New ships (cheap)

[Kirkhill]

if the Bay Class ships where to be allocated, how much would it cost to maintain them? Would they serve a purpose? Unless they are affordable and would serve a sufficient purpose I don't think they should be considered, but as a maritimer I would like to see Canada Beef up its Maritime fleet. Wouldn't building our own ships, make jobs? I don't see why we don't do that. Then again something I don't totally understand just me ranting.

Mike

The cost of maintaining and operating a Brit built ship is not going to differ significantly than an equivalent Canadian built ship.  As to the actual operating cost an LSDA crew of 59 is equivalent in size to two MCDV crews of 31.  And I believe better value for money.

As pointed out above we have uses for the ship right now.

But there are other uses.  See this article about the Dutch Johan de Witt and her AFOBs (1 LCU and a pair of LCVPs in the Gulf of Aden).

In fact I think that that is one of the reasons that bot the RN and the RNlN are experimenting with deploying CB-90s from the LCVP davits on the Johan de Witt and Brit landing ships. See here.

An opportunity to experiment with the Mother ship concept as well as supplying a FRP for Chinooks, Cyclones and Cormorants and temporary accomodations for up to 450 soldiers, saiors, airmen, medics, Mounties, diplomats or NGOs or for that matter allies or Refugees.

 

[Stoker]

Looking at the propulsion plant very similar to whats on a MCDV only on a larger scale. It could easily be manned by reservists and have a excellent training capacity as well to increase levels of force generation.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The cost of maintaining and operating a Brit built ship is not going to differ significantly than an equivalent Canadian built ship.

How do you figure that? There are going to be a lot of systems on that ship that aren't in any other Canadian ship or shore establishment.

As to the actual operating cost an LSDA crew of 59 is equivalent in size to two MCDV crews of 31.

TThat crew figure is for RFA. You'd need a much larger crew for naval operations unless you crewed it with the same outfit (CFNAS?) that mans the Glen tugs etc. It also doesn't cover people required to man the LCU's flight deck etc.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The CB 90's would make an interesting patrol boat to be stationed up North and used in the open water seasons. Could be manned by naval reservists, would take sometime to establish, but would also be useful for SAR duties. Also the design could be bought under licence and built here easily.
The Polar 8 was envisioned to carry a SRN5 or SRN6 hovercraft on Davits. We do use a small landing craft on davits for some buoytenders, but nothing the size of the CB90.

 

[Kirkhill]

How do you figure that? There are going to be a lot of systems on that ship that aren't in any other Canadian ship or shore establishment.

I see your point and That Particular ship will cost more to operate than a similar ship spec'd to Canadian standards and built to our spec.  But over all I can't see that a Brit built ship would cost  us more to operate than any other ship bought "off the rack".

In the longer term it would be right to build Canadian ships to Canadian specs for Canadian needs but this is a one off opportunity.

Personally I think it is an interesting opportunity that seems to tick a lot of the boxes discussed here in the Great BHS/JSS/AOR/Candadian Marine debate.  And if the price is right, maybe even a long term lease from the Brits, it seems to me it would be a pity to miss the chance.

That crew figure is for RFA. You'd need a much larger crew for naval operations unless you crewed it with the same outfit (CFNAS?) that mans the Glen tugs etc. It also doesn't cover people required to man the LCU's flight deck etc.

That is correct. You would have get the Air Force to put on board a heli det and an Air Movements Det.  You might even want to put some army personnel on board as well as naval types.  That seems to be the way the Brits operate those vessels.  The have some 75 spare spaces allocated for those types of augmentees over and above the 350 troop spaces (700 on overload). They are not so much naval vessels as floating warehouses that operate in sheltered, uncontested waters.

That might not be where we want to end up but wouldn't it be a good place to start?

But could you clarify something for me?  Why does the navey need more watchkeepers to man a vessel than the RFA?  Assuming, of course, as noted previously, we are talking about a logistical craft rather than a fighting vessel.

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

How do you figure that? There are going to be a lot of systems on that ship that aren't in any other Canadian ship or shore establishment.

Question I've always been curious about since I heard that the Navy was removing the installed Harpoon capacity in the Victorias:  "What is it about standardization, even between different classes of vessels, that appears to warrant such massive expenditures?"  If as an example there are two different radars or engines (as opposed to incompatible communications gear) on different classes of vessels, what's the big deal? 

If you look at a standard mechanic, they have to be able to diagnose and repair 100's of different types of cars, so why is is that the military gets such flutters abount non-standardization of gear on different classes of vessels?

Thanks in advance drunknsubmrnr....your knowledgable contributions to this forum are always appreciated. 

 

[dapaterson]

Different equipment = more spares to acquire and store.  Orphan fleets are a pain to sustain, and can cost more (lifecycle) than moving to a single standard.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Dataperson is right ... and wrong.

It depends on what item we are talking about.

If two ships have different radars, say an SPS 49 on one and an EMPAR on the other one, then you need two sets of spare parts and likely to train your techs on both, so its an extra expense.

However, there are many things (and it would likely include most of the large stuff) that we do not have "spare" for. if they break or when long refits come around and they need servicing, the dockyard basically manufactures the parts. And fixing those things even though different from one ship to another would often involve "standardized" supplies. For example, whether my main engines are Pratt & Withney or Rolls Royce turbines, the piping for the lube oil is likely the same standard piping. So it is no inconvenience to store replacement piping for either 'cause its the same (please people don' t jump on me, this is just a quick example).

In the end, from a supply point of view, it may be a wash. I do not know: I have heard Dataperson's argument a lot in my career, but have never seen any research/study that would ultimately prove it or disprove it.

A much better reason (IMHO) to Standardize is actually simplification of training and the advantages of greater mastery of equipment's capacities that come with it. Think Royal Navy, for instance: A young seaman may serve his first tour on a Type 23 frigate, go on course ashore and come back to serve on a Type 45 Destroyer, go on a long course ashore, and go back to sea ... on an Invincible class carrier! Every time, he has to not only get back in the "swing of things" - fairly easy - but learn his way around a completely new ship with different equipment and layout - that is difficult and regardless of level, puts him behind the eight ball compared to his peers who already know that type of ship. When you have standardized ships type or even just equipment, then its that much easier to get back to it every time, and in every posting you increase your mastery of the equipment instead of learning anew.

However, there will always be exception to standardization. If you are going to have a fleet of frigates but want to supply them, you obviously will have to take on a supply ship that will be different by necessity, same if you want a carrier, or an amphibious ship, etc.

In the present case of this thread, however, before using the ghost of standardization to refuse to act, two very real questions need to be answered:

1- Will acquiring this ship truly increase my operational capability? and,

2- Does the very low costs of acquisition provides a sufficient counterweight to the added financial burden of maintenance and operation of a non standard piece of equipment?

There have been mention above of some types available: let me square some off:

a) Invincible - refit or not - is same class and older than Ark Royal. They both require a naval crew of 1000 (roughly) and are approaching 30 years old. So my vote would be no on both.

b) HMS Ocean, firstly is not a "class" but a single ship. She is an amphibious ship that requires a crew the size of an IRO's but she would give a greater flexibility and capacity than the Bay class LHD(A). She is about 15 years old, with a likely lifespan of 40, so if available at low cost, and the Navy Brass was willing to retire another of the IRO, I would think its a good acquisition. 

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

The Harpoon capability removal from the Victoria's went a bit beyond "normal" standardisation. The RN has it's own weapon and tube patterns that are pretty much incompatible with the USN patterns that we use. For example, even though the tubes are the same size, the weapon umbilical cable attachments are in different places and use different command system signals. That pretty much left us with the choice of either retaining the RN command systems and spending hundreds of millions on buying new weapons, or ripping out their command systems and installing our old SOUP systems from the Oberons to work with our old torpedoes. RUMINT at the time was that the senior submariners picked to retain the RN command systems and buy new weapons, but the government said no. That was one of the prime drivers behind why the boats haven't operated much over the last 10 years and why they're unlikely to ever be combat-capable.

Anyway, there's an enormous amount of effort and money that goes into supporting non-standard systems, especially in spares procurement and training. You need extra warehouse space, extra school space, extra instructors, extra people in Ottawa to look after the system lifecycle etc. It ends up being a lot of money for very little return on only one platform.

FWIW, HMS Ocean is rumoured to be pretty much done. She was built to commercial standards in a yard that was going bankrupt and has been run very hard since then. The Bay will probably be in much better shape, but "Canadianisation" may be a bit brutal. However, apparently the accomodations are built to RFA standards and are somewhat...palatial. Maybe that's why they can run with a smaller crew, but I'd say it's more like not needing a redundant CSE watch, full lookouts, Ops room manning, and supervisors for all of those.

 

[Kirkhill]

I wonder if we could talk the Brits into a Bare Bones lease on the Bay and pay them to maintain the hull and running gear?

Would there be any merit in that?  It might have to be a long term lease to make it palatable to the Brits.  But from our standpoint it would be added capability and a learning opportunity before committing to our own BHS (if ever acquired).

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

I wonder if we could talk the Brits into a Bare Bones lease on the Bay and pay them to maintain the hull and running gear?

It hasn't worked out well with the Victorias.

 

[Kirkhill]

It hasn't worked out well with the Victorias.

And I suppose there is the continuing tradition of Lucas Electrics.....I wonder why, in a rain soaked, maritime nation the Brits never came to terms with "insulation"?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

One of the problems Kirkhill, is we have a hard enough time maintaining our warfighting capabilities with what we have, if we go the amphib route without a huge influx of both cash and personnel we will only jeopardize what we do have and out lives and equipment at risk.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And I suppose there is the continuing tradition of Lucas Electrics.....I wonder why, in a rain soaked, maritime nation the Brits never came to terms with "insulation"?

One would have widely assumed that they would be the world leaders in wipers, central heating, but alas tis not to be. You knew that Lucas made vacuums? it was their only product that didn't suck!  ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

One of the problems Kirkhill, is we have a hard enough time maintaining our warfighting capabilities with what we have, if we go the amphib route without a huge influx of both cash and personnel we will only jeopardize what we do have and out lives and equipment at risk.

Don't want to do that.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

You knew that Lucas made vacuums? it was their only product that didn't suck!

Now that is hilarious! 

 

[Michael OLeary]

Now available on your favourite online auction site:

HMS Ark Royal (R07); Illustrious Class Aircraft Carrier

Cash on collection please

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Dang they got their sub off, we could have offered cash as is, where is.

 

[brihard]

One of the problems Kirkhill, is we have a hard enough time maintaining our warfighting capabilities with what we have, if we go the amphib route without a huge influx of both cash and personnel we will only jeopardize what we do have and out lives and equipment at risk.

I hate to sound like an economist, but this sounds a lot like 'opportunity cost'. Whatever portion of our most assuredly finite defense budget we might think to spend on such an acquisition/lease, what other spending will that entail giving up?

Major capital acquisitions will be hard to justify to the taxpayer as we quit Afghanistan. The F-35s have already caused quite a flap. Assuming that we'll be pressed for a while in terms of getting new kit, would such a vessel truly fit our priorities enough that it would justify giving up other major pieces of kit we would have to forsake in order to fit this within our budget?

Looked at another way, if the cost of acquiring such a vessel plus maintenance contracts were to be spent elsewhere, what else could we get for that amount, and would it better serve national defense priorities?

 

[Kirkhill]

A few weeks/months ago Oldgateboatdriver produced a Dream Navy predicated on the same number of sailors/seamen/mariners as are currently engaged crewing our existing fleet.  He used an upper limit of 4400 souls including MCDV crews drawn from the reserves.  That generated a 38 ship fleet capable of doing everything we do now and support an expeditionary lift in excess of 4400 troops with vehicles, boats and helicopters.

If we take a look at the current CPFs and consider their capabilities we find that the capabilities broadly conform to what is expected of any General Purpose Combatant.  It has Sonar and Radar to sweep large areas to supply situational awareness.  It has an ability to launch and recover helicopters in heavy seas to be able to extend its area of influence broadly as well as refine the intelligence picture. It has an ability to launch missiles to engage a variety of targets at a variety of ranges.  Those “missiles” broadly speaking, include torpedoes.  It has a variety of guns ranging upwards from 12.7 mm for close in defence, through anti-aircraft weapons to a weapon designed to engage larger surface targets at extended range. 
The CPF is not unique.  Many other vessels supply the same capabilities.  Not all vessels supply the same quality of capability – and I will try to leave the discussion of crew quality out of the equation just now.  Suffice to say that I am sure that Canada’s crews are as good as anyone’s and better than most.

Where am I rambling to?

If we look at the CPF, based largely on 1970s and 1980s technology, it requires a complement of 225 to crew all the stations necessary to supply those capabilities on that 4750 tonne vessel.
If I follow OGBD’s lead on his Dream Navy and take a look at what might be possible when reviewing the options for the CSC to replace the CPF and the DDHs then I come to this list comparing manning requirements of vessels that I think might be suitable General Purpose candidates to replace the CPFs:

CPF Halifax 225

F124 Sachsen 230
F100-7Provinces 202
T45 Daring 190

T26 (Future) 150
F125 (Future) 105-120
Absalon/Huitfeldt 101
FREMM 108
Formidable 70 (Ships Crew with an additional Helidet of 15 for a total complement of 85)
Endurance 65

Now by the time we get down to the Royal Singapore Navy's 3500 tonne Endurance the apples are starting to look distinctly like oranges.  It is a Frigate of a useful size but it is missing a useful missile capability.  On the other hand the French Formidable from which it evolved, with its 32 cell SAM launcher, 8 Harpoons, 6 Torpedoes, 76mm gun and 4 12.7s does seem to be at least in the same ball park as the CPF.  I am sure I will be corrected.

I am also sure that the discrepancies in manpower can be justified on many other grounds that I don’t understand.  However if the limiting factor in fleet development is manpower and the ability to recruit and pay for crew,  while at the same time maximizing both the number and size of platforms, there does seem a case to be made that we could, as OGBD pointed out, considerably increase our capabilities by better exploiting technology.

Even if we were to set a notional crew size of 75, or 1/3 of the crew of a CPF, couldn’t we crew two vessels for each one that we are crewing now and use the reduction in Person-Years to help pay for the extra hulls?

Additionally if more use were made of Reservists and Civilian Personnel to man vessels not engaged on standing tasks,  or not involved in high risk services to the fleet, could we not afford to procure more capabilities that way?

I believe I understand one of the counter-arguments that a large crew is necessary to keep a damaged ship afloat and in the fight. 

But doesn’t that argument tend to run in circles?  A bigger crew requires a bigger vessel which creates a bigger target that costs more money to defend.  It also represents a greater loss of live and money and capability if lost.  Additionally cramming a large number of people into a small space means that each individual is at greater risk in the event that the ship is hit in any given spot.

Conversely a larger vessel, with fewer crew, the numbers being made up with technology and electric motors, offers the crew less risk of being at the point of impact when the ship is hit.  The reduced crew means that fewer lives are put at risk.  The increased number of platforms means that a smaller portion of the fleet’s capabilities are lost if the ship is lost.  And a smaller crew means less time to evacuate the vessel.

Additionally, spare space for passengers and a greater variety of connectors, like larger helicopters, ships boats and LCVPS enhances flexibility when the need arises.

Does a large crew in cramped quarters really serve the fleet’s interests best?

Having gone through all of that meander – to get back to the point of this thread and “New Ships(Cheap)”. 

I would dearly like to see Canada pick up the spare Bay and possibly the Ocean but I don’t think either thing can be done until we free up manpower by downsizing the crews on the CPFs which means we have to wait until the CSCs are built.  For that reason I don’t see it being worthwhile to pick up the Ocean just now.  She is a combat vessel, as i understand it, designed to go into harms way.  She needs a regular Navy crew.  If we want to build OGBD’s dream fleet then it has to happen over time by commissioning CSCs as we pay off the CPFs and concurrently adding the additional platforms.  And that is going to take time.

Now, on the other hand, the Bay, a non-combatant logistics craft with a small crew and a useful capability that can be exploited immediately.  Couldn’t that be a worthwhile purchase to be crewed by a mix of reservists and civilians?

Ramble ends.