New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

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.

Thanks for the clarification. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

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.

Serger, the Saint-Laurent's, which included the Saint-Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie and Annapolis sub-classes were "single-class" ships: Same hull, same machinery for propulsion and power production, main primary lay-outs. However, they were four different ships with different weapons , combat systems and sensors suites in the end to make for different functions.

Don't confuse single class for "everything-except-the-actual-missiles-will-be-the-same". The AAD/Command version will almost certainly have a different fit of missiles, weapons and sensors (and probably comms also) from the general purpose version. In particular, I don't expect the general purpose version to carry the same high-power/high-volume 3D radars and associated combat system required for area air defence, as this would be incredibly expansive when  much cheaper other radars/combat system will do fine where point-defence is concerned.
 

 

[Spencer100]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-design-problems-1.4181542

More problems it looks like. 

One of the bidder is not happy

 

[Cdn Blackshirt]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-design-problems-1.4181542

More problems it looks like. 

One of the bidder is not happy

Stuff like this makes me crazy:

"The grant required by the [request for proposals] would permit Canada and [Irving Shipbuilding Inc.] to use 'background' intellectual property supplied pursuant to the [request for proposals] to compete with the bidder supplying the intellectual property for subsequent military procurement contracts with other nations," said the documents.

Who writes these documents?  If I was a foreign ship builder I probably would've flipped off our government a long time ago....the combination of gross incompetence and the condition above justifies people getting fired.


:facepalm:

 

[Kirkhill]

Stuff like this makes me crazy:

"The grant required by the [request for proposals] would permit Canada and [Irving Shipbuilding Inc.] to use 'background' intellectual property supplied pursuant to the [request for proposals] to compete with the bidder supplying the intellectual property for subsequent military procurement contracts with other nations," said the documents.

Who writes these documents?  If I was a foreign ship builder I probably would've flipped off our government a long time ago....the combination of gross incompetence and the condition above justifies people getting fired.


:facepalm:

Makes you wonder how many of these folks have ever actually negotiated a contract .

Without a doubt I will sell you the ability to compete against me.  In fact, you can have my whole company.  I was looking to retire.

If you want to know how this works take a look at India and Israel.  India is negotiating the rights to build F16s - nice aircraft but a bit stale-dated.  Israel is buying F35s,  and would really like to know what's under the hood.  But they won't be told.  On the other hand they will figure out how to adapt the F35 to their needs within the limits imposed and, concurrently, figure out how to work with what they have.

Peculiarly they seem to have gone "operational" as soon as they got their hands on an F35 and didn't bother waiting for the manual to be written.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Necessity is the mother of invention and what drives Israeli actions.  They can't piss about like we do, getting nowhere fast.

 

[Underway]

The intellectual property thing is always a problem.  I was told (second hand info here with no sources to link, take with appropriate salt garnish) when the CF-18's were new the Americans wouldn't give us any info on any of the programing for the radar and other flight systems because of intellectual property and security reasons.  So our techs hacked the system, pulled all the programing out and then modified it as necessary.

Difference is here is one industry might very well be handing another industry competitive secrets.

Also I never really understood how an off the shelf design could do all the things we asked it to.  I always thought it would be a MOTS+ design from day one, and any industry folks who looked at bidding for the program should have figured that out from even the most cursory glance at the requirements.  What design out there does proper AAW and GP.  Not a single one.  As OGBD stated earlier it's a single class in hull and propulsion only.

 

[Kirkhill]

And in the case of the FREMM project the French and Italians also have different power packs.

 

[Kirkhill]

Further to this: 

I just found this photo of the Nunakput 2017 excursion boats.  It is described as a 32 foot Inshore Jet Boat.

It looks a bit different to the USCG Force Protection RHIBs shown above.

Anybody have any news on them? Specs?  Compatibility with AOPS?  Whether or not a RWS could be mounted on that pedestal forward of the cabin?

 

[Stoker]

Further to this: 

I just found this photo of the Nunakput 2017 excursion boats.  It is described as a 32 foot Inshore Jet Boat.

It looks a bit different to the USCG Force Protection RHIBs shown above.

Anybody have any news on them? Specs?  Compatibility with AOPS?  Whether or not a RWS could be mounted on that pedestal forward of the cabin?

These are force protection boats out of FDU, nothing to do with AOPS and no RWS capability.

 

[Kirkhill]

Seen.  Thanks

 

[NavyShooter]

That "pedestal" is capable of fitting a C-6 if I recall correctly.  There is a locker in the cabin for it.

The cabin is *just* large enough to fit the gear needed for a Klein 5000 series Side scan SONAR system.

 

[FSTO]

We got those shortly before I left Sea Div in 07. They were/are garbage.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

How so? I note they are using 3 for the McKenzie River run

 

[Kirkhill]

Apparently built by ABCO out of Lunenburg?  No implied reference to quality with that.

http://www.abco.ca/32-twin-jet-navy-patrol-boat.html

 

[FSTO]

How so? I note they are using 3 for the McKenzie River run

They are? Wow. I don't know where they hid the 2 we got on the west coast but they were able to find 3 functioning ones eh. Well colour me surprised!

So when we got them at Sea Div in 06 or 07, the Seaborne Base Defence Force had been up and running since shortly after 9-11 and the Navy had been looking for something that could be more useful 24/7 and in all weather than the Ribs we were using at the time.
So out of the blue these two boats show up and Sea Div was told to start training the FP people on them. Well there was no SOR, no LCMM set up to support (when I called Ottawa I got a "?????, who the **** ordered these things) no QSP writing board to flesh out what the training syllabus would be. Nothing.
Then we took them out and they were okay in the harbour but as soon as you went past Fisgaard Light they got the crap beat out of them, they leaked and there was no transverse watertight bulkhead to mitigate this issue in case the boat was holed. As I said before there was no support for the boat, the engines, nor for the electronics. So it was an orphan that nobody wanted to take responsibility for.
We tried to make it work and the FP folks took it but it only stayed within the harbour limits. I have no idea how they worked in Halifax but I have a feeling it wasn't very well.
When I left Sea Div in 08 I think the boats were sitting on blocks on B Jetty.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Thanks for the info, I saw a video on FB I am trying to find


MacKenzie River Run
In the North, the RCN will operate small boats on Great Slave Lake in July. Two boats will potentially circumnavigate Great Slave Lake, while an additional two boats will proceed from Hay River up the MacKenzie River to Tuktoyaktuk.

Using Joint Task Force North’s Operation Nunakput, an annual surveillance and presence operation, as a backdrop, the RCN will gain valuable insight into small boat internal water operations and Canadian Ranger cooperation. Sailors will celebrate Canada 150 as modern-day voyageurs of Canada’s internal waters.

These signature events are just a sample of what the RCN has planned for the year, as a host of other events will be held in communities across the country from ships’ visits to maritime galas to participation in the Invictus Games.

“This is an exciting time to be a Canadian and part of the navy,” says VAdm Lloyd. “We have many wonderful activities planned for this special year, and I hope that all Canadians will have the chance to celebrate this milestone alongside members of the RCN.”

 

[MilEME09]

Meanwhile in the US
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navy-releases-specs-for-a-proposed-guided-missile-frigate-a-break-from-the-littoral-combat-ship

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Navy is looking for inputs from industry on a new multimission guided-missile frigate adapted from existing ship designs, a major departure from its modular littoral combat ship, according to a request for information released Monday.

The RFI lays out a ship that opens the door to almost any existing design that can be adapted to the Navy’s needs, which extends beyond just the two LCS hull forms being built by Lockheed Martin and Austal USA.

The service is looking for a ship with combat and mechanical systems that will fully integrate with a carrier strike group, hunt submarines and kill ships over the horizon. Labeling the ship the FFG(X), the ship will be expected to keep up with the full carrier strike group and be able to operate independently in high-end threat environments.

The Navy is looking to avoid "sticker shock," said Rear Adm. Ronald Boxall, the service's director of surface warfare, said in a Monday telephone interview, and engage with ship builders about what trade-offs the Navy would have to make to get the most capability from the ship.

"This is an effort to get the design right up front," Boxall said. "We're looking to have a dialogue with industry to get the most capability for the best price."

Boxall did not say how much the U.S. Navy is willing to spend but said the RFI was intended to draw out what the U.S. Navy could get for its shipbuilding dollar.

In order to get the ship to the fleet as fast as possible, the U.S. Navy wants builders to adapt from existing designs, the RFI said.

"A competition for FFG(X) is envisioned to consider existing parent designs for a Small Surface Combatant that can be modified to accommodate the specific capability requirements prescribed by the US Navy," it reads.

The U.S. Navy wants a frigate that can keep up with the aircraft carrier — a nagging problem with the current classes of small surface combatants — and have sensors networked in with the rest of the fleet to expand the overall tactical picture available to the group.

“The FFG(X) will normally aggregate into strike groups and Large Surface Combatant led surface action groups but also possess the ability to robustly defend itself during conduct of independent operations while connected and contributing to the fleet tactical grid.”

The U.S. Navy would like for the ship to be able to:

    Kill surface ships over the horizon
    Detect enemy submarines
    Defend convoy ships
    Employ active and passive electronic warfare systems
    Defend against swarming small boat attacks

The U.S. Navy is looking to limit the number of ground-breaking technologies that go into the ship, looking for engineering and combat systems that are already common in the fleet.

The U.S. Navy lists several capabilities, among the most important including:

    A fixed, phased-array radar
    An "AEGIS-derivative" combat system that uses a common source library
    The ability to launch a single MH-60R Seahawk helicopter
    Four canister launched over-the-horizon weapons
    SeaRAM
    MQ-8C Firescout

Other capabilities in "tier two" include various sonar equipment such as variable-depth and towed-array sonar, Cooperative Engagement Capability to be able to share target data with other ships and aircraft in the fleet, rigid-hull inflatable boats, Next Generation Surface Search Radar, and a MK 110 57mm gun and related systems.

The U.S. Navy wants the ship to be used for surface and anti-submarine warfare — traditional frigate roles — and to take on lower-level missions, such as security cooperation, that don't require multibillion-dollar warships. It also must be hardened against electronic warfare attack.

The U.S. Navy is also particularly interested in having the frigate be a platform for deploying unmanned systems "to penetrate and dwell in contested environments, operating at greater risk to gain sensor and weapons advantages over the adversary."

The frigate should be able to establish a complicated picture of a tactical environment with its on-board sensors, unmanned systems and embarked aircraft and beam that information back to the fleet through secure communications.

The U.S. Navy intends to award the contract for the first FFG(X) in 2020. It will buy one in 2020 and one in 2021, followed by two each year after that. The U.S. Navy's requirement is for 52 small-surface combatants, the bulk of which will be LCS.

I wonder if it would be possible for us to just combine programs with the states, have American and Canadian yards building the same ships for both nations.

 

[Kirkhill]

https://www.facebook.com/FOIN.JTFN/?hc_ref=PAGES_TIMELINE

The "Inshore Jet Boats" being put into the water for Nunakput 2017 by crane from a low-loader.

 

[FSTO]

Meanwhile in the US
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/us-navy-releases-specs-for-a-proposed-guided-missile-frigate-a-break-from-the-littoral-combat-ship
I wonder if it would be possible for us to just combine programs with the states, have American and Canadian yards building the same ships for both nations.

I think that ship has sailed (pun intended).
But if we had a forward looking and agile bureaucracy that could seize on a opportunity to get more bang for the buck. Oh why do I waste bandwidth, it'll never happen.

But for the USN; man after DDX, Zumwalt, LCS and even the Ford class carrier the transformation generation sure got their genitals hammered flat. Sometimes those bright young folks in short pants (and skirts) are just too smart for their own good.