RNZN Protector Project" Vessels

[Kirkhill]

Ex-D

I am not want to start a flame-war here so bear with me but given a limited amount of money in the kitty which would you accept, if not prefer

1 milspec vessel with a crew of 200
2 similarly sized vessels with crews of 100 but civvy specs
or (possibly) 4 smaller vessels with similar capabilities, crews of 50 but built in civvy spec.

I know we are not considering role and environment and a multitude of other critical parameters but sometimes isn't the number of platforms as critical as the capabilities?

 

[aesop081]

Ex-D

I am not want to start a flame-war here so bear with me but given a limited amount of money in the kitty which would you accept, if not prefer

1 milspec vessel with a crew of 200
2 similarly sized vessels with crews of 100 but civvy specs
or (possibly) 4 smaller vessels with similar capabilities, crews of 50 but built in civvy spec.

I know we are not considering role and environment and a multitude of other critical parameters but sometimes isn't the number of platforms as critical as the capabilities?

Civies build ships with DC equipment to deal with Exocet missiles ?

 

[Cloud Cover]

Kirkhill: I would think that a commercial design utilized in the role for which it was designed is not on its face (or in practice less safe) or somehow otherwise inferior in design to military specifications, these are simply different specs for different applications. While there can clearly be some common shared characteristics, all the rest is apples and oranges. A naval vessel designed to military standards is not necessarily any safer than a commercial ship if it is pressed into a commercial role or a role that does not require at a minimum standard the design of a warship. Even liberty ships, as great a design as they were, were not built to a true naval standard, yet if any piece of equipment could be said to have been the decidingingly most influential mass production design in WW2, it was such a vessel.

Not many liberty ships sought out the enemy - I believe they prudently avoided the enemy at all costs despite their armaments. Similarly, hybrid ships such as armed trawlers performed minor escort roles, often ending in disaster. Purpose design warships sought out the enemy unless a tactical reaons held them back.  The primary reasons would be proper armament and probability of the design to survive an engagement. Therein lies the primary distinguishing characteristic between commercial and military design standards.  

On the matter of crew size - the Canadian Navy [like all Navies] uses a time tested watch keeping system that keeps a vessel at a certain state of readiness, depending on the anticipated situation or transit status. It follows that the smaller the crew size, the more time each crew member spends time closed up at their station rather than performing training, maintenance, crew rest etc.  This is sustainable only for a short time, perhaps a  few years at most in time of war, before the crew reacts negatively.

The key seems to be able to crew the ships to a military standard, keep them floating and fighting after suffering some battle damage, and in the case of Canada to design them to be adaptable to a plethora of diffuse accommodations standards and changing technology over a 40 + years lifetime (in both offcial languages and one or more spirits)  

 

[Cloud Cover]

Civies build ships with DC equipment to deal with Exocet missiles ?

With enough depth under the keel, the fire will go out.

 

[aesop081]

With enough depth under the keel, the fire will go out.

Sure....if the ship goes all the way to the bottom, the fire will be put out.  My point is that civy specs are made for situations encountered by civilian vessels.  Military specs are for situations encountered by military vessels.  i dont know too many cruise ships out there that were designed to take hits from SSM or gunfire. To build a warship using civilian specs because of some perceived cost-saving is, IMHO, asking for trouble.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Sure....if the ship goes all the way to the bottom, the fire will be put out.  My point is that civy specs are made for situations encountered by civilian vessels.  Military specs are for situations encountered by military vessels.  i dont know too many cruise ships out there that were designed to take hits from SSM or gunfire. To build a warship using civilian specs because of some perceive cost-saving is, IMHO, asking for trouble.

I think thats what I just said in my preceding post, but lets be clear were not talking cruise ships and yachts here either unless we are talking about preferred accommodations for air crew.  ;D

 

[aesop081]

I think thats what I just said in my preceding post, but lets be clear were not talking cruise ships and yachts here either unless we are talking about preferred accommodations for air crew.  ;D

Jealousy will get you nowhere

 

[Gunnerlove]

Just remember that if it is MS it just meet a Specification that was determined sometime in the past by someone who may or may not have had a grasp of what he was doing.


Look around and you will find MS floor cleaners, and dish soap with NATO stock numbers, because a COTS product might not get our floors clean enough to walk on in a combat environment.

Then look in a Galley, looks like (IS) a whole lot of Commercial kitchen equipment, that has had a Spec written so as to approve its use on board a military ship. Same thing can be done with valves and engines.

   

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

To answer Kirkhills question though that one ship made strictly to mil spec with 200 crew would be what myself and most sailors would prefer. Quality over quantity works in the navy as well. your 2 to 4 ships might not survive even a minor battle where I am betting its more likely the strictly mil spec ship with 200 crew would be better able to deal with DC not to mention the casualties that will occur. Say a ship lost 10 crew for whatever reason, which of your 3 groupings would be better able to absorb the casualites? It would not be the two civ spec ships...

 

[Kirkhill]

Joseph Stalin: "Quantity has a quality all its own".

How do we afford to put enough platforms at sea to be able to monitor and control all our approaches?
Is it enough to put up a "low threat level" patrol force that runs back to port at some point in the transition from "green" to "red"?  (Setting aside considerations of who will provide the service, design and capabilities)
How do we factor in Barnett's observation that the US Navy no longer fights for control of the seas but has won it?

When the Royal Navy was confronted with the same situation in 1816 it sent its hundred ships of the line to port and scrapped all but 10 to 20 of them.  It down sized the fleet from over 100,000 sailors to 19,000.  It built sloops and frigates, and later gunboats and other small vessels and sent them off to police the globe independently.  And the British Government stood up the Coast Guard as a civilian barrier to replace the military barrier that was no longer necessary. 
With that reduced force the RN ruled the waves for over 100 years and was only seriously challenged in 1916 at the Battle of Jutland.

Even as it expanded in manpower, by 1898 it was back up to about 100,000 sailors, it was essentially a small boat navy with a strong, modern but small Heavy Fleet.

Should the sea-going positions be handed over to the Coast Guard for domestic patrols in lightly armed and armoured vessels?

They apparently don't want to get involved in shooting. Navies are apparently reluctant to get involved in constabulary work domestically although that  is what they are doing overseas - conducting boarding ops, search and seizure, and containment - as well as providing service support to troops ashore.

Is it not appropriate to consider a Battle Fleet and a Patrol Fleet as both necessary parts of a well balanced Navy?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Kirkhill, we are not talking of the Royal Navy from centuries pass we are talking the Canadian Navy of today.. Until we get a budget like the USN we will always go the multi role approach never the Battle and Patrol. The only way you will see any sort of patrol force is if they arm the CCG and the likelyhood that is going to happen is us buying cruisers.  I have boarded ships in the Gulf and even the newer ships some of their DC is laughable at best. You will have morale issues and people leaving if you insist they sail on death traps which is what you are advocating. I know I would get out.

  While I have little doubt our DC types could handle an actual situation, I do not believe complicating their job is the way to approach this.

I am definitely agreeing with W601 and cdnaviator on this one.

 

[cobbler]

Kirkhill, we are not talking of the Royal Navy from centuries pass we are talking the Canadian Navy of today.. Until we get a budget like the USN we will always go the multi role approach never the Battle and Patrol. The only way you will see any sort of patrol force is if they arm the CCG and the likelyhood that is going to happen is us buying cruisers. 

The RAN doesn't have a budget like the US navy, yet it has the Battle and Patrol philosphy/structure.

Surely when time comes to replace the MCDV's Canada could get 10 Patrol Boats and maybe 4 dedicated mine clearers. They could all still perform the reserve/training roles, but with added and valuable capabiliites. You'd have PB's that are cheaper and better at patrol work, and MH's that are actually designed for and useful in the task, without having to get modded, although I am confident the MCDV's could do a great job at minesweeping, once.

The PB's could be built to civi spec, as the RANs new Armidales are. The specs are safe for what the boats duties are. And morale has not dropped. In fact it has improved. Sailors walk up stairwells instead of climbing up poky ladders, and even a guy at the rank of Seaman gets the equivalent of what an Officers quarters are on a FFG.

Then the MH's could not just be built to mil spec, but with shock resistent single skin hulls, low magnetic signitures, and all the bells and whistles associated with ships around the world of the class. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, the MCDV's contain none of.

 

[Kirkhill]

Thanks Cobbler

In addition I would question whether the USN HAS a Battle/Patrol philosophy.  In my view they have stayed well away from anything that looked like Patrol duties - thus their hunt for Littoral Combat Ships.  What they have are a number of Battlefleets in Being and Battlefleets Afloat.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Don't forget the USN has the Cyclone class PBs that are being returned from the USCG not to mention the MkVs that are being used for Force Protection duties in conjunction with the USCGs new PBs, so I will arguethat they do approaoch the patrol duties. Whether a ship is a crusider or patrol boat we do conduct patrols no matter what navy you belong to.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Mine Countermeasures platforms I would argue should be built to mil spec due to the role they are fitted for. Coastal patrol boats, IPVs etc I concede could possibly be built civ spec but only if they are not used in any sort of expeditionary role. The Canadian Navy in deploying the Kingston class to Europe in the recent past have shown we could deploy these ships to any potential hot spot if needed thus showing a greater risk for battle damage.

Cobbler I will argue, will the RAN deploy the Armidales to areas like the Gulf? If not then maybe civ spec is ok in that case.

 

[Kirkhill]

Don't forget the USN has the Cyclone class PBs that are being returned from the USCG

Where the Navy ditched them because they didn't want them, just like they ditched their riverine boats and their Hydrofoils and all their other excursions into inshore work.  The reason they want the Cyclones back is that you need a lot of water under the keel of Cruiser - and you'll know better than I but I was under the impression that that was in short supply on sandy shores like the Gulf.

What is the effect of a Silkworm on a Cyclone?

 

[cobbler]

Cobbler I will argue, will the RAN deploy the Armidales to areas like the Gulf? If not then maybe civ spec is ok in that case.

Almost certainly not.

They have been deployed to places like the Solomon Islands. But that is an area where the enemy's most powerful weapons are home made rifles, so I doubt DC under hostile fire was a consideration.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

What is the effect of a Silkworm on a Cyclone?

probably a big BOOM!...not sure your point though.

We might as well agree to disagree guys because there is no way you will convince me that civ spec is better or safer then mil spec. Cheaper yes but cheaper gets guys like me killed....

 

[Kirkhill]

And if you got killed who would be there to straighten guys like me out....

But getting away from the "incendiary" comments about Silkworms what do you think about the Navy handling the types of tasks the RAN uses the Armedales for - peacetime patrols of local waters to intercept armed civilians.

We have three options in Canada for that type of task - Navy, Coast Guard or RCMP or potentially a new force equivalent to a seagoing RCMP.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Unfortunately I have done little to change your opinion so I do not think me straightening you out would matter lol...

My point is I do not like Civ Spec vessels, they do not belong in our navy. If and this was a big if we did get some IPVs I could concede as I said above they might be made to Civ Spec. I do feel our crews are at risk for no reason. To me its no different then mounting a GPMG on a fishing trawler and conducting patrols. You would accomplish the same thing for less money.

Any ship we could use in a hot zone (Mine Counter Measure vessels, AORs, amphibs, destroyers and frigates etc) must be made with mil spec. I won't debate this, this should not be debated at all. Its negligence and possibly murder to advocate anything less then mil spec for ships that will potentially be involved in combat.

As for your 3 options. You might as well count the CCG out of that right now. They are not interested and if you push the issue you place every mariner at risk. Navy and RCMP could do it but only after a major influx of cash.