New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[TacticalTea]

The ships ride fine, its just the risk averse crews we have now. Speed 15.5 compared to 17 knots for AOPS, still gets you where you need to go. Weaponry, made do with .50 cals, seems pretty successful conducting Op Caribe's. For role have a look at conuse and conops for both classes, AOPS was never designed to replace the Kingston's. In fact both will continue to operate doing similar missions.

Gotta admit I've never read the MCDV's CONUSE/OPS.

I get your point; but I try to put myself in the Treasury board's shoes. At the end of the day, they're the ones pulling the strings, not the Navy.

We've got a LOT of new hulls coming out. Something's just gonna have to give.

 

[Stoker]

Gotta admit I've never read the MCDV's CONUSE/OPS.

I get your point; but I try to put myself in the Treasury board's shoes. At the end of the day, they're the ones pulling the strings, not the Navy.

We've got a LOT of new hulls coming out. Something's just gonna have to give.

The RCN still allocates the money for ships and decides what they can do without. I already mentioned that some Kingston's will probably be paid off each 60 month period. 6 AOPS can't replace 12 Kingston Class and there is the MCM piece now that the Kingston's are doing that AOPS can't.
There is plans to stand up a Kingston Class replacement at some point, and they will be replaced with a class of ship that can go 25 knots, no helo, a light gun and slightly longer than the current class with many of the same features of the Kingstons.
Don't be surprised a CPF or two will be paid off in the near future due to their condition and the crew and maintenance savings will help everyone.

 

[Underway]

…sounds like the Navy’s boat equivalent of the Griffon

Not exactly but I can see a few parallels.

I think it's pretty well established what their limitations are and what their strengths are. They fill the "cheap and useful" role that the RCN needs when a big ship isn't necessary.

The MCDVs are being crewed by reg force now, which is making the crew problem on the heavies worse.

Since the majority of the MCDV crew switched over to Reg F with the "Big Idea" I'm pretty sure that's not the issue. And those same Class A and C contract sailors are now sailing with the rest of the fleet instead. On my last deployment, there were about 13 PRes onboard.

Besides the PRes couldn't crew them anymore entirely anyways. At least one ship per coast was majority Reg F before they just did the full switch over.

 

[TacticalTea]

The RCN still allocates the money for ships and decides what they can do without. I already mentioned that some Kingston's will probably be paid off each 60 month period. 6 AOPS can't replace 12 Kingston Class and there is the MCM piece now that the Kingston's are doing that AOPS can't.
There is plans to stand up a Kingston Class replacement at some point, and they will be replaced with a class of ship that can go 25 knots, no helo, a light gun and slightly longer than the current class with many of the same features of the Kingstons.
Don't be surprised a CPF or two will be paid off in the near future due to their condition and the crew and maintenance savings will help everyone.

You're absolutely right on the MCM and 6 for 12 points.

But as Underway alluded to, given our pers shortage, I just don't see how we can make it work.

So yes, the idea that we'll sacrifice some hulls as you described seems very likely.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

All Kingston Class have been given a structural survey by ABS and are structurally sound for the next 15 years and that's due to the maintenance construct. All Kingston's have been funded for a further 5 years for maintenance and have structural certifications issued for 5 years. After the initial 5 years expect several to be put into low readiness and that will continue each 5 year cycle. Kingston's will probably be sailing in some form for the next 15 years.

Very cheap to operate and maintain compared to AOPS. AOPS can't replace everything a Kingston Class can do. Expect more reserves to be manning the Kingston's in the near future.

There is a significant shortage of seagoing personal in the public service and commercial as well. The government should be promoting the Naval Reserve as a way to get sea time and certification. If not then in 15 year or so we are going to have critical shortage of ship Pilots to attend in coming and outgoing ships.

 

[Underway]

There is a significant shortage of seagoing personal in the public service and commercial as well. The government should be promoting the Naval Reserve as a way to get sea time and certification. If not then in 15 year or so we are going to have critical shortage of ship Pilots to attend in coming and outgoing ships.

The biggest challenge with this is that the RCN relies heavily on simulation to get "virtual experience" whereas the civilian tickets require non-virtual experience. Pros and cons.

Every hour in a simulator is jam-packed with situations and learning. I can say from experience the vast majority of my time as a watchkeeper it was feast or famine. Oh look a contact! First one in three days!

That being said you can't replicate doing the job with real-life pressures. Practice only takes you so far before gametime.

 

[Maxman1]

There is plans to stand up a Kingston Class replacement at some point, and they will be replaced with a class of ship that can go 25 knots, no helo, a light gun and slightly longer than the current class with many of the same features of the Kingstons.

The Braunschweig corvettes check all those boxes.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's odd, TC Civil Aviation supports simulators and a friend of mine was able to write off 10% of his twin engine time using a approved simulator setup at home on his computer. 10% of your twin engine time pays for a very nice computer by the way. Sadly most of TC Marine is made up of crusty old Merchant Marine deck Officers from nations with less than stellar safety records or care about human resources. The marine colleges and the ships Pilots use simulators all the time as part of training. When I was reviewing large LNG terminals, one of the steps mandated was simulator trials to determine best placement of docks, docking aids, navigation aids and tug procedures.

 

[Stoker]

The Braunschweig corvettes check all those boxes.

Too much stuff we don't need and a 7 day endurance? no thanks. A river class would be closer to what we want. Expect any ship as a replacement for the Kinston Class to be built to Lloyds standards.

 

[quadrapiper]

Too much stuff we don't need and a 7 day endurance? no thanks. A river class would be closer to what we want. Expect any ship as a replacement for the Kingston Class to be built to Lloyds standards.

Is there a need for a MCM-specific vessel, something with Z-drives generally, or to stay well under 200'; i.e., should there be (setting aside entirely crewing) a (fibreglass?) MCM etc. specialist, an AOPS, and a "patrol" River-class-ish vessel?

 

[Underway]

MCM are going the way of motherships for UUV's and USV's. Need to keep the ship well away from the ordinance if you can and let the robots do their work. So basically anything with a crane and station keeping could work. Ideally, you want something slicker though.

 

[dapaterson]

Ideally, you want something slicker though.

Shads in a RHIB?

 

[Underway]

Shads in a RHIB?

Firstly it's SHADs... secondly only if they come from YORK. (I'm a STAR alumnus so need to get the shots in...)

 

[dapaterson]

I assume SHADs in a RHIB is like Snakes on a Plane?

 

[Underway]

I assume SHADs in a RHIB is like Snakes on a Plane?

More like a bear crapping in the woods. It's their natural state if they are Class A.

 

[Stoker]

MCM are going the way of motherships for UUV's and USV's. Need to keep the ship well away from the ordinance if you can and let the robots do their work. So basically anything with a crane and station keeping could work. Ideally, you want something slicker though.

That's what the Kingston Class is currently doing. Operating well outside the mine danger zone operating the REMUS AUV's to find mines and the other Kingston Class in consort utilize the divers to destroy those mines. You are correct anything could theoretically do this, still needs a good degaussing system and be highly maneuverable.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You are correct anything could theoretically do this, still needs a good degaussing system and be highly maneuverable.

Yikes! Don't be too vague or the TB and PWGSC folks following this thread will take advantage of that....you never know what you'd end up with!!

 

[TacticalTea]

That's what the Kingston Class is currently doing. Operating well outside the mine danger zone operating the REMUS AUV's to find mines and the other Kingston Class in consort utilize the divers to destroy those mines. You are correct anything could theoretically do this, still needs a good degaussing system and be highly maneuverable.

AOPS is definitely manoeuvrable enough but I have no idea about degaussing, and at that point you're risking a lot (our most massive ships, until we get the JSS) for a few mines. MCDVs definitely easier to send them off on such a mission.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If you wanted to do a lot more expeditionary work, a semi-submersible heavy lift ship with decent sized accommodation, workshop, good sized crane(s). You load a bunch of small patrol/mine hunter or landing craft in cradles, send the ship overseas, it acts as transport, depot ship, repair facility.

 

[Prairie canuck]

(From the outside looking in) My impression is that over the last 20 yrs or more of larger deployments the big question is always how do you get there? Landlocked deployments are obviously by air and the C17s have made those possible but for those where there is a port available it seems it's all about hitching a ride or renting a ship. Wouldn't it be a priority to get some sea transport with larger landing craft? A couple modest LHDs would add quite a bit of capability whether it's for a combat zone or humanitarian assistance. 10,000 to 13,000 ton Damen Schelde Enforcers series?