New ships (cheap)

[ringo]

Buying a Bay from UK would be a good move IMO, the AOR/JSS program could then be scaled back to just a pair of basic AOR's of Canatria or Berlin class the Bay providing lift that basic AOR designs lack.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Buying a Bay from UK would be a good move IMO, the AOR/JSS program could then be scaled back to just a pair of basic AOR's of Canatria or Berlin class the Bay providing lift that basic AOR designs lack.

All we are getting apparently is a pair. The Navy is really suffering with only a pair of AORs in service right now, so I am not a big fan of losing the 3rd AOR for a single Bay.

 

[Lex Parsimoniae]

It hasn't worked out well with the Victorias.

Canada owns the Victoria Class.

 

[Kirkhill]

All we are getting apparently is a pair. The Navy is really suffering with only a pair of AORs in service right now, so I am not a big fan of losing the 3rd AOR for a single Bay.

If that is the choice, I agree.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Aussies looking at Bay Class?

RAN to acquire ex-RN Bay Class LSD?
http://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/ran-to-acquire-ex-rn-bay-class-lsd

Rumours abound that the RAN may be acquiring an ex-RN Bay Class Landing Ship Dock (LSD) as a result of the UK MoD defence cutbacks.

The specifications for JP2048 Phase 4C as stated in the White Paper are: “a large strategic sealift ship to move stores, equipment and personnel”.

“Based on a proven design, the new ship will have a displacement of 10,000 - 15,000 tonnes, with landing spots for a number of helicopters and an ability to land vehicles and other cargo without requiring port infrastructure.”

One blogger sees this as basically a description of the Bay class, and that there was the expectation that we’d buy the design off the drawing board and contract either BAE Systems or Scheldt to build one.

“One of the Bays becoming available suits us perfectly: it saves us a fair bit of cash (budget is $150-200 million, and I’d imagine we’ll get one of the Bays for ~$70-100 million, bear in mind the dollar is strong at the moment too), and it’s available right now...

Another observer has doubts as to whether the RAN would cancel an LHD for the sake of a cheap LSD – pointing out that the LSD probably won’t do the job of a dedicated fleet supply ship, which is what Success is due to be replaced with.

However, he adds that a Bay class ship would be a perfect replacement for Tobruk (which is what they were designed for in any case).

It appears that at one stage the RAN was looking at the Dutch Rotterdam class as a replacement for HMAS Success - guess what?

The Bay class is based on the self-same design.

Even more interesting – Spain uses the same design, built by Navantia as the Galicia class...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[jollyjacktar]

Lucky buggers... wish it was us.

I read last night that HMS Invincible is going for scrap price @ 2M pounds sterling.  The RN's morale must really be on the rocks at the moment.  Poor bastards.

 

[fire fytr]

I agree completely with the acquisition of the Largs Bay, announced a few days ago, but what is more value is RFA Fort George.

At just 16 years old and just about to come out of a refit we could immediately deploy a very capable ship while trying to maintain at least one of the two current AORs until new replacements can be fielded by a Canadian yard as part of the NSPS.  Once the new AORs are in the water in 5 to 8 years the Fort George could be relegated to a relief AOR when the new boats are under going maintenance thus allowing two operational AORs. 

The vessel is a known player in NATO support and has a reduced crew capacity and enhanced AIR OPS capabilities  supporting as many as 5 Sea Kings.

If we can get only one ship this is the ship.  The Largs bay would be a nice to have but the Fort George is a must have in order for the fleet to be deployable.

This is my first post and I am not nor have I been a member of your service.  I do admit to having a very broad educationa in navavl matters and would appreciate the discussion of this.

 

[STONEY]

The RFA FORT GEORGE is a single hull tanker hull and thus in a couple years will be banned from most of the worlds ports for not meeting new standards coming into effect , which is one of the reasons the Brits are retiring it.

 

[fire fytr]

True but government owned vessels are exempt.  The UK as part of the EU have decided to meet the requirements but they do not have to as a naval vessel.  Even as a single hulled vessel she is more reliable and would give us the deployability we need.

At the same age as the CPF fleet she could be phased out as the CPFs are as the new SHSC arrive.  This is a "gift" that is to good to be true.

It will likely come to pass that our navy like others will decrease in size over the course of the next few decades and we will be left with a smaller fleet needing only two AORs.  By the time this "new" fleet is in place we are looking at about 15 years or more.  Fort George would then be 30 plus years old and ready for paying off.

 

[mad dog 2020]

The RFA Fort George may be a single hull and so are our AORs.  But it would be an excellent fill in.  With all the disasters and relief required we would be able to send more aid.  The Haiti relief program could have used used an AOR with the expanded sick bay.  If the Fort George was modified it would cover the gap till 201????????.....

For example:
" In March 2000, the ship was equipped with five Westland Sea King helicopters and sent to Mozambique to help with disaster relief work following devastating floods. In May she accompanied HMS Illustrious to Sierra Leone to support British operations to restore stability to that country. Late in the year, during a deployment in the Mediterranean, the ship helped passengers of the Greek ferry Express Samina which had run aground and sunk during a storm on 26 September"

We have had Katrina, Haiti and even Igor in Nfld.
We could have this vessel in months not years.  You snooze you lose.
I am a retired army type so help me out here, maybe I am way off base.

 

[fire fytr]

From a manning perspective, Naval-technology notes on the Protecteur Class, a crew of 365 per vessel.  Fort George requires a crew of 134 plus the embarked AIR DET.  This is half of the crew requirement at a time when the operations costs of running a ship of this size is influenced by the crew size. 

To go back to previous posts the ability of Fort George and Largs Bay to enhance our own naval abilities at a much reduced operating requirement allows us to continue to provide basic task force deployment as well as learn the skills of maritime logistic support to embarked forces at a minimal cost before investing in our own new builds.  As a nation with the size and worldly status as Canada, nations much smaller are investing in these multi purpose vessels built primarily to mercantile standards with military enhancements where necessary to accomplish a multitude of national taskings.

As noted by maddog, the responses to natural disasters alone would justify the acquisition of either of these two vessels.  Our response to the Newfoundland hurricane would have been more effective with either vessel than with the available frigates we sent.  We are a maritime nation and response by sea either militarily or in a humanitarian mission is a vital capability that Canada lacks.

As Keven Leary says on Dragons Den, "Its all about the money all of the time".  What a better way to save money than to invest in vessels that have lower operating costs.  I know this may be a naive view but I am a realist. 

Hopefully our Defence Minister and senior naval staff have this already in the pipe and in April Fort George will become HMCS "Niobe" in commemoration of being the navys first "new" ship in its second century of service.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

True but government owned vessels are exempt.  The UK as part of the EU have decided to meet the requirements but they do not have to as a naval vessel.  Even as a single hulled vessel she is more reliable and would give us the deployability we need.

At the same age as the CPF fleet she could be phased out as the CPFs are as the new SHSC arrive.  This is a "gift" that is to good to be true.

It will likely come to pass that our navy like others will decrease in size over the course of the next few decades and we will be left with a smaller fleet needing only two AORs.  By the time this "new" fleet is in place we are looking at about 15 years or more.  Fort George would then be 30 plus years old and ready for paying off.

Just for the record the Navy follows the enviromental laws of the host country or Canada which ever is stricted and if that included single hulled vessels being prohibited in a port then thats what it means. The tanker boys have been talking about this for some time as they know if one of the AORs are deployed in the coming years they will not be going into any of the good ports because they are single hulled.

Edit: while I would like to see us get some AORs tomorrow, I would caution in getting second hand equip now. It might rob the JSS budget and reduce our numbers from 2+1 option to 1+1 option.

 

[jollyjacktar]

ExD is correct.  Both our tankers are single hulled, but double bottomed.  This was identified years ago as a future problem and would have an impact on her capabilities.  The areas in which these ships would be welcome due to this will narrow as time goes on.  New tankers will need to be double hulled.  I shudder to think of the mess if we were to rip a hole into one of the cargo tanks.  Not good for the planet or our reputation.  Ff, your suggestion while on one hand I would like to see it is not worth the headache that might come of it.  And if it screwed the acquisition of the new AOR(s) ( I'll refuse to use the JSS term...) that would be very counter productive we have waited too long already.

 

[Stoker]

True but government owned vessels are exempt.  The UK as part of the EU have decided to meet the requirements but they do not have to as a naval vessel.  Even as a single hulled vessel she is more reliable and would give us the deployability we need.

The Canadian Navy would never buy a single hulled tanker due to our commitment to the environment. I believe we are exempt on what we have now but cannot buy more.

 

[willellis]

I can say that we need to have the latest and greatest if we want to be a competitive navy. The army got the new ML upgrade as well as ILTIS replacements, and new combats, new weapons, new tanks, and new support systems ( rightfully so). The Air Force has received the Globemasters (thank god) and the new fighter promise. The government seems to invest in one element at a time and now it must get serious with the navy again. Everyone knows that the CF makes the best of the least. It sucks that the fleet is going through a CPF refit AGAIN ( I love the new kit from the FELIX program since my trade will be one of the primary ops of it) , instead of an investment towards a new platform.  We have been able to exploit the DDG and FFH's for so long, that now is the time to invest in our sea capabilities and ensure that we are able to take care of our own interests (polar and coastal) and those of our friends for a further 15 to 25 years with top of the line ships which can start to impose our will in the future.

The main point that I am ranting on about is why we can Save $$ to put towards a new ship vs fixing up old ones. It may take a while , and we might have to be dealing with shite kit for longer than we wanted, but we have done really well with what we have for this long, whats another 5-10 years.

DO IT RIGHT!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Another 5-10 years and you will have 280s that will rarely leave the wall like the AORs barely do these days. The longer you wait, the more replacements are put off because we "can"make do. Then another party gets elected and sees we are making do and decide to cancel and cut defence procurement projects because we can make do...see the problem?

 

[willellis]

I see what you are saying and agree somewhat, but we are nearly there right now. The algonqin is alongside with a bent prop shaft. And the other 280 are clinging to life. I just believe that we need to hurt for a little bit before we can feel good. As a member of the Navy, it is really tough to accept, but as long as the savings from cuts over the next few years will be applied to the navy in aprox  7.5, I'll be a better operator for it.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The 280s have been hurting pretty much since they were TRUMPed...they should have been replaced then. As for the savings being applied back to the Navy, dream on it never happens.

 

[OldSolduer]

Another 5-10 years and you will have 280s that will rarely leave the wall like the AORs barely do these days. The longer you wait, the more replacements are put off because we "can"make do. Then another party gets elected and sees we are making do and decide to cancel and cut defence procurement projects because we can make do...see the problem?

A vicious circle. Its so true.