New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Colin Parkinson]

I still like to see a MCDV replacement for 1/2 the hulls in nearly the same size with a focus on Mine Clearance and Route Survey. The other half can be a fast OPV.

 

[PrairieFella]

I still like to see a MCDV replacement for 1/2 the hulls in nearly the same size with a focus on Mine Clearance and Route Survey. The other half can be a fast OPV.

In a perfect world, 6 minesweepers, 6 corvettes, 15 destroyers, 6 arctic capable patrol ships, 12 attack subs and a smattering of supply ships. Throw in some kind of amphibious assault ship like a mistral-class and man, the RCN becomes a wicked middle-power bluewater and littoral navy. I for one welcome a world-respected RCN.

 

[Underway]

Mine Clearance and Route Survey

Both can be done from any ship with a crane or better yet, both can be done with a USV/UUV. No ship required, just a place to launch, recover and control. This goes back to my comment about capabilities not platforms. CSC mission bay could launch the route survey drone and carry on, no MCDV replacement necessary. AOPS as well.

In a perfect world, 6 minesweepers, 6 corvettes, 15 destroyers, 6 arctic capable patrol ships, 12 attack subs and a smattering of supply ships. Throw in some kind of amphibious assault ship like a mistral-class and man, the RCN becomes a wicked middle-power bluewater and littoral navy. I for one welcome a world-respected RCN.

Amphib not necessary. The rest of the list is just fine without completely changing doctrine and focus for little return. The effort put into an amphib could be much better spent on other capabilities or bulking ones we would have.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I still like to see a MCDV replacement for 1/2 the hulls in nearly the same size with a focus on Mine Clearance and Route Survey. The other half can be a fast OPV.

My only concern would be with 6 mine clearance vessels and 6 fast OPV's, it basically means that you get 3 of each on each coast, which in turn means you'll only 1 of each class on each coast available at any one time. Occasionally you might be able to 'surge' to 2 of each class available on 1 coast, maybe, just maybe on 2 coasts once in a blue moon.

If that's the case, having available 1 mine clearance vessel and 1 OPV on the East or West Coast get us what exactly?

 

[Furniture]

If that's the case, having available 1 mine clearance vessel and 1 OPV on the East or West Coast get us what exactly?

It gets us 1 OPV and 1 MCM platform on each coast, in addition to CSCs and AOPVs to conduct whatever mission the GoC wants us to do.

With an OPV to do Carribe in the summer, rather than an AOPV, it frees up another AOPV for OP NANOOK, and other artic tasks.

I suspect we won't be getting 6 OPVs though, as the CRCN has already stated he wants Corvettes, and the MCDV tasks with USV/UUVs can be done from non-RCN ships.

 

[PrairieFella]

Amphib not necessary. The rest of the list is just fine without completely changing doctrine and focus for little return. The effort put into an amphib could be much better spent on other capabilities or bulking ones we would have.

Is there no room in RCN doctrine for strategic troop lift? The ability to project power would certainly help us out in NATO's eyes.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Both can be done from any ship with a crane or better yet, both can be done with a USV/UUV. No ship required, just a place to launch, recover and control. This goes back to my comment about capabilities not platforms. CSC mission bay could launch the route survey drone and carry on, no MCDV replacement necessary. AOPS as well.


Amphib not necessary. The rest of the list is just fine without completely changing doctrine and focus for little return. The effort put into an amphib could be much better spent on other capabilities or bulking ones we would have.

I will disagree, since we will always be an expeditionary Army and Navy, some sort of low threat amphibious capability is going to be needed. Not to mention that amphibious support capability along with AOR support, can buy us a lot of goodwill with our allies.
We should have something like a ice strengthened ocean going LST to provide Arctic support, even if run by the RCFA. I see something like the Mistral Class buying us new capabilities , just like the C-17 did for us in regards to the RCAF roles.
I would be willing to forgo a CSC, 2 AOP's and couple of MCDV replacements to buy us two Mistrals and LST. We would eventually need to stand up a marine transport helicopter squadron as well to maximise those capabilities.

 

[NavyShooter]

We would eventually need to stand up a marine transport helicopter squadron as well to maximise those capabilities.

MH-60 enters the discussion...

 

[Underway]

Is there no room in RCN doctrine for strategic troop lift? The ability to project power would certainly help us out in NATO's eyes.

Strategic Troop lift isn't done by Amphibs. It's done by planes and cruise liners. Amphibs are for amphibious operations. And its not RCN doctrine, its Army doctrine. And the Army has absolutely no interest in doing amphibious operations (as Gen Hillier found out despite his interest in the concept). This is a casualty of the way we have structured our commands in Canada.

RCN is directed to support forces ashore as a task. And we can do HADR operations and minor unopposed troop movement with AOPS and JSS. That's the extent of it. And I think that's a pretty good place to be.

Amphib is gloriously expensive, difficult and should only be developed IF we have a strategic requirement for it. Which we decidedly do not. I prefer to focus on getting the core need to have capabilities correct before branching out into nice to have capabilities. Amphib is a big jump.

If we were going to spend that kind of effort and money in the RCN look at an Arsenal ships, domestic submarines, more helicopters, drone carriers, UUV's etc...

 

[Colin Parkinson]

A good chunk of our missions for the RCN seem to be dealing with lower threat adversaries, such as piracy. A Mistral would provide a lot of support to a task group on that sort of mission, even without using the amphib element. Till we increase our own helicopter support, you could embark helicopters from another nation.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Strategic Troop lift isn't done by Amphibs. It's done by planes and cruise liners. Amphibs are for amphibious operations. And its not RCN doctrine, its Army doctrine. And the Army has absolutely no interest in doing amphibious operations (as Gen Hillier found out despite his interest in the concept). This is a casualty of the way we have structured our commands in Canada.

RCN is directed to support forces ashore as a task. And we can do HADR operations and minor unopposed troop movement with AOPS and JSS. That's the extent of it. And I think that's a pretty good place to be.

Amphib is gloriously expensive, difficult and should only be developed IF we have a strategic requirement for it. Which we decidedly do not. I prefer to focus on getting the core need to have capabilities correct before branching out into nice to have capabilities. Amphib is a big jump.

If we were going to spend that kind of effort and money in the RCN look at an Arsenal ships, domestic submarines, more helicopters, drone carriers, UUV's etc...

I'd rather see 18 CSC's and 12 subs, 10 'corvettes' (with more than a 2-4 50 Cals' on them) and 4 AOR's. Give the AOPS to the CCG. Skip the Mistral like ship(s).

Having 3 CSC's on patrol and a pair of subs on each coast in the water would go along way in keeping the Americans at bay. Throw in a pair Corvettes of anti-narc patrols in the Carrib and south of Baja and voila, instant bliss.

 

[Stoker]

Both can be done from any ship with a crane or better yet, both can be done with a USV/UUV. No ship required, just a place to launch, recover and control. This goes back to my comment about capabilities not platforms. CSC mission bay could launch the route survey drone and carry on, no MCDV replacement necessary. AOPS as well.


Amphib not necessary. The rest of the list is just fine without completely changing doctrine and focus for little return. The effort put into an amphib could be much better spent on other capabilities or bulking ones we would have.

I think any ship can use the current AUV's we have however why risk a high value asset like a CSC in a MDA. We are also getting new kit such as the Sea Fox so a purpose built or smaller ship would probably be better.

 

[Stoker]

Is there no room in RCN doctrine for strategic troop lift? The ability to project power would certainly help us out in NATO's eyes.

A couple of hundred million and you would have all the sealift capability you would ever want.

 

[Stoker]

A good chunk of our missions for the RCN seem to be dealing with lower threat adversaries, such as piracy. A Mistral would provide a lot of support to a task group on that sort of mission, even without using the amphib element. Till we increase our own helicopter support, you could embark helicopters from another nation.

Mistrals have left the building....We didn't get them when we could of for a steal and it was for good reason.

 

[Stoker]

I'd rather see 18 CSC's and 12 subs, 10 'corvettes' (with more than a 2-4 50 Cals' on them) and 4 AOR's. Give the AOPS to the CCG. Skip the Mistral like ship(s).

Having 3 CSC's on patrol and a pair of subs on each coast in the water would go along way in keeping the Americans at bay. Throw in a pair Corvettes of anti-narc patrols in the Carrib and south of Baja and voila, instant bliss.

Instant bliss for who? you? I hope you wished for the sudden influx of personnel we would need to actually pull that off. We can get creative with how we normally crew the ships.

15 CSC (205 crew) 3075
8-12 Submarines crewed with a mix of German and allies sailors under an international agreement (60 crew) 720
4 JSS crewed with GOC crew and the RCN we need to operate them. (60 crew) 240
6 Corvettes. 57mm, 35mm, 12 NSM, Sea ram (60 crew) 360
6 MCM type ships (44 crew) 264
6 AOPS (68 crew) 408
2 Military sealift ships (all civilian)

The number one issue here is personnel, can't really abacate for 18 CSC when don't have the bodies.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Mistrals have left the building....We didn't get them when we could of for a steal and it was for good reason.

We didn't get them because the government of the day went into a snap election, if they hadn't, it's very likley we would have gotten them, as this was the time the 280's were self-divesting, it would not have been a huge PY hit. Those ones were ice strengthened as I recall and the major issue would be reworking the hotel plugs down to 120v and switching the combat systems. It is amusing to think the Egyptians have ice strengthened vessels.

 

[Stoker]

We didn't get them because the government of the day went into a snap election, if they hadn't, it's very likely we would have gotten them, as this was the time the 280's were self-divesting, it would not have been a huge PY hit. Those ones were ice strengthened as I recall and the major issue would be reworking the hotel plugs down to 120v and switching the combat systems. It is amusing to think the Egyptians have ice strengthened vessels.

Yes the election and the fact we didn't have the doctrine to operate such ships or the resources to sustain them. The personnel from the 280's were ear marked for the Kingston Class. You make the electrical and combat conversions like rewiring someone's shed its not.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I wonder if there’s something out there that has a version of a mission bay on an OPV/Corvette sized vessel. I keep thinking about how the Germans, French, British etc are moving towards small autonomous/remote operated surface vessels with deployable mine clearing systems. It your Tier 2 vessel could accommodate that sort of thing, it negates the need for dedicated MCM ships. The rest of the tasking could use that area for RHIBS, additional accommodations, diving support etc. I think you could really make a ship super flexible in this way, scaled down from all the reasons CSC will use them.

 

[Maxman1]

I wonder if there’s something out there that has a version of a mission bay on an OPV/Corvette sized vessel. I keep thinking about how the Germans, French, British etc are moving towards small autonomous/remote operated surface vessels with deployable mine clearing systems. It your Tier 2 vessel could accommodate that sort of thing, it negates the need for dedicated MCM ships. The rest of the tasking could use that area for RHIBS, additional accommodations, diving support etc. I think you could really make a ship super flexible in this way, scaled down from all the reasons CSC will use them.

How about the Type 31.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Yes the election and the fact we didn't have the doctrine to operate such ships or the resources to sustain them. The personnel from the 280's were ear marked for the Kingston Class. You make the electrical and combat conversions like rewiring someone's shed its not.

If the Government buys the ships and says make us of it, you will go out and develop the doctrine, hell we didn't have subs till the BC Premier went and bought some and then not again till Post WWII.
I don't see anywhere that I belittled the effort of converting the plugs from 240 to 120 or the combat systems. We actually discussed in detail this about 3 years ago.