New Ships for the Navy

[Ex-Dragoon]

Ummm start with things that the navy needs first before you play lets pretend. Air defence/command ships, JSS, AIP powered subs (better yet subs that worked), decent mine warfare units, an eventual replacement for the CPF etc etc etc....carriers are not even on the navy‘s radar screen. Its a non issue for us.

 

[winchable]

I was joking ex, about the Carriers anyway. The subs I agree On however,;
You don‘t think our CDV‘s can handle mine warfare?
I think, even historically, our CPFs are up to the challenge (although by then, who knows) our submarines (if we had many more) are war capable. The crews are up to the individual commander. If anything is lacking I would be worried about our 40 year old flagships.
Without wanting to cause any kind of contoversy, what is lacking?
Seriosuly though, I‘m actually trying to learn?!

 

[hugh19]

Che I have sailed on a quite a few different ships. I can safely say the MCDV‘s are cheaply built pieces of C*** They could be a good minesweeper once but thats about it. As for the Azmuthal thrusters. They are extremely noisey so a good place for a acoustic torpedo to home in on.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Sorry Che its just that when we hear someone mention "how we should get carriers" most professional sailors cringe as we know it is very unlikely to happen.
1) For a multi role ship the MCDVs are crap. They are far too slow to be a useful patrol vessel, have poor ship handling characteristics in rough seas, all their main armament(not to mention being old) is in exposed positions. They only have a couple of each type of modules (route survey, mine sweeping etc) and those are spread between Halifax, Quebec and Esquilmalt.
2) JSS is a major step in the right direction but what you have to realize is the JSS has sealift capability. Its not an amphib. Combining the two missions of sealift and resupply will save money but I think will only end in jurisidctional fights down the road.
3) I don‘t think locally produced submarines would have done us any better. The Aussies tried and are still having problems with the Collins. Personally I think we should have gotten French Scorpene or German U212 SSKs.
4) Air Defence- alot feel we don‘t need it as we are supposedly always under the umbrella of other nations medium and long range SAMs but there were cases when Canadian units were the sole escorts of US amphibious assts in the Gulf. I think to lose that capability is only asking for trouble. Modifying CPFs to preform this role is not the answer either as we will have the same age problems with them in a few years as we do now with the 280s, better to make the investment now and build new. We also need to think of the littoral and netcentric warfare areas when we do get new ships witjout ignoring the traditional ASW, AAW and ASuW warfare areas.
5) Well the Danes have once again illustrated the need for purpose built patrol assets. An OPV/corvette with an ice strengthened hull would help us be able to show the flag up north and would be cheaper to operate then sending CPFs to do fisheries patrols.
Just a few thoughts.

 

[winchable]

Thanks Ex, The only reason I mentioned the carrier is because I‘m doing a little independent study on Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto and he was a noted carrier and naval aviation proponent.

I knew that the MCDV‘s armament is something like 60 years old, I think that they do serve their primary purpose which is reservist training. I‘ve just been indoctrinated with the idea that the CDV‘s are multi-role mine sweeping etc. etc. so I assumed...

I‘ve seen the carrier-cringe at work the past few weeks, so I am beginning to understand the pains involved with that topic.

As for the rest of it, I‘ve got many years to learn about that so I‘ll decline to even enter that debate not knowing much about techs and such.

 

[Brock]

Ex-Dragoon good post.

For those of you who don‘t know, the JSS is not a new navy capital equipment project, but an old project renamed. The former name of the project is the Afloat Logistics and Sealift Capability (ALSC) project. It has been in the navy‘s plans since the early 1990s. The JSS is going to be a big waste of taxpayers money. The navy is going to get a "Griffon" can do a lot of things, but just barely.

The Royal Australian Navy--which is extremely similar to our‘s in purpose, budget, and size--recently rejected similar designs in favour of more dedicated ships. Indeed, they just announced plans to build two new naval logistic support ships, 2 large and 1 medium amphibious transport ships. The best part, the cost of all those ships will be about 500 million less than our total project for more ships and requiring almost the same number of crew.

 

[DogOfWar]

Say would you happen to have operational comparisons of our respective navy‘s?? Now do the Ausies have marines?? I find it interesting that most of the allies have marines and Canada does not. Does anyone know why that is? Are our infantry trained for amphibious asault?

 

[Spr.Earl]

Originally posted by sledge:
[qb] Che I have sailed on a quite a few different ships. I can safely say the MCDV‘s are cheaply built pieces of C*** They could be a good minesweeper once but thats about it. As for the Azmuthal thrusters. They are extremely noisey so a good place for a acoustic torpedo to home in on. [/qb]

Sledge as to Azi Pods they are a lot better now most are driven by induction motors built in the pod and are very quite now,just thge hum of the motors and internal gearing with in the pod,a lot less noise than a conventional motor ship,but steam is still the quitest!

As for Torpedeos all from what I have read of late have built sonar or by magnetic field detection now and acoustic are second choice for the poor people like our Navy.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

WetGrunt for someone that is suppose to be in the navy you do not know too much about it. The only marines we ever had were Royal Marines back in the days when the Royal Navy had ships stationed here.

 

[hugh19]

Spr. EarL The MCDV‘s have azimuthal thrusters With 5 bladed propellers, also none of the machinery is shrouded so all the noise goes straight out the hull.

You should do more reading, sonar is acoustic,Its a type of homing active or passive is still acoustic torpedo. Plus the magnetic field detection is a type of detonator, and was in use by many navies BEFORE WW2. Thanks for coming out.

 

[DogOfWar]

[No message]

 

[Brock]

Wet Grunt the Australian do not have marines, but the army trains for amphibious operations. More specifically, the Australian Army does not train like the USMC. For the OZ‘s amphibous operations basically deploying and being support from by ampibious transport ship. The USMC actually trains to storm beaches and that sort of thing to keep it simple. The Australian‘s like us do not have the money to spend on specialty marines that have the time and people to devote to offensive amphibious operations like the USMC. With that said Canada could really use a similar capability to the Australians.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Originally posted by sledge:
[qb] Spr. EarL The MCDV‘s have azimuthal thrusters With 5 bladed propellers, also none of the machinery is shrouded so all the noise goes straight out the hull.

You should do more reading, sonar is acoustic,Its a type of homing active or passive is still acoustic torpedo. Plus the magnetic field detection is a type of detonator, and was in use by many navies BEFORE WW2. Thanks for coming out. [/qb]

Your welcome.
Re torpedoes,yes I stepped on my pee pee.
But as to the Azi pods are they using diesel electric or is it a Z drive?
If it‘s Z drive which is the cheapest and the noisiest.

As to shrouding it can can and will cause over heating etc. unless you have a good cooling system which in our waters is no prob but will be a prob in warmer climes.

Right now Kame Wa and Rolls Royce are the World Leaders in Azi Pod design.

P.S. Sledge I work for the Ferries and the last week or so has been murder as we are having a two day CSI inspection for the ship.Been sitting atop of the boiler getting the safties right then had to thhe air reciever safties,emergency lighting etc,

Thing‘s that should have happened last June when she came out of the Ship Yard.

 

[Spr.Earl]

Originally posted by The WetGrunt:
[qb]

Originally posted by sledge:
[qb] Thanks for coming out. [/qb]

OHHHHHHHHHHH BURN [/qb]

Well my son it‘s not a "BURN" it‘s a "MISTAKE" on my part which I have owned up to.

That‘s what we are all about.

 

[hugh19]

Spr. Earl Just so ya know I was a EOOW in the reserves when I was a shad. So I do know a wee bit about engineering. (not snarky just informing you) They are indeed Z-drives powered by disel electric. On the frigates all the major machinery is in enclosers. But we didn‘t have heating problems in the gulf. Well as far as I am aware. I am ops weenie now.

What ferry system you work for?

 

[hugh19]

Never mind I just checked and you must be a BC ferry employee. I thought Most ferries were diesel.

 

[Brock]

Sledge/Spr. Earl are either of you even interested in discussing the issues surrounding the JSS project, such as why the Canadian Government in its "military wisdom" is going to design and develop an entirely new ship type for enormous amounts of money when otherm, less expensive, and more capable--on the whole--options exist. For example, the CF could buy four dedicated fleet support ships (AOR) for around $250 milion a piece for a grand total of $1 billion. The navy would have $1.1 billion left to provide the army with sealift, amphibous capable transport ships, or whatever type of ship is needed. The military could still buy two large ships for support to army operations and have a couple hundred million dollars left over to go somewhere else.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Interesting point Brock but where do you propose in finding the crews for these 6 ships?

 

[Spr.Earl]

Originally posted by sledge:
[qb] Never mind I just checked and you must be a BC ferry employee. I thought Most ferries were diesel. [/qb]

All of the Ferries are now but we do have two diesel electric,the Cumberland and the Capilano.


Both have 3,9 cylinder Bergens,KG9‘s (Norskie)all the switch boards and assorted electronic monitoring equipment is Semans.
Great to work but you have to know your stuff if she black‘s out!

 

[Brock]

Ex-Dragoon. The current Protecteur AOR class operate with a crew of about 275--excluding air detachment; 365 with--whereas modern AOR ships operate with only 125 give or take a few sailors. Four AOR ships with a crew of 125 add up to 500, plus two transport ships at 125 add up to 750 sailors and officers versus 550 and don‘t forget we only very recently retired the HMCS Preserver which if you add it up equals 825 crew members for only 3 ships. A pretty good deal all things considered more ships and therefore longer sustained op tempo, with lower personnel requirements. What a deal. The Dutch Navy has two ship designs that could suit the Canadian Navy‘s needs very well without breaking the budget.

check out this link at http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/schelde%20enforcer.htm :look at the "Enforcer" amphibious transport ship designs that are low cost and two of the medium sized designs would perfectly suit army support and sealift needs. The British, Dutch and Spanish navies operate 8 ships based on this design built in the last 10 years.

This link shows http://www.scheldeshipbuilding.com/products.html# the Dutch Navy‘s "Amsterdam" fleet logistic support ship design, also very well suited to the Canadian Navy‘s needs.