torpedoes. Much more economical and efficient to send submarines to actually do their job with their own torpedoes.

.....

There is another type of minewarfare though, isn't there?  What you have described is "offensive" mining as I understand it.  In WW2 and WW1 weren't a lot of the sown mines actually sown by local forces for "defensive" purposes?

And closer to home - The Golden Gate minefield

 

[Fabius]

When we discuss ASW in the context of the RCN why is there not consideration given to the role a helicopter carrier, BHS, LHD, etc. can play in the ASW fight?  Outfitted with a complement of ASW aircraft (helicopters) these small flat tops have seemed to have a promient role in ASW operations with other navies both now and in the past. 
Such ships played a key piece in the hunter killer groups in the Battle of the Atlantic, and have seen similar use during the Cold War.  Even now we see the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces deploying ships of this nature (see the Hygua Class as an example).

It seems to be that when we discuss ASW ships in the context of the RCN's future we are strictly focused on surface warships such as the Halifax Class and discount any other other concept.

Perhaps this is just because this is the Surface Ship RFQ thread after all.  ;D

 

[Stoker]

I know the Kingstons were designed for that in mind, but how often do they practice that skillset? I hadn't considered the European experience, thanks for that, my main thought is to back up the US which appear to have limited interest in that field, despite throwing some big bucks at it with little result.

The Kingston Class haven't practiced mechanical mine sweeping in many years. They do however practice mine warfare in the form of route survey and bottom object inspection. The latest concept of use for the Kingston Class lists a refocusing of the Class, acquiring new mine hunting equipment and a review of a life extension past the classes original 25 yr service life.

 

[Underway]

The Kingston Class haven't practiced mechanical mine sweeping in many years. They do however practice mine warfare in the form of route survey and bottom object inspection. The latest concept of use for the Kingston Class lists a refocusing of the Class, acquiring new mine hunting equipment and a review of a life extension past the classes original 25 yr service life.

Not surprised with the last part.  They are coming due for a life extension.  I would guess right around when the AOPs are mostly online???

 

[Stoker]

Not surprised with the last part.  They are coming due for a life extension.  I would guess right around when the AOPs are mostly online???

The Class is in good shape and there is a long list of upgrades currently being implemented included a replacement for the 40MM. It interesting to note both the Kingston Class and AOPS concept of use lists the Kingston Class to continue to operate in the Arctic as a platform for chart work.

 

[Kirkhill]

Here I go, sounding the Lurblaeseren for the Danes again.  [  If anyone is interested.

https://www.navalengineers.org/ProceedingsDocs/ASNEDay2015/Technical%20Paper%20Sessions/Sorensen_Paper.pdf

The author, of OMT, may be working on your ships as we speak.  Who knows.

Anyway, I find his comments about modularity, combat information systems, flexibility, commonality across classes and In Service Support verry interesting.

One common system for the CSC, AOPS, JSS and the MCDV with plug and play pieces.  And fast upgrades.

And I will put one more plug in for the Flex Deck Concept, particularly as described by the Dutch shipyard Damen and their Crossover series.

As someone interested in getting muddy boots and pongos onboard pristine, if bolshie, RCN vessels, obviously the Flexdeck/Crossover deck appeals to me.

But might it not also offer the RCN advantages as well?  I mean in addition to a glorified boat deck.

Would it be possible to increase the carrying capacity of the crossover crane to 50 tonnes so as to be able to lift the deckplates on the flexdeck and access the machinery spaces so you could yard out your own engines and drop them on the dockside and bring another engine on board?  Or even carry a spare if the situation warranted?

The crossover crane is already envisaged as having a capacity of up to 40 tonnes to be able to lift LCVPs according to the product sheet accessible from here.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Some foreign (mostly NATO) frigates with good images (I've done Norwegian, Danish and Dutch):
http://defencyclopedia.com/2016/01/02/top-10-most-powerful-frigates-in-the-world/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I don't believe I am going to say this but here goes. IAW CFDS, support to multi national TGs in foreign operations is but one portion. For the remainder, anything much beyond a PRE MLR Halifax class is a bit of overkill. My thoughts recently have been a small force for blue water ops and a shitload of OPVs in the 1000-2500 ton range with constabulary capabilities. I sit back now and have to ask, do we really need a large fleet of AB/Type 45/FREMM type vessels... I mean really? As much as I would love to see a huge surface combatant fleet harkening back to the 60s, do we REALLY need it?
I worked the CSC Project in Ottawa 2011-2012 and am proud of the work I did toward it but now that I am out, I really have to ask myself if this is the right move for us. Yes, we are a maritime nation but for the price of one CSC we could potentially build (and crew) 2-3 smaller vessels. Sending even a skeleton crew of 160 on a Halifax class on a FISHPAT/NANOOK/CARIBE is NOT the best use of our limited HR resources.
I want to see a strong Navy as much as anyone but maybe a step back from the table is in order. I realize some of you may think me out to lunch and that is fine.

Pat

 

[dapaterson]

Pat:  I'm not in violent disagreement.  A corvette navy plus half a dozen or so major combatants might be an option; as I recall, the KINGSTON class spend more days at sea than the HALIFAX.  Much of this goes back to a need for a clearly enunciated defence policy for Canada - what do we want the RCN to do?

 

[jollyjacktar]

I have no objection to a Corvette navy once more as Pat is proposing.  Were we to downgrade, I would want to make sure they they're capable of something better than getting outrun by the Dartmouth Ferry or the like.

 

[dimsum]

Agreed as well.  Also, the Russian experience in Syria has proven that corvette-sized ships can fling long range missiles. 

A fleet of corvettes based on the Norwegian Skjold-class would be a sight to see  :nod:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold-class_corvette

 

[AlexanderM]

Nothing wrong with the Corvette concept, would prefer something a little larger, say up to 3000 tons or slightly above, with one or two VLS 41 launchers, capable of:

Littoral
Escort
Anti-Piracy
ASW

Would need a good range.  There are a number of designs that can carry a Cyclone sized helo.  3-4 Ivars and 6 or more Corvettes per coast.

 

[Good2Golf]

Nothing wrong with the Corvette concept, would prefer something a little larger, say up to 3000 tons or slightly above, with one or two VLS 41 launchers, capable of:

Littoral
Escort
Anti-Piracy
ASW

Would need a good range.  There are a number of designs that can carry a Cyclone sized helo.  3-4 Ivars and 6 or more Corvettes per coast.

AM, even just one Mk.41 (or 57) would be quite a capability! :nod:

 

[deepblue202]

How about the Sigma Frigate 10514 http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-frigate-and-corvette/sigma-frigate-10514

 

[GR66]

For those of us interested readers that are uneducated about such things what are the biggest cost factors in making this program so expensive?

I'm guessing it's not the actual construction of the hull itself.  Is it the initial cost of creating the industrial capacity to build the ships in the first place?  Is it the design cost of modifying a basic design to meet our specific Canadian requirements and integrating those systems to work together?  The cost of the weapons?  The cost of the sensors?  The lifetime maintenance cost of the ships?  The cost of crewing them?

Knowing that might help to understand what kind of actions might actually have a realistic chance of improving the process.  What actions or decisions might actually have a realistic impact on the long term affordability of our Navy.

- Do we have the actual hulls built elsewhere (domestic political impacts?)
- Do we stick to an existing design with established systems integration (have to suit our doctrine of operations to the platform?)
- Do we reduce the number and/or capability of the weapons and/or sensors fitted (reduce our capability?)
- Do we go for lower maintenance designs (does that affect survivability and redundancy?)
- Do we go for ships with smaller crew requirements (does that change our basic method of operations?)
- Do we stick with the plan and just have fewer ships (what are the effects of that?)

 

[Kirkhill]

For those of us interested readers that are uneducated about such things what are the biggest cost factors in making this program so expensive?

I'm guessing it's not the actual construction of the hull itself.  Is it the initial cost of creating the industrial capacity to build the ships in the first place?  Is it the design cost of modifying a basic design to meet our specific Canadian requirements and integrating those systems to work together?  The cost of the weapons?  The cost of the sensors?  The lifetime maintenance cost of the ships?  The cost of crewing them? 

You forgot one:  The cost of Canadian politics (politicians)?