AAD and NGS (split from JSS Amphib Capability thread)

[FSTO]

As a side note for those with real knowledge of procurement, do we have some kind of unwritten rule against cooperation with another nation?  Specifically, the Australians have allocated $2billion for 2 near-identical ships to the BHS specs.  Does it not make sense to do a joint program in order to maximize everyone's ROI?


Matthew.   ???

Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!, Achtung!!!!

Ve haf unt intruter who ist tinking viff LOGIC!!! Nien, Nien, Nien, Nien, Nien, Nien!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

For BHS is Canada looking at the Spanish 27000ton LHD from Navantia or the Dutch 30000ton Enforcer LHD from Schelde, IMO Canada needs two such vessels.
I suspect the Tribals will be retired without replacement, the frigates will undergo FELEX, a dozen replacements will be built probably somewhat larger than current ships with ability to change roles and missions buy changing armament and sensor modules, some may feature a Flexdeck like Danish frigates to maximize capability. 

Canada is looking at several designs for the BHS, some of which have already been discussed here. The 280s will stick around probably til 2012-14 and by then the next generation Surface Combatant also discussed within the navy forum will be replacing both the 280s and the CPFs. These will supposedly number 16-18. Where do you get the FLEXDECK? Do you have a source or are you speculating?

 

[ringo]

Unless there is a huge increase in defence budget I don't believe there will be funds for more than a dozen new surface combat ships.
For maximum versatility I think three versions of a monohull design will be built, ie air defence C&C, ASW general purpose, a Flexdeck version to support troops ashore act as disaster relief or hospital ship fire support ship.
New surface ships will be larger than those now in service with greater endurance and range for worldwide deployments.
Just my 2 cents.

The Dutch are designing a ship similiar to JSS.

Lastly Canada should consider purchasing the LSL Sir Galahad from UK to provide an interm sealift till JSS are built.

 

[cobbler]

As a side note for those with real knowledge of procurement, do we have some kind of unwritten rule against cooperation with another nation?  Specifically, the Australians have allocated $2billion for 2 near-identical ships to the BHS specs.  Does it not make sense to do a joint program in order to maximize everyone's ROI?


Matthew.   

It would be a good idea if it could happen.
But the RAN is a lot further on in the procurement process, and cannot afford it to be stalled or held up. Also Australia already has the whole amphibious ops doctrine worked out and so knows what it needs, I don't think you guys are quite so certain about what you require in both a ship and its systems.

But i think more cooperation would be beneficial for both the RAN and Canadian maritime command (or whatever its called this month), it would have been ideal if you had jumped on the collins bandwagon, in an perfect world we would work together in the future Halifax/Anzac replacements (cause NZ didn't exactly match up with Aus's requirements, we are both paying the price for that now).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Unless there is a huge increase in defence budget I don't believe there will be funds for more than a dozen new surface combat ships.
For maximum versatility I think three versions of a monohull design will be built, ie air defence C&C, ASW general purpose, a Flexdeck version to support troops ashore act as disaster relief or hospital ship fire support ship.
New surface ships will be larger than those now in service with greater endurance and range for worldwide deployments.

Dp you know this for a fact ot is it just conjecture on your part?

 

[commando gunner]

..., a Flexdeck version to support troops ashore act as disaster relief or hospital ship fire support ship.

Just like the ALSC concept this would be like making an ambulance the tow truck as well, just because they are going to the same acccident.  Designated hospital ships cannot provide fire support either...


PS...this thread was spilt from the JSS debate so we could get into detail on AAD and NGS, this seems to be  resurgence of JSS debate.

 

[ringo]

A ship dose't have to be designated a hospital ship to have substandial medical facilities on board.

Dragoon, just a gut feeling, Canada's defence buget too stretched to by more than 12 destroyers JSS BHS new trucks helos cargo aircraft, the list goes on and on, and is the fault of sucesssive goverments  providing DND with insufficient funding.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

A ship dose't have to be designated a hospital ship to have substandial medical facilities on board.

Dragoon, just a gut feeling, Canada's defence buget too stretched to by more than 12 destroyers JSS BHS new trucks helos cargo aircraft, the list goes on and on, and is the fault of sucesssive goverments  providing DND with insufficient funding.

Gotcha but by the time JSS/BHS prgrams are started there will be new money in the budget as it will be several years latter.

 

[ringo]

Well if IIRC the 12 Halifax class ships replaced replaced 16 DDE/DDH ships, if we get 12 ships to replace Halifax and last 3 Trump DDH's.
As for a timeline I would think Felex will be underway in concert with JSS construction a BHS likely to follow, Tribals will certainly all be gone by 2015, this would be a good time to begin production of new surface combatant.
Halifax replacement need have room for 2 Cyclone helo's, the new ships need much more room for growth and be more flexible perhaps using modular techniques.
All the while maritime command must compete with air and ground elements of CAF.
For interim sealift the LSL Sir Galahad could be purchased from UK at modest cost and requires limited crew renting an old steam driven LPD would be a moneypit.
Budget wise CAF need 2% GNP divided as evenly as possible between the three services.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Well if IIRC the 12 Halifax class ships replaced replaced 16 DDE/DDH ships, if we get 12 ships to replace Halifax and last 3 Trump DDH's.

Don't really think you can use that as guideline.

As for a timeline I would think Felex will be underway in concert with JSS construction a BHS likely to follow, Tribals will certainly all be gone by 2015, this would be a good time to begin production of new surface combatant.

That seems to be the general consesus.

Halifax replacement need have room for 2 Cyclone helo's, the new ships need much more room for growth and be more flexible perhaps using modular techniques.

Why? While it would be beneficial to sail with 2 helos, the 280s have been sailing with only 1 for awhile. Ideally with the Cyclones reliabity will increase and we won't have to keep shipping them over via freighter.Agrred with the modular aspects but these days that is a given and they tend to look at a 20-30 life cycle of a ship.

For interim sealift the LSL Sir Galahad could be purchased from UK at modest cost and requires limited crew renting an old steam driven LPD would be a moneypit.

Maybe but is it up for sale?

 

[Mortar guy]

Well if IIRC the 12 Halifax class ships replaced replaced 16 DDE/DDH ships, if we get 12 ships to replace Halifax and last 3 Trump DDH's.
Don't really think you can use that as guideline.

The SCSC project is currently calling for 18 ships built over a 20 year+ timeframe to replace both the Tribals and the Frigates. If you have access to the DIN, go to the Capabilities Initiative Database and look up the SCSC project and you'll find loads of information. The last SRB presentation is the one that provide the best detail.

MG

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The SCSC project is currently calling for 18 ships built over a 20 year+ timeframe to replace both the Tribals and the Frigates. If you have access to the DIN, go to the Capabilities Initiative Database and look up the SCSC project and you'll find loads of information. The last SRB presentation is the one that provide the best detail.

MG

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

 

[ringo]

The trend of all the western navies has been a reduction in the numbers of surface combatants, primarily due to the high cost of replacement vessels, a case in point the RN Type 45 6 vessels to replace the Type 42's.
The Halifax class was to have a further 6 vessels.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Yes but the added tempo the Canadian Navy has been under since the end of the Cold War has only reiterated to the brass and the powers that are that more ships are better. 18 warships is not a large number when it boils down to the facts. I think you will see us get between 14-18 of the SCSC when it comes online.

 

[ringo]

I'll believe it when I see the ships in the water as for now its all talk, no ships are on order and none are building.
From Canada's Navy 1985 " 24 warships would be required to just meet needs assigned by the Navy by the then current government, however acquisition of Leopard MBT's, Aurora's and CF-18's, the program was tailored back to 20 ships".
Those 20 planned ships became 12 Halifax frigates, if Canada's navy receives more than 12 Halifax/DDH
replacements I'll be very surprised, the BHS may take money from frigate replacement program the  icebreaker program may have same effect.
With the multitude of DND programs requiring funding there will need to be very significant increases in future defence budget's, to fund all programs.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The key word is may ringo and being a sailor I have to remain somewhat optimistic that the SCSC program will ccome about.

 

[Armymatters]

If you ask me, given the current tempo of our deployments overseas by the Navy, we can use at least 20 major warships (Halifax/Tribal replacements).
My explaination why:
Maintain a standing task force in both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans: 1 DD type warship, plus 3 FFG's, and an AOR on standby each ocean (8 major warships, 2 AOR's)
Deployments with American carrier groups: 1 DD/FFG each (2 warships)
Deployments and commitments to NATO and UN: 1 DD/FFG each (2 warships)
Maritime patrol work: 4 frigates
Maintenance/Crew familiarization/training: 4 warships (2 DD type, 2 FFG type
Total: 8+2+2+4+4 = 20 major warships of the DD/FFG type (both Tribal and Halifax replacements).
Otherwise, the tempo of deployment may be unsustainable in the long term, meaning that even though the government would like to send a warship out for deployment, no major warships are avaiable due to maintenance or them being out on some sort of deployment already.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Armymatters,

Your numbers IMHO are not too bad.  The 4 ships that you have allocated to CVBG/NATO/UN ops would, in reality probably be drawn from the high-readiness TG from each coast.  !6 major combattants (not including Icebreakers, JSS and BHSs) would be a reasonable number for our Navy, given the waterspace we cover.  But, since when has "reasonable" or even "adequate" been a driving factor in how we buy kit for the military...

Cheers

 

[Cloud Cover]

Can't stress enough there needs to be a significant event to change the ideology before the money starts to flow. It is not a question of whether Canada can afford new stuff (becaus we certainly can afford it, painlessly IMO)-  its whether they want it at all. In my view, Canadians don't want new military equipment, they don't see any need for it and would rather money be spent on other things, or not at all. 

Frankly, I don't think most Canadians would even care if another country came and took large chunks of our lands- as long as it does not affect them directly or in a way that the governement can't compensate them.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

If you ask me, given the current tempo of our deployments overseas by the Navy, we can use at least 20 major warships (Halifax/Tribal replacements).

I can agree there.

Maintain a standing task force in both Atlantic and Pacific Oceans: 1 DD type warship, plus 3 FFG's, and an AOR on standby each ocean (8 major warships, 2 AOR's)

So far I am with you.

Deployments with American carrier groups: 1 DD/FFG each (2 warships)

Seeing how we use destroyers as flagships don't you think that would be a waste of command platform considering the USN likes the general purpose nature of the Halifax Class.

Deployments and commitments to NATO and UN: 1 DD/FFG each (2 warships)

We only deploy destroyers if we are going to assume a command role.

Maritime patrol work: 4 frigates

Acceptable...I am assuming these would supplement your standing task group.

Maintenance/Crew familiarization/training: 4 warships (2 DD type, 2 FFG type

I would put the number a little higher. Where are your ships that are back from deployment? Don't you think those ship's companies need some downtime. I know I do when I come back from a long deployment.

Your AORs numbers should be at least 4 because you will have at least 1 being down for refit every time.

Your numbers will be further decreased once again if the LPD(BHS) comes online as you will most likely see a destroyer and at least 2-3 frigates and an AOR deployed.