Loss of the 280s

[painswessex]

Read this article on the 280 replacement project 
http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-navcadre.htm
cheers

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

That article has not really been applicable for well over a year. The navy got some good ideas from the CADRE program and are incorporating what they learned from it into the common surface combatant project.

 

[DJL]

Sorry for bringing this topic up again  :-\

Just wondering, would it be feasible (if money was there and the Americans were willing) to hammer out some sort of lease with the Americans for three (of the five) non-VLS equipped Ticos (which they are starting to decomission)? Then put them through the USN's Cruiser Conversion program and add VLS to them?

I see the potentail advantages to this idea of allowing us to retire the 280s once this conversion took place (near the end of this decade perhaps for three Ticos) and affording us the insurance that there won't be a "air defence gap" (not to mention a loss of hull numbers) between the potential retirement of the 280s and the interduction of the new surface combantent.

Also this would allow us an introduction to AEGIS (I'd assume an upgraded version as opposed to the current version within the first flight Ticos), cruise missiles (if strike length mk 41 could be installed in the upgraded Ticos) and a (limited) refresher in naval gunfire support with the Ticos 5 inchers.

The negatives that I can see (aside from money and political will), is the increase in operating costs, larger crews and the fact that these ships are only about a decade younger than the 280s.......


Thoughts?

 

[FSTO]

Sorry for bringing this topic up again  :-\

Just wondering, would it be feasible (if money was there and the Americans were willing) to hammer out some sort of lease with the Americans for three (of the five) non-VLS equipped Ticos (which they are starting to decomission)? Then put them through the USN's Cruiser Conversion program and add VLS to them?

I see the potentail advantages to this idea of allowing us to retire the 280s once this conversion took place (near the end of this decade perhaps for three Ticos) and affording us the insurance that there won't be a "air defence gap" (not to mention a loss of hull numbers) between the potential retirement of the 280s and the interduction of the new surface combantent.

Also this would allow us an introduction to AEGIS (I'd assume an upgraded version as opposed to the current version within the first flight Ticos), cruise missiles (if strike length mk 41 could be installed in the upgraded Ticos) and a (limited) refresher in naval gunfire support with the Ticos 5 inchers.

The negatives that I can see (aside from money and political will), is the increase in operating costs, larger crews and the fact that these ships are only about a decade younger than the 280s.......


Thoughts?

In a word, NO!

1. They are decommissioning Spruance Class destroyers not the Ticos
2. All the Ticos have VLS and Aegis
3. canada would be much better off to buy 4 Arleigh Burkes right out of the yards (if we got a share of the 5,000 extra pers that Martin has promised). If the Burkes are too big then there are several smaller types that could suit our needs

 

[DJL]

1. They are decommissioning Spruance Class destroyers not the Ticos

They are decommissioning the Spruances, but they are also decommissioning the first five Ticos......Two, possably three have already been decommissioned, Ticonderoga and Yorktown I know for sure and I believe Vally Forge has been or is about to be deactivated. IIRC Vincennes and Thomas S. Gates are suppose to go sometime next year.

2. All the Ticos have VLS and Aegis

Yes, they all have AEGIS (granted different versions) but the first five (the ones being decommissioned) where equipped with the mk 26 launchers.

3. canada would be much better off to buy 4 Arleigh Burkes right out of the yards (if we got a share of the 5,000 extra pers that Martin has promised). If the Burkes are too big then there are several smaller types that could suit our needs

I agree (about the Burkes that is), but I highly doubt without a change in government we will see any chance off that. Thats why I purposed upgraded flight one Ticos as an interim solution until the "common surface warfare combatant" emerges.

Perhaps an upgrade in software that would give the Flight one Ticos (like whats going on the VLS Ticos) a TBMD capability could be added and with that we would have a potentail platform that could be intergrated into NMD (when needed). A savvy politician could hinge our involvement in NMD on a favorable lease and upgrade of these three Ticos......... 

 

[DJL]

And to prevent any confusion:

Thomas Gates:

http://www.gates.navy.mil/images/photos/rr/DSC_0986 copy.jpg

Note the MK 26 just aft of the 5 inch and the second launcher aft of the flight deck.

The status of the:

Ticonderoga

http://navysite.de/cg/cg47.html

USS TICONDEROGA is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2004.

Yorktown

http://navysite.de/cg/cg48.html

The cruiser was last homeported in Pascagoula, Miss., and is now berthed at the Naval Inactive Ships Maintenance Facility, Philadelphia, Penn.

Valley Forge

http://navysite.de/cg/cg50.html

USS VALLEY FORGE was last homeported in San Diego, Calif. The ship is currently held in reserve at Pearl Harbor, Hi.

 

[FSTO]

Yes, they all have AEGIS (granted different versions) but the first five (the ones being decommissioned) where equipped with the mk 26 launchers.

3. canada would be much better off to buy 4 Arleigh Burkes right out of the yards (if we got a share of the 5,000 extra pers that Martin has promised). If the Burkes are too big then there are several smaller types that could suit our needs

I agree (about the Burkes that is), but I highly doubt without a change in government we will see any chance off that. Thats why I purposed upgraded flight one Ticos as an interim solution until the "common surface warfare combatant" emerges.

Perhaps an upgrade in software that would give the Flight one Ticos (like whats going on the VLS Ticos) a TBMD capability could be added and with that we would have a potentail platform that could be intergrated into NMD (when needed). A savvy politician could hinge our involvement in NMD on a favorable lease and upgrade of these three Ticos......... 

good points.
Do you recall when the US were trying to offload the Kidd class (Spruances that were built for the Iranians?) They would have been a great addition to our fleet while we were waiting for the CPFs.
As for upgrading the Ticonderogas, after the Upholder buy, I don't think that any government will buy used equipment ever again. (no matter how good or proven the equipment is)

 

[Infanteer]

As for upgrading the Ticonderogas, after the Upholder buy, I don't think that any government will buy used equipment ever again. (no matter how good or proven the equipment is)

Real good point here.  Considering that politics is the motive force behind Defence acquisition (unfortunately), I doubt we'll be going to the flee market anytime soon.

 

[DJL]

Do you recall when the US were trying to offload the Kidd class (Spruances that were built for the Iranians?) They would have been a great addition to our fleet while we were waiting for the CPFs.
As for upgrading the Ticonderogas, after the Upholder buy, I don't think that any government will buy used equipment ever again. (no matter how good or proven the equipment is)

Real good point here.  Considering that politics is the motive force behind Defence acquisition (unfortunately), I doubt we'll be going to the flee market anytime soon.

That is a good point, but I don't know that it would really mater. First off, what would be more embarrassing to the government, operating the 280s past 2015, in which time frame they will be nearing their 50th birthdays or operating more modern (and capable) cruisers that will be in their early 30s?

Second, unlike the upgrades for the four Upholders, the USN's cruiser conversion program (if we included three extra hulls) would be an upgrade for well over two dozen ships. Not too mention, unlike the Upholders, spare parts for the Ticos are much cheaper to acquire because of the sheer numbers of the design (and the possibility of cannibalizing Sprunace destroyers). And I hate to be judgmental, but I can't help but to have more faith in a American venture than a Canadian one.... :-\

In the end though, my idea is brought on by the same reason that brought on the Upholders (as opposed to a new design) and why we will still be operating the Sea Things until near the end of the decade.....

 

[GaiusMarius]

Beaurachracy is a wonderfull tool for flushing out the <*&^> ,


Gaius Marius

 

[DeckMonkey]

As long as politics is the driving force behind new acquisitions, we not only would not buy from non-Canadian shipyards, but certainly not from the US (however close we are with the US on a military level)
  I personally would love an Arleigh Burke destoyer or two to play in (esp. as a NES Op) but I'm not holding my breath. I'd say we have a better chance holding Bake Sales and Raffles for the next decade to pay for it. We need new AAD capable flagships, but it'll be homegrown when it comes, and I'll be a P2 by then!

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I personally would love an Arleigh Burke destoyer or two to play in (esp. as a NES Op) but I'm not holding my breath.

With only two (one for each coast) they would be constantly on the go and you would end up haing morale issues. The current plan for the first 4 ships of the proposed Common Surface Combatant that has been touted at several briefs to be command and area defence ships seems to be more practical.

 

[Marty]

1) Loss of the Iroquois class destroyers will mean we would never command a Task Force again such as TF151 in the Persian gulf. CPFs can do the job but they are no where near as capable as the destroyers.

I was just wondering , as far as command goes , what are the main differences between the two ships?

 

[Kirkhill]

With only two (one for each coast) they would be constantly on the go and you would end up haing morale issues. The current plan for the first 4 ships of the proposed Common Surface Combatant that has been touted at several briefs to be command and area defence ships seems to be more practical.

Ex Dragoon, I won't take issue with the need for more than 2 Air Defence Assets.  I agree with you.

However your comment about being on the go all the time being bad for morale and relating that to the number of vessels interests me.  In another thread I proposed that the Army consider "over-manning" some of its high-value assets (Like LAVs/MGSs/EWLAVs etc).  I have been aware for a long while that, in contrast to traditional navy practice where the Ship and her Crew belong to the Captain - one ship, one crew - the RN and I believe the USN employ 2 or 3 crews for their Ballistic Missile subs and maybe for their attack subs as well.  I don't know about that for sure.  But anyway, what would happen to readiness and morale if the Navy were to invest more in personnel and relatively less in platforms.  For example how would you make out with 18 crews for 9 CPFs or maybe even 12 crews for 9 CPFs.  As opposed to 12 CPFs with 12 crews.  I prefer the 2:1 watch system myself because it still results in "pride of ownership" resulting from the same bunch of sailors being responsible for the same kit.

Just a question.

 

[aesop081]

Ex Dragoon, I won't take issue with the need for more than 2 Air Defence Assets.   I agree with you.

However your comment about being on the go all the time being bad for morale and relating that to the number of vessels interests me.   In another thread I proposed that the Army consider "over-manning" some of its high-value assets (Like LAVs/MGSs/EWLAVs etc).   I have been aware for a long while that, in contrast to traditional navy practice where the Ship and her Crew belong to the Captain - one ship, one crew - the RN and I believe the USN employ 2 or 3 crews for their Ballistic Missile subs and maybe for their attack subs as well.   I don't know about that for sure.   But anyway, what would happen to readiness and morale if the Navy were to invest more in personnel and relatively less in platforms.   For example how would you make out with 18 crews for 9 CPFs or maybe even 12 crews for 9 CPFs.   As opposed to 12 CPFs with 12 crews.   I prefer the 2:1 watch system myself because it still results in "pride of ownership" resulting from the same bunch of sailors being responsible for the same kit.

Just a question.

The USN does indeed use 2 crews ( at least in the SSBN comunity), they are refered to as "GOLD" and "BLUE" crews, that take turn manning the boats, this is not true however of their surface fleet from what i understand.  We could use the same system for our surface ships if we could recruit sufficient personel.  I do not think though that we should do this at the expense of reducing the fleet.  When you factor in refits and training...we need no less that what we have now.

 

[Kirkhill]

Fair enough Aesop.  Thanks.

 

[FSTO]

The USN does indeed use 2 crews ( at least in the SSBN comunity), they are refered to as "GOLD" and "BLUE" crews, that take turn manning the boats, this is not true however of their surface fleet from what i understand.   We could use the same system for our surface ships if we could recruit sufficient personel.   I do not think though that we should do this at the expense of reducing the fleet.   When you factor in refits and training...we need no less that what we have now.

The USN has also done some study at conducting "hot" turnovers with some of their surface ships. Basically the USS WIDGET would deploy to a theatre of operations for the standard 6 month tour. At month 5 the crew of USS DIDGET would fly to the AOP and do a hot turnover with the crew of USS WIDGET and assume control of her. The crew of USS WIDGET goes home and takes over USS DIDGET. At the end of the deployment USS WIDGET comes home and the two crews switch. The advantage is that the ship stays in theatre for 1 year and they have 1 ship doing 2 transits in one year vice 2 ships doing 4 transits in 1 year. We tried that in a limited sense when the crew of PROTECTEUR did a hot crew change with PRESERVER. Maybe we can try that again

 

[Cloud Cover]

We tried that in a limited sense when the crew of PROTECTEUR did a hot crew change with PRESERVER. Maybe we can try that again

I understood that little exercise was a bit of a flop when all was said and done, but the crews worked together and dealt with it like they always do. I'm sure the lessons learned could make a better go of it next time around. Problem [made worse with the delayed start to FELEX], is how long can an aging ship deploy without putting in for repairs and P.M. cycles?  Perhaps one option [read: dream] would be to establish an agreement with a foreign power for a tri-service base overseas in order to cut down on transit and deployment time.

A leased base some where in Asia might be an option, 3 FFG's, 1 DDH and a JSS + air assets + RDF army formation of some sort. Duration of posting to be 3 years ... move the families and everything.  Ships in need of refit are replaced on a 1 for 1 by the "Home Fleet". 

 

[Kirkhill]

Doesn't sound bad to me whiskey.

Singapore? Sydney? Trincomalee or Colombo? Madras or Chittagong?

But get rid of that JSS thing.  Buy yourselves a nice AOR or two and let the Government buy a couple of Enforcer LSD(A)s and maybe 2 or 3 of the MRVs the Kiwis have just bought for 86 MCAD each.  As noted they carry a combat team and/or a staff and are ice-strengthened.  You could probably use the same machinery, bridge, navigation and comms gear on both the LSD(A)s and the AORs.

Couple that with half-a-dozen C-17s and we're away to the races. Or maybe even the BC-17X.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/patino/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/bay_class/
http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/rotterdam/
http://www.defence.govt.nz/Industry/project-protector-image.shtml
http://www.defence.govt.nz/Industry/project-protector.shtml

Can't find the rest of the MRV references now but IIRC the crew was 59, there was a mixed det of Aircrew, Police and Civil Servants as well as a security force totalling about another 40 and room for a Combat Team of 285 with LAVs and Stores for a transit.  Not included for patrol.


http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PA0408/S00134.htm

 

[Edward Campbell]

The latest rumour around here (Ottawa) is that new large ships will be built, sooner rather than later, at Industries Davie (formerly MIL) in Levis ... the priority is: jobs, Jobs, JOBS! in Levis which, it is hoped, will translate into Liberal seats in the House of Commons.   Since Davie wants to expand and build big ships then big ships it is.

Davie also wants to build up to six new major combatants â “ to replace the 280s and, maybe, lead in to the replacement of the frigates in 2020 and beyond.   (And no, neither I nor any of my old chums in the Navy have any idea about where we find the sailors ... don't even ask ... the aim is to elect Liberals, not build a Navy.)

Industries Davie will not have the capacity to build new big ships and refit all the Halifax class frigates within a reasonable time frame (say four to (even) six years) ... some, maybe even all the work will have to go to Halifax Shipyard (owned by the Irvings and builders of the Kingston class minesweepers).

Kingston class mid-life refits (after 2010) including, perhaps, lengthening can also be done in Halifax.

A much discussed new corvette (rumour only, maybe no better than faint hope)   could be built on the West coast if there is some hope that such a programme will elect a Liberal or two.

The interesting thing is that Saint John Shipbuilding, which built frigates and could build large ships (up to Panamax size) is nowhere on anyone's list ... the Irvings signed a formal undertaking with the federal government, agreeing â Å“not to construct, refit or renovate ships of any kind for a minimum of 20 years at the Saint John site.â ? The aim of this agreement was to clear out the biggest roadblock to Davie's future success ... Industries Davie could not and did not build either as well or as cheaply as Saint John and there was no reason to expect that they would improve their productivity.   Since they could not compete on cost and performance they decided to cash in their political cards: all five aces.

Edited to correct () in first para