New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

Colin:

Please don't tell me you are trying to excuse the Canada shipyards on the grounds that their labour costs are higher than the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, France and Italy and that their regulatory burden is also higher.

That will have to be demonstrated to me by evidence I have not yet seen.

And PS - WRT the refinery situation, wouldn't it have been nice if additional pipelines to tide water had been approved?  Then you could build more refineries.

 

[jmt18325]

Unfortunately there is no genius to this plan. The Kingstons had a $100 million refit cancelled because the AOPS are replacing them. If you look at the defense review that just released, the RCN is only getting 15 AAW/ASW frigates, 2 JSS, 5-6 AOPS, and "modernized" Victoria subs. For the foreseeable future, that's it.

As far as I understand, though the original plan was to retire the Kingston for the AOPS, they will now continue to operate along side them for the foreseeable future.  Though the midlife upgrade was cancelled, they have been receiving other, less expensive upgrades to allow them to continue in their role.  The Liberal plan only goes out to 2037, and the CSC planned build out goes out to 2041.
The Seaspan side will have no problem with a continuous build with all of the CCG ships that will need replacing over the next 3 decades.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Colin:

Please don't tell me you are trying to excuse the Canada shipyards on the grounds that their labour costs are higher than the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, France and Italy and that their regulatory burden is also higher.

That will have to be demonstrated to me by evidence I have not yet seen.

And PS - WRT the refinery situation, wouldn't it have been nice if additional pipelines to tide water had been approved?  Then you could build more refineries.

Technically there is already a pipeline to tidewater, the plan is to make it bigger As for labour costs, I said they will "struggle", while it's less of an issue with some European yards, I believe the Polish yards can undercut us a fair bit on that issue. No way we can compete with Chinese or Turkish yards where labour is cheaper and regulations and environmental standard can be less or nil. My argument is that the biggest factor that influences cost that can be changed is management. Effective management is why I think 2 out 3 yards are doing well.

 

[Kirkhill]

Let me know when you want a refill and I'll see what I can do.  >

In European terms the Scandinavians tended to use the Poles to produce their bare hulls while the Dutch seem to favour the Romanians now, the Spaniards pricing themselves out of that market.  The western yards seem to be focused on the outfitting and hotel work.

In effect the stuff that Davie is doing for their Project Resolve.

 

[Underway]

Some economic analysis of the CSC on foreign vs domestic build.
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/06/06/csc-cost-versus-benefits-to-canadians/

 

[Navy_Pete]

Some economic analysis of the CSC on foreign vs domestic build.
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/06/06/csc-cost-versus-benefits-to-canadians/

For full disclosure, this report was commissioned by ISI.  The assumptions aren't unreasonable (there are similar RAND reports on the cost for build in AUS) but are on the optmistic end of the spectrum.

The only real way to see what the cost might be would be to pay EU builders to put a fully costed proposal out.  At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what the true cost is; the 'build in Canada' policy renders it a moot point.

There are lots of good reasons to build in Canada; I just don't get why we are focused on the end products and ignoring the other critical parts that go into it, like steel, engines, valves etc are all made overseas.

 

[Kirkhill]

Is it clearly established the difference between the cost to the RCN, and thus the impact on the defence budget, vice the benefits that accrue to Government and Canada at large?

I mean, I don't really care if the Government wants to pump 20 BCAD into the economy by buying a single ship every year for 20 BCAD.  I do care if that leaves nothing else in the budget to buy boots and radios.

As somebody said you can pay people to dig holes and fill them in again if all you want to do is add money to the economy.

Edit: By the way it seems that the working assumption is fitting an Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight IIA or III into the hull of the day - leaving open that BMD option.

 

[Underway]

Is it clearly established the difference between the cost to the RCN, and thus the impact on the defence budget, vice the benefits that accrue to Government and Canada at large?

I mean, I don't really care if the Government wants to pump 20 BCAD into the economy by buying a single ship every year for 20 BCAD.  I do care if that leaves nothing else in the budget to buy boots and radios.

As somebody said you can pay people to dig holes and fill them in again if all you want to do is add money to the economy.

Edit: By the way it seems that the working assumption is fitting an Arleigh Burke DDG-51 Flight IIA or III into the hull of the day - leaving open that BMD option.

BMD really just depends on the missile type.  Pretty much any AAW ship out there has the sensors and datalinks needed.  There are probably a few software changes required as well.  But all in all a Canadian warship could do BMD without the public even realizing it.  A SM6 is multirole after all...

 

[MarkOttawa]

...all in all a Canadian warship could do BMD without the public even realizing it.  A SM6 is multirole after all...

Tee hee.  Maybe one or two in the media might.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[SeaKingTacco]

BMD really just depends on the missile type.  Pretty much any AAW ship out there has the sensors and datalinks needed.  There are probably a few software changes required as well.  But all in all a Canadian warship could do BMD without the public even realizing it.  A SM6 is multirole after all...

Are you certain it is as simple as that? That is not what I have heard/read.

 

[Karel Doorman]

Are you certain it is as simple as that? That is not what I have heard/read.

That's my thoughts exactly,again no expert.

From what i read and heared the US is able to do this for a while now(BMD),in Europe The Dutch(oh yeah  [lol: )where the first to be able to do that aswell,but that meant an upgrade(software)to the Smart-L,so how do you see the Canadian ships do that aswell?(i think the Type-45 could do this "trick"aswell,maybe again with some software upgrades)Offcourse it should be clear that the to be built new ships should be able to do that,but i am talking now.

gr,walter

 

[Underway]

Are you certain it is as simple as that? That is not what I have heard/read.

I see the issue. Current Canadian warships couldn't do it because we don't have a fleet AAW capability.  A sea sparrow is not a BMD missile.  What I meant was that the CSC (for the AAW variant) I can almost guarantee will have the capability without the public knowing about it.

There really are only two AAW missile systems out there to buy and the Aster family or SM family are it and both of those are capable.

SM6 and Aster 30 both have terminal phase ballistic missile engagement capability because of their long range and internal targeting.  This is important for AAW, as you want to be able to engage things like Chinese anti-ship Ballistic Missiles.  It's not necessarily about defending the coast of Canada from rogue N. Korean missiles, but often more about fleet defence against land based ballistic area denial systems.

So yah, I think the CSC will have a BMD capability even if limited in scope.  We will just tell the public that we are capable of fleet missile defence for ourselves and our allies and leave it at that.  But generally the AAW CSC will be able to easily integrate with a USN task group through Link or cooperative engagement capability and take a shot.

 

[Monsoon]

The BMD capability is a function of the capacity of search radars, fire control radars and the missiles themselves. While a VLS-launched SM6 is capable of doing BMD, the search and fire control radars on our ships do not have the required capabilities. The limiting factor is the angle of approach: ballistic missiles in their final approach are moving exceptionally fast and from very nearly directly above. You need a full 3D volume scanning radar (one that includes coverage "straight up") capable of detecting threats very quickly, and a fire control radar capable of designating targets at close to the vertical. For all intents an purposes, APAR is pretty much a requirement to accomplish this.

 

[a_majoor]

Linking this to the "Thinking outside the Hull" article and the future of the Naval reserve, would it not be useful to build a sort of inexpensive "Liberty ship" with the ability to use containerized weapons or cargo for the Reserve?

The ships would simply need to have the high capacity data links to take sensor information from off board sources like other ships, aircraft or potentially satellites and pass the information to the missiles or torpedoes waiting in the containers to prosecute targets (meaning these ships could participate in ASW, surface warfare or air/missile defense depending on the load out and what sensors they are feeding from). In wartime, this would provide "magazines" of extra firepower, while in peacetime, these ships could carry containers of supplies and ferry them to ships via helicopter or VTOL UAV's. This would also fit in nicely with the preferred "public" role of disaster relief and support operations (the ship sails to disaster area and delivers relief supplies). And since it would be configured to ferry supplies and weapons on and off board using helicopters, this also gives it "some" utility to support amphibious operations by ferrying troops and supplies ashore via helicopter.

As for ship building, these would not be particularly challenging to build, and even secondary shipyards could be given contracts to build these vessels, or the main shipyards could do this between building the surface combatants and waiting for the various refurbishing and mid life updating jobs to maintain some currency and skill sets.

 

[Kirkhill]

The BMD capability is a function of the capacity of search radars, fire control radars and the missiles themselves. While a VLS-launched SM6 is capable of doing BMD, the search and fire control radars on our ships do not have the required capabilities. The limiting factor is the angle of approach: ballistic missiles in their final approach are moving exceptionally fast and from very nearly directly above. You need a full 3D volume scanning radar (one that includes coverage "straight up") capable of detecting threats very quickly, and a fire control radar capable of designating targets at close to the vertical. For all intents an purposes, APAR is pretty much a requirement to accomplish this.

As I understand it the US Navy already possesses the ability to launch any missile in any VLS cell on any ship in a Task Group independently of the command structure of the vessel carrying the missile.  I also understand that the ability of the RCN to operate within this system is both highly prized by the RCN and highly valued by the USN.

I also understand that Air Defence Networks, such as NASAMS, permit the deployment of missile launchers, on land, on a temporary, relocatable basis, with separations of up to 25 km, with control from a central trailer.

From that, I take it, that any vessel that incorporates a Mk 41 Strike Length VLS module, can launch any Standard missile, SM2, SM3 or SM6.  It doesn't need radar.  It doesn't need a Captain.  It doesn't even need national authority.  It just needs to keep formation and stay in range of the command net.

But that reduces the vessel to a magazine - and the crew to a security detail.

Not much independence of action there.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Not to mention scaring the hell out of the crew when a missile launches independently, unless of course the Captain of the ship has to allow for remote control, then they might expect it. Otherwise you might have crews working around the missile bays when one is fired. 

 

[Kirkhill]

Not to mention scaring the hell out of the crew when a missile launches independently, unless of course the Captain of the ship has to allow for remote control, then they might expect it. Otherwise you might have crews working around the missile bays when one is fired.

I presume that a well-bred Task Group commander would be polite enough to inform the local watch commander of his intentions.  If he had the time.

Perhaps something along the lines of: "Commander's compliments, Sir. Would you clear the decks?"

 

[Colin Parkinson]

More like an order from the Task force commander to move to an alert status where all AD are armed and then a command to hand control to a central command station on whichever ship controls AD for the task force. A ship would only handover control if the firing points are clear. Which would also mean that either they have to request permission to take back control so they can carry out deck functions or just advise the commander they are taking their missiles offline for x period. Similar to a industrial site lockout of equipment for safe working.
What it could mean that if a ship took a hit that destroyed or damaged the command center, the defenses could be taken over by another ship, that has pluses and minus as well. The recent collision between the USN ship and freighter will be an excellent learning example and simulates 1 or 2 hits by Anti-ship missiles minus the fires. That one knocked out all power to the ship, which would take all systems off line.

 

[Half Full]

As I understand it the US Navy already possesses the ability to launch any missile in any VLS cell on any ship in a Task Group independently of the command structure of the vessel carrying the missile.  I also understand that the ability of the RCN to operate within this system is both highly prized by the RCN and highly valued by the USN.

If you are talking about Cooperative Engagement Capability and the ability for the TG Commander to fire missiles from one of his ships at a target being identified from another, than no we do not have that capability within our ships.  We can definitely use another ship's targeting info and fire on their contact using, say a Link track, but they can't reach into our ships and fire our missiles/guns.

 

[serger989]

What I meant was that the CSC (for the AAW variant)

Remember, the CSC is a single-class of ship All 15 will have ASW/ASuW/AAW. The question will then be, what kind of VLS will it have and how expensive will the missiles be lol I can't imagine what we can afford for all 15... 15 BMD capable ships sounds mighty expensive.