Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[jollyjacktar]

I still remember blundering into the C&PO's and coming across a photograph of Her Honour, Mary Robinson, posted much as we would have HM.  I asked who she was only to exclaim we could only be so lucky to have a PM as good looking as her.  They, were not the least bit offended.

 

[NavyShooter]

So,

The question is, what will we actually get?

The answer is, something that complies with the competitive bid process.

As much as I'd be delighted to see a mix of ships, and having seen the little corvettes that the Irish run, they're damn cute, but they don't fit into the NSPS, do they?

We'll get 15 (12?) large ships, somewhat similar to a Halifax Class, with probably similar capabilities.  We'll get 2(or 3 with the Resolve) Supply ships.  We'll get a 5(-7?) AOPS. 

We'll also see some Coast Guard ships.

To expect the makeup of the fleet to change at this point would be a surprise.

Would a dozen little corvettes make a great addition to the fleet, absolutely.  Are they in the cards/budget/plan right now?  Nope.

Nothing wrong with dreaming though!

NS

 

[dapaterson]

The fundamental problem is that the NSPS is an economic development strategy, not a naval strategy.

 

[Stoker]

The fundamental problem is that the NSPS is an economic development strategy, not a naval strategy.

You nailed it. In a perfect world the funds would be made available to the RCN, we design what we need and get it built as cheaply and efficiently as possible either domestic or offshore. Sadly that's not the case.

 

[Kirkhill]

You nailed it. In a perfect world the funds would be made available to the RCN, we design what we need and get it built as cheaply and efficiently as possible either domestic or offshore. Sadly that's not the case.

And I think it is safe to say that there is not a navy in the world for whom that is the case.

Everybody gets what they get and then makes it work.

With respect to the lack of a Corvette programme in the NSPS - that is a reason why I continue to believe the Multi-Tiered Single Class concept is still likely to be the best bet for preserving capacity within the budget.

The Danes, of course, have two tiers in their single class (Command and Support is one,  AAW is the other).  The Brits are moving their Type 26 back to the three tier model (C1, C2 and C3 - although C3 may end up being a new Corvette type design).

I don't think you are going to be able to get 4 Tier 1 AAWs and and 12 Tier 2 CPFs all manned with 200 plus regular sailors and all equipped with brand new weapons.  Not with Canadian pricing practices.

I do think that you could build 16 hulls, carve them up into three tiers with different levels of weaponry, cargo and passengers, and man them with reduced crews that could be beefed up with third watches, specialists (like weapons and boarding parties or even soldiers) for extended deployments.  And I am pretty sure that you could motivate sea-going soldiers to learn how to keep their ship afloat if it were damaged.

 

[Journeyman]

The fundamental problem is that the NSPS is an economic development strategy, not a naval strategy.

Much like the Canada First Defence Strategy  was nothing more than a Christmas wish list, rather than even a feeble attempt at "strategy."  It was justifiably shelved before the ink was dry.

In a perfect world the funds would be made available to the RCN, we design what we need and get it built....

What are the odds that the process would devolve to leadership preferences zig-zagging through posting cycles?  In the fighter-dominated RCAF, ask a Sea King person how enthused they are to see the world revolving around CF-18 replacement.

 

[dapaterson]

Much like the Canada First Defence Strategy  was nothing more than a Christmas wish list, rather than even a feeble attempt at "strategy."  It was justifiably shelved before the ink was dry.

Don't worry.  Under the new government, the wish list will not be tied to any specific religious holiday, but will be equally ignored when fiscal reality hits.

What are the odds that the process would devolve to leadership preferences zig-zagging through posting cycles?  In the fighter-dominated RCAF, ask a Sea King person how enthused they are to see the world revolving around CF-18 replacement.

The challenge of building a consensus and a shared vision that survives the posting cycle is, in theory, what Leadership is all about.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Of course, were the powers that be decide to go back to the drawing boards once more for a better bang for the buck solution (Corvette, MTSC, vicious Sea Bass with lasers on their heads...) the amount of treasure that has been expended so far would have been wasted and having seen how slowly the mills of the gods in Ottawa grind plus appeasing PWGSC (the real enemy), I am sure the second coming will come first.  I know now why men(and women) go mad here.

Yes, it could happen.  It has before, EH101 anyone?  Will it?  Goodness knows.

 

[STONEY]

I think i would rather have 6 new subs in the works than 24 new corvettes . More bank for the buck. Remember there are subs and everything else is a target.

Toodles 

 

[Stoker]

I think i would rather have 6 new subs in the works than 24 new corvettes . More bank for the buck. Remember there are subs and everything else is a target.

Toodles

Honestly the utility for subs are great for a country, but they are a notorious black hole for money which the RCN just doesn't have. Just look at what was spent on the Victoria Class so far and apply it to the surface fleet, we would be well off. I would pick a corvette or patrol ship built overseas over the capability of a sub any day in peacetime.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Honestly the utility for subs are great for a country, but they are a notorious black hole for money which the RCN just doesn't have. Just look at what was spent on the Victoria Class so far and apply it to the surface fleet, we would be well off. I would pick a corvette or patrol ship built overseas over the capability of a sub any day in peacetime.

So, do we exist for peace or war?

Subs are actually incredibly efficient war fighting devices. They soak up a terrible amount of resources just defending against them.

But, as you astutely note, does the CF exist for peace or war?

 

[jollyjacktar]

As the Romans succinctly put it, "those who desire peace, prepare for war".  Bearing that in mind, the CAF exist for and how the GoC wants us to be, it's not really up to us, is it?

Subs are great, but until I went to FMF I did not have a real idea of how much of a money pit they can be.  I honestly can't say if their cost out weigh their utility or if the reverse is true.  That is above my comprehension, pay grade and need to know.

 

[Kirkhill]

So, do we exist for peace or war?

....

Yes?

You exist for peace AND war.

Some of you operate peacefully in an environment that may turn war-like at any moment..... but hasn't for the number of days/months/years/decades.  Some of you operate in peaceful environments with no risk.  Some of you are despatched to areas of high risk or to active theatres.

While it seems reasonable to have all platforms equipped for all risks in all environments the net effect is 1x Zumwalt (or 1x Rainbow and 1x Niobe) is available to patrol coasts and act overseas 24/7.

The alternative is a larger number of platforms with fewer capabilities and higher risk.  But Risk Management is all about everything - whether it is safe for the Coast Guard to operate, or the RCMP in higher risk areas or the CAF in the highest risk environment.

 

[Stoker]

So, do we exist for peace or war?

Subs are actually incredibly efficient war fighting devices. They soak up a terrible amount of resources just defending against them.

But, as you astutely note, does the CF exist for peace or war?

I agree their great for a country that has a decent defence budget. Honestly you have no idea the money spent with the sub certification program. The money saved would pay for top of the line shiny helo's for you that's for sure and money left over for the RCN. In the big scheme of things we would be better off without them, my opinion as a skimmer of course.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I agree their great for a country that has a decent defence budget. Honestly you have no idea the money spent with the sub certification program. The money saved would pay for top of the line shiny helo's for you that's for sure and money left over for the RCN. In the big scheme of things we would be better off without them, my opinion as a skimmer of course.

But in the skimmer world, we have another way of ridding ourselves of submarines  ;D

 

[Stoker]

But in the skimmer world, we have another way of ridding ourselves of submarines  ;D

That's right dust off Sackville and buy some depth charges.

 

[suffolkowner]

With respect to submarines do people think that a new platform would be cheaper to run for example the U216/U218?

 

[suffolkowner]

a piece on the costs of the submarine service

http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol10num3/vol10num3art8.pdf

 

[tabernac]

Emphasis added.

Subs are great, but until I went to FMF I did not have a real idea of how much of a money pit they can be.  I honestly can't say if their cost outweigh their utility or if the reverse is true.  That is above my comprehension, pay grade and need to know.

Subs are actually incredibly efficient war fighting devices. They soak up a terrible amount of resources just defending against them.

I think SKT addressed JJT's cost/benefit concerns soundly.
Within the task group construct, in a multi threat warfare scenario, multiple ships get dispatched to hunt one sub. That single sub-surface asset has just taken multiple surface ships away from the high value unit, leaving the burden of maintaining the screen on fewer ships, thereby leaving the HVU more vulnerable. Happy day for the sub, who will just go deep - not a happy day for the "priceless" HVU, or the screening ship's whose mission is to protect her.

I think i would rather have 6 new subs in the works than 24 new corvettes . More bank for the buck. Remember where there are subs - everything else is a target.

Absolutely subs have more bank for their buck. And it seems so few people, even those within the naval community, understand this concept.

Honestly the utility for subs are great for a country, but they are a notorious black hole for money which the RCN just doesn't have. Just look at what was spent on the Victoria Class so far and apply it to the surface fleet, we would be well off. I would pick a corvette or patrol ship built overseas over the capability of a sub any day in peacetime.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul makes for a poor defence policy. Certainly when you're talking about completely removing our ability to fight or operate underwater, in exchange for a token presence on the surface. I'll keep my sub-surface golden-egg-laying-goose, thanks.

In peacetime we pay large sums to maintain this capability. In wartime, we reap the dividends. Even in peacetime we can reap the dividends - our subs have deployed on Op Caribbe, and have contributed to stopping illegal narcotics.

We don't plan for peace, we plan for war. That's at the very core of what we (CAF) do. We would just prefer it that it all remains peaceful.

/sub-tangent

 

[GK .Dundas]

But in the skimmer world, we have another way of ridding ourselves of submarines  ;D

OK that takes care of our submarines .But how do we deal with an opponent's subs.For some odd  reason I doubt they 'll let us screw  with their budgets .But then again I have been wrong before. :