• 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

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
You should add the towed array because any replacement will more than likely operate the current TRAPS towed array payload. No hanger or flight deck and crew size around 38 core with 15 to 20 training bunks.

No boat without a flight deck. Must have. Hangar optional. But an aerial connection to other ships and to land has to be a key element.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,021
Points
1,040

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
Similar size and performance but maybe a little less flexible? Missing the flight deck. Endurance listed as 21 days vs 35 days for the Rivers. Doesn't have the embarked troop capacity and I think I read somewhere that the Batch 2's can embark 6 x containers (vs 3 for the Samuel Beckett).
Also, and I know this shouldn't have anything to do with it, but I have to say that the Batch 2 RIVERS are absolutely beautiful looking ships. Gorgeous lines.
 
Reaction score
157
Points
530
You must be a young.un. We have had relatively good airlift capability since shortly after the war starting with the Yukons. In fact, transport used to run a fairly comprehensive airline service even domestically.
Well I'm far from being a "young.un" and I don't care for high horses (phobia of mine). I'm one of those ignorant Canadian public who's here to learn and ask why things are the way they are. Couldn't hurt to have some information to support the CAF when we civvies are discussing things amongst ourselves could it?

I'm fairly certain that until the C17's were purchased Canada had to rely on the US to transport LAV's and Leopards etc. C130's are restricted on size and what they can fly overseas. I don't see the relevance of any post WWII equipment when discussing future procurements.
My inquiry was directed at strategic sealift of which Canada has none. Since obtaining a couple San Antonio's is out of the question then I was curious as to why Canada wouldn't consider something more modest that could still supply sealift and as a bonus humanitarian assistance.

Appreciative of any education that can be provided.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,021
Points
1,040
No boat without a flight deck. Must have. Hangar optional. But an aerial connection to other ships and to land has to be a key element.
I think a flight deck is an important capability too and the RCN would be making a big mistake by not including one in the design. The advantages it gives in HADR missions, SAR, support to the CSC's/Cyclones, CASEVAC, VERTREP, etc. make the vessel much more useful in a wide variety of missions.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
859
Points
910
I think a flight deck is an important capability too and the RCN would be making a big mistake by not including one in the design. The advantages it gives in HADR missions, SAR, support to the CSC's/Cyclones, CASEVAC, VERTREP, etc. make the vessel much more useful in a wide variety of missions.
It's always awkward interacting with air assets from an MCDV. Contrasted with how easily CCG vessels carry out air launch / recovery from their flight decks, hopping on and off as desired... I wish we had a bit more flexibility in that regard. Paralyzing an entire ship just because we need to launch/receive a helo is no way to live...
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
It's always awkward interacting with air assets from an MCDV. Contrasted with how easily CCG vessels carry out air launch / recovery from their flight decks, hopping on and off as desired... I wish we had a bit more flexibility in that regard. Paralyzing an entire ship just because we need to launch/receive a helo is no way to live...
Its awkward because the original role of the Kingston Class was to sweep mines with mechanical sweep gear combined with the fact MCM ships are small and do not have flight decks. Pretty hard to have a flight deck when that's where your payload goes. Any Kingston Class replacement will have to have that space for payloads including towed array's. I'm all about building a relatively cheap platform, cheap to operate and easy to maintain. That's why the Kingston Class is so useful to the RCN just like a Toyota Hilux, it just keeps going.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,021
Points
1,040
Its awkward because the original role of the Kingston Class was to sweep mines with mechanical sweep gear combined with the fact MCM ships are small and do not have flight decks. Pretty hard to have a flight deck when that's where your payload goes. Any Kingston Class replacement will have to have that space for payloads including towed array's. I'm all about building a relatively cheap platform, cheap to operate and easy to maintain. That's why the Kingston Class is so useful to the RCN just like a Toyota Hilux, it just keeps going.
That works. Have the flight deck and use it to place your MCM payloads when required, place your containerized towed-array when required, and leave it clear for helicopter operations when required. Having it gives you flexibility. Just because it's there doesn't mean you can't use it for other things when you need to. But not having it loses that capability for you completely.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
That works. Have the flight deck and use it to place your MCM payloads when required, place your containerized towed-array when required, and leave it clear for helicopter operations when required. Having it gives you flexibility. Just because it's there doesn't mean you can't use it for other things when you need to. But not having it loses that capability for you completely.
Its not really losing a capability when you never had it to begin with. Something like this VENARI-85 concept would work if you really need a flight deck.

Venari_85-1.jpgV6.jpg
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,365
Points
1,360
Well I'm far from being a "young.un" and I don't care for high horses (phobia of mine). I'm one of those ignorant Canadian public who's here to learn and ask why things are the way they are. Couldn't hurt to have some information to support the CAF when we civvies are discussing things amongst ourselves could it?

I'm fairly certain that until the C17's were purchased Canada had to rely on the US to transport LAV's and Leopards etc. C130's are restricted on size and what they can fly overseas. I don't see the relevance of any post WWII equipment when discussing future procurements.
My inquiry was directed at strategic sealift of which Canada has none. Since obtaining a couple San Antonio's is out of the question then I was curious as to why Canada wouldn't consider something more modest that could still supply sealift and as a bonus humanitarian assistance.

Appreciative of any education that can be provided.
Prairie canuck, your assessment is actually quite good. 👍🏼 I would add that our dependency for strat (heavy) airlift (more than a few LD3 containers in a CC-150 Polaris) was not unique to the US; we did a lot of leased lift by An-124 and also to a lesser degree, some freighter support from some commercial freight carriers.

I’ll bow out of strat sealift as I’m less versed in that (other than delivering UN-painted helos for sealift to a port in Montréal for shipping to Haiti).

Regards
G2G
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,765
Points
1,090
Prairie canuck, your assessment is actually quite good. 👍🏼 I would add that our dependency for strat (heavy) airlift (more than a few LD3 containers in a CC-150 Polaris) was not unique to the US; we did a lot of leased lift by An-124 and also to a lesser degree, some freighter support from some commercial freight carriers.

I’ll bow out of strat sealift as I’m less versed in that (other than delivering UN-painted helos for sealift to a port in Montréal for shipping to Haiti).

Regards
G2G
My understanding is our sealift is either the US or contractors. I wonder if we can build some ships and have them run by the NAVRES as they wouldn't be needed often
 
Reaction score
157
Points
530
Prairie canuck, your assessment is actually quite good. 👍🏼 I would add that our dependency for strat (heavy) airlift (more than a few LD3 containers in a CC-150 Polaris) was not unique to the US; we did a lot of leased lift by An-124 and also to a lesser degree, some freighter support from some commercial freight carriers.

I’ll bow out of strat sealift as I’m less versed in that (other than delivering UN-painted helos for sealift to a port in Montréal for shipping to Haiti).

Regards
G2G
I took it for granted that the AN124 was something which went "unspoken" 🥺😁 Same for the katie....
Also we're on par regarding strat sealift but I gotta ask....
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,859
Points
1,160
It's always awkward interacting with air assets from an MCDV. Contrasted with how easily CCG vessels carry out air launch / recovery from their flight decks, hopping on and off as desired... I wish we had a bit more flexibility in that regard. Paralyzing an entire ship just because we need to launch/receive a helo is no way to live...
Keep in mind the CCG has a very limited weather window for launching and receiving helicopters, so a ship may have a helicopter but choose not to use it due to the Sea State. also helicopter ops take precedence for the ship ops when the chopper is flying or slinging.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
4,606
Points
1,010
Keep in mind the CCG has a very limited weather window for launching and receiving helicopters, so a ship may have a helicopter but choose not to use it due to the Sea State. also helicopter ops take precedence for the ship ops when the chopper is flying or slinging.
I can about guarantee that CCG helo flight ops limits are no more than 2 deg pitch, 4 deg roll…
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,064
Points
1,040
Could the second generation Visby corvette being developed by Sweden be a contender for the MCDV replacement?
Visby would last about 10min on the Grand Banks. It's designed for the Baltics.

What is our infatuation with small main armaments ?

Why not the 57s or even modern 40mms. Both of which are still being produced.
Let me flip this comment. What's our (the websites) infatuation with over-gunning constabulary vessels? 25 or 30mm is enough for their job and commonality with AOPS or CSC is an excellent idea. 57 and 40mm require a fire control system, fire control radar, CMS and the techs to keep them running. And it keeps costs down. That stuff really jacks up the price quite a bit.

The UK have the right of it in my mind, with similar armament on the River Class (20 or 30mm cannons depending on the Batch).

No boat without a flight deck. Must have. Hangar optional. But an aerial connection to other ships and to land has to be a key element.
I don't agree that it's a must-have as the MCDV's are doing fine without it. If it were to come down to a sweep deck for payloads vs a flight deck I'll take the former. Not that I'm against a flightdeck. I would like to see one but getting one big enough for a Cyclone along with a sweep deck/quarter deck big enough for payloads would be a challenge. Cyclone needs a lot of space...

I could see a small flight deck like on the VENARI design proposed by @Stoker above. That would allow for UAS and an area for VERTREP etc... without having to have the helo actually land. UAS would be very useful in a MCM capacity.

Or perhaps a dual use flightdeck/payload deck. When you have payloads embarked its a payload deck. When you don't you clear it a certify it for Flight Ops. But take it from someone who knows, getting a ship built for RCAF flight operations is a massive pain in the ass and extremely costly. Just the NVG lighting compliance alone is millions of dollars. A simple NVG compliant 17" computer screen costs around $80 thousand. You'll need at least four screens between LSO and Flyco.... so there is 1/3 million right there.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,549
Points
1,060
Visby would last about 10min on the Grand Banks. It's designed for the Baltics.


Let me flip this comment. What's our (the websites) infatuation with over-gunning constabulary vessels? 25 or 30mm is enough for their job and commonality with AOPS or CSC is an excellent idea. 57 and 40mm require a fire control system, fire control radar, CMS and the techs to keep them running. And it keeps costs down. That stuff really jacks up the price quite a bit.

The UK have the right of it in my mind, with similar armament on the River Class (20 or 30mm cannons depending on the Batch).


I don't agree that it's a must-have as the MCDV's are doing fine without it. If it were to come down to a sweep deck for payloads vs a flight deck I'll take the former. Not that I'm against a flightdeck. I would like to see one but getting one big enough for a Cyclone along with a sweep deck/quarter deck big enough for payloads would be a challenge. Cyclone needs a lot of space...

I could see a small flight deck like on the VENARI design proposed by @Stoker above. That would allow for UAS and an area for VERTREP etc... without having to have the helo actually land. UAS would be very useful in a MCM capacity.

Or perhaps a dual use flightdeck/payload deck. When you have payloads embarked its a payload deck. When you don't you clear it a certify it for Flight Ops. But take it from someone who knows, getting a ship built for RCAF flight operations is a massive pain in the ass and extremely costly. Just the NVG lighting compliance alone is millions of dollars. A simple NVG compliant 17" computer screen costs around $80 thousand. You'll need at least four screens between LSO and Flyco.... so there is 1/3 million right there.

Point taken about the Cyclone.
 
Reaction score
157
Points
530
So, just trying to wrap my head around this replacement vessel's requirements, if the expectation that this new vessel is to patrol the Grand Banks then the size must increase to accommodate those potential sea states correct? Is this not more of a small frigate as opposed to a corvette? This is no longer replacing MCDVs but a whole new class of vessel which still leaves Canada with the problem of replacing The MCDVs with a similar coastal patrol class. Mission creep?
(also the Visby is good for up to sea state 5)
 
Last edited:
Top