New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[suffolkowner]

true, but that should just have affected the third vessel.  Number 2 was supposed to be delivered at the end of 2019: before COVID so that isn't a valid reason.  A full year's delay on a ship that was supposedly seaworthy when it arrived in Canada is a little much.

The articles I read all seemed to suggest that the 2nd and 3rd vessel were undergoing more extensive modifications than the first one. Why? Who knows? Did they rush the first one into service without the modifications due to need or did it not require them?

 

[Spencer100]

http://ow.ly/AA5P50AREp0?fbclid=IwAR3uQMckqduQhDhcWQKNHOCX2wREebR4hTwnks2Vs63RSzN-yorCrVAJQDw

Interesting article by the NATO association of Canada. It attempts to make the case, poorly in my opinion of reimagining the battleship to modern warfare in order to boost our fleet. While i think the arguement is barely there, i felt like sharing as a Interesting topic for discussion.

I don't think he knows what he is talking about. 

 

[GR66]

I don't think he knows what he is talking about.

Nice looking mock-up of the guns though...I hope he got a good mark on his science fair project.  I wonder if his dad helped him though....

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You could do a modern battleship, using the lessons learned on armour from WWII. I suspect that guns in the 11" range would suffice and allow for a lot of capability for guidance and range. Two twin turrets forward with automated loading systems to reduce crew. Modern propulsion system. Likely 2 76mm gun systems as secondary on each side, a number of smaller gun weapon systems. Close in missile system for AD, VLS tubes for cruise missiles, AD/Anti-ship and ballistic defense, fittings to mount future laser systems, helicopter deck and hanger for two Cyclone sized helicopters. Also some torpedo counter measures.

The ship would have three roles. One to provide a strong AD umbrella to the carrier task force, secondary to provide any shore bombardment roles and to provide a significant threat to surface threats and force them to have to expend significant resources to attempt to defeat it. The main threat is subs and it would have to work with ASW ships. You would basically need about 1 per every two carriers, as they don't have to accompany every carrier task force. 

 

[Dale Denton]

Modern Battleships have been talked about alot in similar forums and blogs, to the general effect that they aren't worth it.

Would a new CG/Ticonderoga not do the same job? Or do we just miss doing broadsides and having the prestige of a giant ship?

You'd have to use up valuable ASW resources just to protect it, and likely require a small protection group/Task Group just to supply and protect it. Plus, its a lot of money to invest in something that you can only have 1 of.

Would you build 1 big ship for $4B or 3 frigates for the same price?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Well we have DD's (not counting Japanese DD) at around 10,000 DWT, the Scharnhorst-class battleships were about 48,000, a lot of that armoured top weight would not be needed, so you could likley build a 4 gun ship as mentioned for about 35-38,000 tons. The USS San Antonio LPD is 25,000 ton as a comparison. I suspect a heavily armed and armoured ship would be an asset in Pacific.
When you start to read up on BB's in WWII, you realize that they certainly were not as vulnerable as people think and the amount of damage BB took is quite remarkable and the role they played is far greater than most understand. anyways this is a whole "what if" thread onto itself. Of course if we suggest they build us two BB one for each coast and being built by Irving and Davie, they might consider it just on the job stuff alone  8) Not to mention after that request, asking for new subs will look much more doable.
 

 

[quadrapiper]

Modern Battleships have been talked about alot in similar forums and blogs, to the general effect that they aren't worth it.

Would a new CG/Ticonderoga not do the same job? Or do we just miss doing broadsides and having the prestige of a giant ship?

Not an expert, but enjoy the debates: the more apparently feasible notions seem to end up circling around CG territory with larger/more numerous guns, or veering off into arsenal ships.

Might be a projectile cost question more than anything else: if you can deliver a given value of explosive where needed more cheaply/reliably using something large and gun-like than as a missile or from a plane, and you see yourself needing to blow up other people's coastlines on a routine basis, then it might be worth the hassle of a dedicated large ship.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Missiles are sexy, the cost of a loadout is eye-watering and I personally fear that a drawn out conflict is going to deplete the missile stocks and force navies to prioritize their use and the navy with the most large guns is still going to be in the fight , whereas the missile only ships are just unarmed targets.

 

[blacktriangle]

I think I'd spend the money on more subs, smaller missile armed craft, adequate stocks of guided weapons, and the ability to reload at sea more effectively. Or you can build a couple massive targets for the bad guys...

 

[Kirkhill]

USS Zumwalt - 7,800,000,000 USD
Tomahawk Missile - 1,000,000 USD

Number of Tomahawks for a Zumwalt - 7800.

Other missiles are cheaper.

I would sooner have 7800 Tomahawks (Or even NSMs) than a Zumwalt.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

What is the lifespan of a missile in storage and what maintenance is required? How are you going to transport those missiles to the reload point. Does a task force have enough ships to allow a portion to withdraw to a safe harbour to reload and return?

If China adopts a regional focused slow burn conflict to wear down the USN over Taiwan, I am not sure the USN could sustain that sort of fight. A vessel that can sustain damage and stay in the fight might be very valuable.

 

[quadrapiper]

USS Zumwalt - 7,800,000,000 USD

Not sure the flatiron's a great example, given (being hyperbolic, but) that the USN managed to somehow spend eight billion to acquire something which, bar the inoperative guns, doesn't seem overly impressive compared to the Ticonderogas: rather, somewhat similar to a T26.

Doing a very cursory Wikipedia cross-check, I'm also curious about what she's doing with an extra 5000ish tons of displacement compared to Bunker Hill - logically that and the extra 30' of beam are for stability, but not sure.

Definitely rather spendy for something spec'd as a sort of fast monitor.

 

[Spencer100]

And the guns don't work.  No ammo.  They cancel the shell development. 

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I suspect they could easily develop conventional ammunition for it. It would meaning pulling the barrels and replacing them with conventional twist rifled barrels. The ammunition feed is designed for two part ammunition, so the current casings could be used possibly with minor modifications to fit conventional 155 rounds.

A new barrel is quite technically doable without major cost (well for anyone but the USN) But i suspect that the real issue is that the guns have become a pariah and no one wants to touch them for fear of being connected to them if anymore failure points appears. So political, budget and careerism I suspect are the reason nothing happens.

 

[FJAG]

That gun thing is a new one on me. Holy crap. The design specification was for a $35,000 per round 155mm but with the ship volume reduction would be closer to $800,000 to $1,000,000 per round. No wonder they cancelled it. Basically a long range RAP with an HE warhead

That's about the cost for a HIMARS or an MLRS ATACMS which has a lot longer range and a hell of a lot more terminal effects. Here's an article suggesting the switch out.

:cheers:

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Interesting, but at the very least they should convert one turret to the new 127mm gun system so they have direct fire shortrange system as well.

 

[Spencer100]

I had read somewhere the USN is waiting for rail guns and/or lasers.  But I think the DGG 1000's are going to be "technology demonstrators" and hope everyone forgets about them.

In the same vane the first 6 LCS are being decommissioned.  The newest being just 6 years old and the first being 12 years. 

 

[Kirkhill]

What is the lifespan of a missile in storage and what maintenance is required? How are you going to transport those missiles to the reload point. Does a task force have enough ships to allow a portion to withdraw to a safe harbour to reload and return?

If China adopts a regional focused slow burn conflict to wear down the USN over Taiwan, I am not sure the USN could sustain that sort of fight. A vessel that can sustain damage and stay in the fight might be very valuable.

See you and raise you!  ;D

What is the cost of building, operating, maintaining, upgrading and destroying any warship?

How are you going to transport those missiles to the reload point. By Air?  And while we are at it why not take them direct to the launch point?

Does a task force have enough ships to allow a portion to withdraw to a safe harbour to reload and return?  If the ships were big and cheap (and low in the water) and the crews were small - and the ships were only occasionally for volley fire.

 

[Karel Doorman]

OH-OOW here we go again(not good)

PBO to examine $60 billion price tag of new warships and compare to other less expensive foreign programs

[link removed by staff to comply with Site Guidelines]

Can i give a suggestion?

Maybe join the Dutch/Belgian replacement M-class(sorry just joking)


Ps i thought the Fremm design was kicked out due to not following procedures(or am i wrong in thinking that?)

 

[MarkOttawa]

OH-OOW here we go again(not good)

PBO to examine $60 billion price tag of new warships and compare to other less expensive foreign programs

At this point I don't think any Canadian gov't would dare try to change the arrangement with Irving (other than ship numbers), and delay the program again for lord knows how much longer.

Mark
Ottawa