Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Dale Denton]

Probably should discuss in another thread but i'll bite.

To start, something to move our military in? Everything the army has is useless if we can't move it to where the fight is.

1. Extend the Protecteur Class by at least 3 more AORs
2. At least one Amphibious ship/ LPD/ LHD. A Mistral ideally, Karel Doorman, San Antonio-Class LPD Flight II, anything.
3. At least 6 SNNs and a submarine rescue capability
4. Become a partner in a 5Es XLUUV project
5. Naval UAS
6. Heavier-armed and armoured riverine vessels for the reserves to train with on the Great Lakes, use them on the amphib ships

This is of course pushing aside our:

• history,
• procurement cycles,
• procurement complexity,
• recruitment and retainment strategy,
• lack of public interest,
• lack of cabinet interest,
• lack of foreign policy to utilize the CF beyond smaller deployments

 

[NavyShooter]

It's a question of what the Navy needs to do...

If we're going to keep sending ships into harm's way, we need fully capable warships able to defend themselves, and that can integrate into multi-national fleets.

If the direction is to shift to a mere constabulary role, then our needs change from an independent expeditionary capability to much more...sedate...and less expensive capabilities.

From the public's point of view, we need grey ships, with guns, maybe self-defense missiles, some Radars, maybe a spot to land a helicopter too. They don't understand the difference between an AOPS and a CPF.

Both are painted the same colour.
Both have a gun up front.
Both have spinny Radars on top.
Both have a flight deck.
Both have a Canadian Flag on them.

OOOHHHH....the new one can carry disaster supplies? It can go up north? It can do anti drug patrols? Cool!

....then....why do we need those other expensive ones...? Yeah, the ones with the missiles...? Oh, so we can work with the US? Um...ok, at least it's not the orange guy anymore, but, like, is that the only reason we need them? Missiles are scary...do we need those for peace-keeping?

Hey, how about we just get some more of those patrol ships instead that carry disaster supplies? Then we can HELP people!

Yeah...no more missiles please.

That's about what the general public think of the Navy. All of our missions are truly out of sight, and out of mind until we have Admirals getting in trouble.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Because we don't do anything to really change that perception. When i look at the excellent BBC series on building the QE and other ships, I get envious. We have an opportunity to do the same with the AOR's and CSC, even the later AOP's.

 

[RedFive]

Because we don't do anything to really change that perception. When i look at the excellent BBC series on building the QE and other ships, I get envious. We have an opportunity to do the same with the AOR's and CSC, even the later AOP's.

The Royal Navy has done an excellent job creating compelling TV following the RN, I've seen series on YouTube following HMS Dragon, the Perisher submarine commander's course, and at least one of their SSN's that has me wishing at times, in hindsight, I had gone to sea instead of what I actually did with my formative years.

The RCN could easily do the same, and if they spend enough time on the Naval Boarding Party and whatever they're calling the enhanced boarding party (Tactical Operations Group?) these days, attract young men such as myself away from the Army or Army Reserve and into the Navy, in addition to the usual people the Navy appeals to.

 

[Underway]

It's a question of what the Navy needs to do...

If we're going to keep sending ships into harm's way, we need fully capable warships able to defend themselves, and that can integrate into multi-national fleets.

If the direction is to shift to a mere constabulary role, then our needs change from an independent expeditionary capability to much more...sedate...and less expensive capabilities.

From the public's point of view, we need grey ships, with guns, maybe self-defense missiles, some Radars, maybe a spot to land a helicopter too. They don't understand the difference between an AOPS and a CPF.

Both are painted the same colour.
Both have a gun up front.
Both have spinny Radars on top.
Both have a flight deck.
Both have a Canadian Flag on them.

OOOHHHH....the new one can carry disaster supplies? It can go up north? It can do anti drug patrols? Cool!

....then....why do we need those other expensive ones...? Yeah, the ones with the missiles...? Oh, so we can work with the US? Um...ok, at least it's not the orange guy anymore, but, like, is that the only reason we need them? Missiles are scary...do we need those for peace-keeping?

Hey, how about we just get some more of those patrol ships instead that carry disaster supplies? Then we can HELP people!

Yeah...no more missiles please.

That's about what the general public think of the Navy. All of our missions are truly out of sight, and out of mind until we have Admirals getting in trouble.

This is the generally accepted idea of what the public think about the Navy outside of the few navy facing communities.

But to be devils advocate I don't think the public thinks this way about the Navy at all.

I believe that they DON'T think about the navy. I've lived and worked away from the coasts for much of my military career, originally as a reservist and then later with the recruiting group, worked with the army, and now in Ottawa doing Ottawa stuff.

When I have a conversation about the RCN people ask lots of questions. Most often they've never met someone in the navy. They have no idea how many ships, what the ships do, missions we go on, or what our job is like. They short circuit to what they do understand US media on the military much of the time. They are not even educated enough to make uninformed equation that fewer missiles = more humanitarian. They just don't know anything.

The Canadian Joe/Jane Public is pretty ok with a good explanation of what a navy needs when you talk to them about it. They might have other priorities, which is fine, but they aren't necessarily peaceniks.

 

[suffolkowner]

Probably should discuss in another thread but i'll bite.

To start, something to move our military in? Everything the army has is useless if we can't move it to where the fight is.

1. Extend the Protecteur Class by at least 3 more AORs
2. At least one Amphibious ship/ LPD/ LHD. A Mistral ideally, Karel Doorman, San Antonio-Class LPD Flight II, anything.
3. At least 6 SNNs and a submarine rescue capability
4. Become a partner in a 5Es XLUUV project
5. Naval UAS
6. Heavier-armed and armoured riverine vessels for the reserves to train with on the Great Lakes, use them on the amphib ships

I have slightly smaller dreams

1. The addition of HMCS Provider to the Protecteur Class AOR
2. While I always liked the Bay Class LPD Enforcer (ship design) - Wikipedia and there is its proposed replacement In focus: the BMT ELLIDA multi-role and logistics vessel concept | Navy Lookout but I wouldn't mind seeing something like the Point-class sealift ship - Wikipedia run through Home - Desgagnés Transarctik Inc..
3. 6 SKK
4. yes to XLUUV to augment the manned submarine fleet and minehunting as well
5. yes to continuing with RPA/UAS/UCAV
6. CB90 or Jehu-class landing craft - Wikipedia
7. 6-8 ARA Bouchard (P-51) - Wikipedia type to replace the Kingston's and augment the AOPS

 

[Colin Parkinson]

HMS Glasgow under construction - walk through​

 

[Weinie]

HMS Glasgow under construction - walk through​

Curious, how will they put the boat in the water? Cranes?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

It's a side extending gantry style crane sort of of what they have on the AOP's

 

[Underway]

You know the first thing changed on the ship is someone is going to put a Canadaarm label on that thing when we get it.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Unless of course we "Canadianize" the design by replacing that with luffing Davits made in some important riding

 

[Underway]

Unless of course we "Canadianize" the design by replacing that with luffing Davits made in some important riding

Interestingly enough the flexdeck crane you see there is being built by Rolls Royce Canada (somewhere in Ontario) for both the UK and Canadian T26 variants. I'm unsure if the Australians are doing the same but its likely. Its a pretty unique crane system.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

That "cage" on the lower portion that grabs the boat looks worrisome, trying to recover in any sea.

 

[Underway]

The arm does look pretty chonky for that boat recovery job. It's an artist interpretation, so it will be interesting to see what the actual final product looks like when they get there.

I've seen similar recovery systems before. I'm sure you have as well. A crane cable is initially hooked on the boat, that cable is reeled in until the "cage is around the boat. You can do it at the waterline or more often it seats the boat halfway up the side of the ship to steady it for ease of placing the boat into its stow position/chock.

So it's not really a grabber for the boat, it just seats the boat, a cable does the work. Unless of course this is an entirely different design and we are going to win prizes at the arcade by picking up boats crew instead. I'm not sure I want a boat Cox'n for a prize but if its free to play...

 

[Underway]

HMS Glasgow acceptance date

Updated info on the acceptance date of HMS Glasgow, 2027 is the target date. Which means 10 years to FOC from first steel cut.

 

[Czech_pivo]

HMS Glasgow acceptance date

Updated info on the acceptance date of HMS Glasgow, 2027 is the target date. Which means 10 years to FOC from first steel cut.

So based on that new information, will our realistic timeframe be 14yrs since ours is more complex and being built by a less experienced yard, thus adding approx. 40% to the timeline?

 

[Underway]

Haha, way to bring it back. Maybe? We won't have COVID to tangle with, which caused some delays with Glasgow. Their original schedule was around 8 years IIRC.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Haha, way to bring it back. Maybe? We won't have COVID to tangle with, which caused some delays with Glasgow. Their original schedule was around 8 years IIRC.

I was just pulling your chain.
I know that we both want these ships built as soon as possible so that our capabilities don’t suffer.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The arm does look pretty chonky for that boat recovery job. It's an artist interpretation, so it will be interesting to see what the actual final product looks like when they get there.

I've seen similar recovery systems before. I'm sure you have as well. A crane cable is initially hooked on the boat, that cable is reeled in until the "cage is around the boat. You can do it at the waterline or more often it seats the boat halfway up the side of the ship to steady it for ease of placing the boat into its stow position/chock.

So it's not really a grabber for the boat, it just seats the boat, a cable does the work. Unless of course this is an entirely different design and we are going to win prizes at the arcade by picking up boats crew instead. I'm not sure I want a boat Cox'n for a prize but if its free to play...

Working on the R-Class cutter, the hiab arm almost went through the hull of our Avon Searider, when a wave rolled the cutter and lifted the RHIB up at the same time, after that we only recovered in sheltered waters. Also the reason why I am such a fan of stern launch and recovery, way safer. To be fair the Type 26 is much bigger than a 95' Cutter, but launching and recovering boats in a seaway is always a high risk gamble.

 

[KevinB]

Working on the R-Class cutter, the hiab arm almost went through the hull of our Avon Searider, when a wave rolled the cutter and lifted the RHIB up at the same time, after that we only recovered in sheltered waters. Also the reason why I am such a fan of stern launch and recovery, way safer. To be fair the Type 26 is much bigger than a 95' Cutter, but launching and recovering boats in a seaway is always a high risk gamble.

Agree in Stern L&R -- the "grabber arm" looks cool - but has "smashy smashy" written all over it.
I've also been curious if a "soft ramp" could be used over the side for recovery - it would take a tad more space than the Grabber, but only needs around 75% of the boat length - and would still work in the current berth space

- The rigid parts of the cage would only need to be the top 1/2 - and have enough bumper cushions that not significant damage to anything or anyone would occur if it did bump
Dangle a floater guide rope from the front center of the cage - and then when clipped to the bow winch the RHIB (or other small craft) into the ramp dock - the crew then clips to the side cleats - then the entire platform is raised - and the bottom supports lift the craft out.