New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[FJAG]

When we hear that the USN are ready to award a contract for a production line of USVs or UUVs, that's a great time to have an independent and critical look at the state of the technology, the CONOPs for the system, and decide then if those things make it a good purchase to achieve an effect that we're looking for.

I guess that I'm a victim of the gunner philosophy of concurrent activity. I see something like cheap minimally-manned or autonomous vessels as part of a hybrid flotilla as an inevitability. To me that means the goals should be set now and the experimentation, whether on our own or as part of an allied partnership, should be happening as we speak.

Being on the bleeding edge of technology always incurs some risk. On the other hand, waiting for the risk to be zero, coupled with our long design and delivery dates for vessels, will create significant delay and bring in considerable risk of its own that we either do not have the operational systems when needed or we keep investing in less useful systems (such as an MCDV replacement) which has limited capabilities and ties up resources for years to come.

I don't want to sound quarrelsome - although being a non sailor I don't doubt that I do sound that way - but sometimes one needs to take a leap of faith.

I find myself in the situation where, while @Kirkhill and I aren't in lockstep, we're marching in the same general direction.

 

[quadrapiper]

I understand evaluating a capability you might want and moving towards that, my concern is that we will lose what made the MCDV's great vessels alongside what they brought to the table in the process. Some of the MCDV's missions can be offloaded to other ships but at the same time, these ships have their own problems of being busy with other duties, well worn or otherwise not entirely suited for the roles at hand. If we want to bring in entirely different ships, that is additional funds/manpower required to charter civilian ships or buy/convert them for military operations. More sword is usually a good thing but if it comes at the expense of our more mundane peacetime requirements, I am unsure it is worthwhile.

Not having an idea of the CONOPS is a problem however, even the brain storming I can manage doesn't give me many great options. If you want something that can operate in a contested environment against drones and anti-ship missiles, you need a suitable radar suite, electronic warfare suite, decoys, proper main gun, remote weapon stations, a potent enough missile battery and some level of redundancy as a proper "warship". If you want to use this overseas, you are going to need a sufficiently large hull to have good seakeeping, reasonable speed and the endurance to get to where it has to be used. If you want to use this to screen the CSC, they will have to reasonably be able to keep up with them in the deployments required with raw speed, endurance and seakeeping. Requirements go up even more if they want something to also act as a missile magazine for the CSC as well.

If you want to be a meaningful MCM platform, you need to be have your own crane system and a multi-mission capable deck/boat launching system to sit and handle all of this equipment. You also need the space aboard to command and control all of these unmanned systems in conjunction with the combat management this vessel has to undertake for itself. You'll likely be looking at atleast a drone capable flight deck and hanger, but god forbid they try and cram a proper helicopter and hanger into this thing as well.

I don't need to tell you of all people but all of these additions bring with them additional complexity, upkeep, personnel and cost requirements. All of this has to go somewhere and being crammed into a cramped little corvette has some poor implications, so they'll likely go for a larger hull. All of this design bloat and role creep can serve to absolutely destroy this program, as it has done to many others. Going from there, it sounds like we very much could have the CMMC program spit out a requirement for a vessel like the Type 31 class frigate. The closer we get to a proper frigate, the more concerned I would be that the CSC class will begin to disappear and these will take their place as cheaper "good enough" alternatives if a government wants austerity in the future.

Almost sounds like a CSC with a different loadout would be a better way of addressing this: common hull, engineering fit, maybe sensors, etc., if the baseline is "bluewater transit capable."

When we hear that the USN are ready to award a contract for a production line of USVs or UUVs, that's a great time to have an independent and critical look at the state of the technology

And double-check that it's not them doing R&D, pork, or chasing the good idea fairy to the tune of billions. Let someone else work out the, say, Osprey series of kinks over a decade or so.

 

[Kirkhill]

Conveniently there are more risk takers available in the civilian market.

The navy stuck guns on cogs, East Indiamen, paddle steamers, iron hulls, steam turbines and diesels. All adopted from civilian trade then given a suitably martial name.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Conveniently there are more risk takers available in the civilian market.

The navy stuck guns on cogs, East Indiamen, paddle steamers, iron hulls, steam turbines and diesels. All adopted from civilian trade then given a suitably martial name.

The RCN does actually innovate a lot in our designs, and the 280s and then the CPFs really pushed the boundaries for what we did with the control systems. The Battle Damage Control System on the new RN aircraft carrier is built from the BDCS that we developed and built up with L3 Mapps as part of the FELEX upgrades.

For a bit of context, the T26 and CSC design will actually step back some of the automated functions and require more intervention than what we currently have for fires and damage control, because the RN SOPs require a person in the loop. All our halon systems (except the big engine spaces) normally should run in automatic (and go off when you get heat and smoke) and other functions are similarly automated (like smoke control). CSC won't do that, and is actually a separate system in some cases.

 

[lenaitch]

We may have different test standards. My standards are fairly low. I don't require that the bear dances well, only that the bear dances.

Also, definitions of AI may vary. I don't require full autonomy. Enhancements that take the load off the operator, aboard the platform or remote or even pre-programmed, I consider all to be advancements.

I am not looking at a laser firing Zumwalt sailing and fighting autonomously as a goal.

We have taxis and ferries operating autonomously in harbours with offboard supervision. We have vessels like the LUSVs and the EPFs (Apalachicola) being sailed for longer and shorter durations with hand offs to different supervisors, on and off board.

Depending on the degree of autonomy the vessel can be crewed, remotely crewed, functioning on auto-pilot, semi-autonomous or fully autonomous.

My sense of the current state of play is that if EPFs were to be docked, uncrewed in Manila or Singapore, they could be despatched on a point to point mission with load of TEU-40s on the deck following the same protocols as the Mariner and Nomad on RIMPAC and the Apalachicola trials.

Would there be a risk that would be unacceptable in peace time? No doubt. Would that same risk be unacceptable in the Spratlies under different circumstances?

Autonomous shipping

www.imo.org

...

My sense is that the technology is in place to sail vessels autonomously if civil risk can be managed appropriately. And I think the likelihood of ships of that type sailing in the next 96 hour development cycle is quite high. Somebody is going to be doing that long before our last CSC hits the water for its first time in 2045.

We may not want to sail a 26,000 tonne JSS/AOR autonomously, or even an 8,000 tonne CSC but 10 tonne satellites from a 1000 tonne MCDV or even a 1000 tonne OSV on its own, those I could see.

....

Yara Birkeland | Yara International

www.yara.com

What is Yara Birkeland?​

Yara Birkeland is a groundbreaking vessel that combines zero emission technology with autonomous navigation.

• It is the result of a collaboration between Yara, a leading global fertilizer company, and KONGSBERG, a leading global maritime technology company.
• It transports mineral fertilizer from Yara's production plant in Porsgrunn, Norway to the regional export port in Brevik, reducing 40,000 diesel-powered truck journeys every year.
• It operates with a battery capacity of 6.8 MWh, enabling a maximum speed of 15 knots and a cargo capacity of 120 TEU (Twenty-foot Equivalent Units).
• It is named after Yara's founder, Kristian Birkeland, a famous scientist and innovator.

Not nothing to be sure but, if I'm reading the article and my maps correctly, that is a shuttle run of about 12km on inland waters. This similar to the proponents of autonomous vehicles seeing semis running a fixed route in the s/w US (still with a driver - how boring would that be) and declaring them ready for prime time.

You are right that the level of autonomy is a range, but to exist they need to be proven on open seas, and either the technology and/or remote operators have to be exercised. You can't sit something in a harbour somewhere waiting for the balloons to go up and expecting it to work, and any trials or training has to be done in non-wartime conditions.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Conveniently there are more risk takers available in the civilian market.

The navy stuck guns on cogs, East Indiamen, paddle steamers, iron hulls, steam turbines and diesels. All adopted from civilian trade then given a suitably martial name.

So your saying we should issue each CSC with a letter of marque and let them be self-funding? That would be one way to stop those illegal shipments of oil.

 

[Kirkhill]

The U.S. military has been experimenting with midsize unmanned vessels for years, testing them out on extended ocean voyages and in fleet exercises. But tech evangelists say that the U.S. Navy has been moving too slowly to acquire and use these platforms at scale - especially given the snowballing problems in its conventional shipbuilding pipeline. That may be about to change: Naval Sea Systems Command's unmanned office has asked industry for ways to deliver a long-awaited Medium Unmanned Surface Vehicle (MUSV) within the span of a year, a lightning-fast timeline by government procurement standards. (The Navy uses the terms "vehicle" and "vessel" interchangeably for unmanned craft.)

The new request for information seeks viable options for swiftly buying seven medium-sized unmanned vessels, shorter than 200 feet and smaller than 500 tons displacement.

The priority is on speed and "affordable cost." The RFI looks for options to "leverage existing, manned or unmanned surface ship designs that can be modified to enable rapid delivery" of an unmanned hull. Only pre-existing designs or secondhand vessels (American-built) are of interest.

The first vessel must deliver within 12 months, and the rest within 24 months. "For the purposes of this RFI, a clean-sheet design is not an option," NAVSEA emphasized.

Calling All Crewboats: U.S. Navy Seeks Midsize Hulls for Unmanned Program

The U.S. military has been experimenting with midsize unmanned vessels for years, testing them out on extended ocean voyages and in fleet exercises. B...

maritime-executive.com

.....

Transpacific voyage by unmanned crew boats in company with Sea Hunter and an LCS during Rimpac

2 Navy Ghost Fleet Unmanned Ships Now in the Western Pacific - USNI News

Two of the Navy’s Ghost Fleet unmanned surface vessel prototypes pulled into Yokosuka, Japan, this week as part of a Pacific road show to introduce the fleet to the possibility of USVs, service officials said on Thursday. USVs Mariner and Ranger and the staff Unmanned Surface Vessel Division ONE...

news.usni.org

....

EPF 13 also completed Unmanned Logistics Prototype trials assessing autonomous capabilities integrated into the shipboard configuration, demonstrating that a large ship can become a self-driving platform.

In transit from Mobile, Alabama, to Miami, Florida, Apalachicola’s autonomous system completed a stress test in high-traffic coastal areas by taking appropriate ship handling actions while operating around other ships, boats, sailboats, and craft. Overall, the ship was in autonomous mode for approximately 85 percent of the multiple day at-sea period.

The unprecedented development of autonomous capability on Apalachicola is the culmination of collaborative efforts with the Navy's shipbuilding and industry partners, Austal USA, L3 Harris and General Dynamics.

The future USNS Apalachicola Achieves Milestones with Acceptance Trials and Completion of

The future USNS Apalachicola (EPF 13), the Navy’s 13th Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport successfully completed Acceptance Trials and Unmanned Logistics Prototype Trials.Acceptance Trials

www.navsea.navy.mil

Austal USA delivers EPF-13; the US Navy's largest surface vessel with autonomous capability

COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT 20 FEBRUARY 2023 Austal USA delivers EPF-13; the US Navy's Largest Surface Ship with Autonomous Capability Austal Limited (Austal) (ASX: ASB) is pleased to announce Austal USA has delivered Expeditionary Fast Transport USNS Apalachicola (EPF 13) to the United States Navy...

www.austal.com

.....


RCN considering its options.

Posted: May 13, 2024

The Canadian military is weighing how many and what kind of "optionally-crewed" warships it will need in the future as drone technology and artificial intelligence change the face of naval combat, says the commander of the navy.

Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee told CBC News that while navies will always need large combat surface ships and submarines, Canada's allies have started to experiment with automated vessels.

"What is the right mix for the future as we replace our maritime coastal defence vessels down the road?" he said. "What's the right capability for us to have? How do we augment the Canadian Surface Combatant" — the next generation of warships — "with the right mix of sensors?"

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ghost-fleets-unmanned-warships-drones-artificial-intelligence-1.7200879

....

Ukrainian reference point

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-black-sea-drone-naval-warfare-1.7196566

 

[Kirkhill]

This is 5 year stuff. Not 50 year.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Calling All Crewboats: U.S. Navy Seeks Midsize Hulls for Unmanned Program

The U.S. military has been experimenting with midsize unmanned vessels for years, testing them out on extended ocean voyages and in fleet exercises. B...

maritime-executive.com

.....

Transpacific voyage by unmanned crew boats in company with Sea Hunter and an LCS during Rimpac

2 Navy Ghost Fleet Unmanned Ships Now in the Western Pacific - USNI News

Two of the Navy’s Ghost Fleet unmanned surface vessel prototypes pulled into Yokosuka, Japan, this week as part of a Pacific road show to introduce the fleet to the possibility of USVs, service officials said on Thursday. USVs Mariner and Ranger and the staff Unmanned Surface Vessel Division ONE...

news.usni.org

....

The future USNS Apalachicola Achieves Milestones with Acceptance Trials and Completion of

The future USNS Apalachicola (EPF 13), the Navy’s 13th Spearhead-class expeditionary fast transport successfully completed Acceptance Trials and Unmanned Logistics Prototype Trials.Acceptance Trials

www.navsea.navy.mil

View attachment 87570

Austal USA delivers EPF-13; the US Navy's largest surface vessel with autonomous capability

COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT 20 FEBRUARY 2023 Austal USA delivers EPF-13; the US Navy's Largest Surface Ship with Autonomous Capability Austal Limited (Austal) (ASX: ASB) is pleased to announce Austal USA has delivered Expeditionary Fast Transport USNS Apalachicola (EPF 13) to the United States Navy...

www.austal.com

.....


RCN considering its options.

Posted: May 13, 2024

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ghost-fleets-unmanned-warships-drones-artificial-intelligence-1.7200879

....

Ukrainian reference point

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ukraine-russia-black-sea-drone-naval-warfare-1.7196566

Meanwhile, also the USN

https://twitter.com/x/status/1827668229969289571

 

[Stoker]

Meanwhile, also the USN

https://twitter.com/x/status/1827668229969289571

Why in the world would we want something like that?

 

[dapaterson]

Why in the world would we want something like that?

Your rousing success with chartering the GTS Katie comes to mind...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

We didn't rent it: Ottawa HQ did, with the able assistance of the Army's logisticians.

No one asked the Navy ... until the Army gear had to be recovered. Then the Navy and special forces had to be called in.

Stoker's question remains valid, unless the Army is planning on moving a large volume of its heavy gear by sea in the near future but hasn't told anyone.

 

[rmc_wannabe]

We didn't rent it: Ottawa HQ did, with the able assistance of the Army's logisticians.

No one asked the Navy ... until the Army gear had to be recovered. Then the Navy and special forces had to be called in.

Stoker's question remains valid, unless the Army is planning on moving a large volume of its heavy gear by sea in the near future but hasn't told anyone.

The massive and well publicized sea lift we sent over to Latvia this summer comes to mind. That was a contracted lift that probably cost the Crown more than of we had one of these ships on retainer for a few years...

 

[dapaterson]

We didn't rent it: Ottawa HQ did, with the able assistance of the Army's logisticians.

No one asked the Navy ... until the Army gear had to be recovered. Then the Navy and special forces had to be called in.

Stoker's question remains valid, unless the Army is planning on moving a large volume of its heavy gear by sea in the near future but hasn't told anyone.

How has "waiting until the last moment to buy ships we might need" turned out for the RCN?

 

[lenaitch]

If they are autonomous, why do they have windows, lifeboats and an Osprey?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I don't know, Dapaterson: Perhaps someone should ask the politicians in Ottawa about that one.

You know how the current Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy is meant to provide continual builds, well that is not a new concept for the RCN. In fact, it has been the underlying plan of the RCN since they first introduced the Naval Central Drawing Office in 1948, located at the Vickers shipyard in Montreal, which became the lead yard. Ever since that time, the RCN has had plans for and has been pushing Ottawa to continuously build for the Navy, but Ottawa refused and caused the bust and boom.

The various St Laurent, built from 1951 to 1964, were to be replaced by a General Purpose Frigate (somewhat akin to the American Knox class- post first refit). That was cancelled by Ottawa (or rather not followed up) in the kaflafla leading to unification. Then the Navy told them it was urgent to start building again and proposed its next design, an enlarged GP ship that became the IRO's. The Trudeau government accepted, but cut the build at 4, when the Navy had asked for 12, leading to what would have been the next iteration. Again, the Navy had to fight Ottawa as all hell to finally get the HAL's - the ask for which was 18 hulls, but again thanks to Ottawa, we got only 12. These 18 hulls would then have lead into the next design, but again, we know what happened in Ottawa, and the lengthy process to even come up with the current strategy - which will see the fleet dwindle until 2040, by which time who knows what will happen.

So don't blame the Navy for "waiting until the last moment". We are always ready with plans and requirements and we push them as much as we can on Ottawa, but politicians fail the Navy in that regard.

 

[Maxman1]

Supposedly, the last six were cut to pay for the Canada class nuclear submarines, and when that was canceled, they weren't reinstated.

 

[FSTO]

I don't know, Dapaterson: Perhaps someone should ask the politicians in Ottawa about that one.

You know how the current Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy is meant to provide continual builds, well that is not a new concept for the RCN. In fact, it has been the underlying plan of the RCN since they first introduced the Naval Central Drawing Office in 1948, located at the Vickers shipyard in Montreal, which became the lead yard. Ever since that time, the RCN has had plans for and has been pushing Ottawa to continuously build for the Navy, but Ottawa refused and caused the bust and boom.

The various St Laurent, built from 1951 to 1964, were to be replaced by a General Purpose Frigate (somewhat akin to the American Knox class- post first refit). That was cancelled by Ottawa (or rather not followed up) in the kaflafla leading to unification. Then the Navy told them it was urgent to start building again and proposed its next design, an enlarged GP ship that became the IRO's. The Trudeau government accepted, but cut the build at 4, when the Navy had asked for 12, leading to what would have been the next iteration. Again, the Navy had to fight Ottawa as all hell to finally get the HAL's - the ask for which was 18 hulls, but again thanks to Ottawa, we got only 12. These 18 hulls would then have lead into the next design, but again, we know what happened in Ottawa, and the lengthy process to even come up with the current strategy - which will see the fleet dwindle until 2040, by which time who knows what will happen.

So don't blame the Navy for "waiting until the last moment". We are always ready with plans and requirements and we push them as much as we can on Ottawa, but politicians fail the Navy in that regard.

It's easier to blame RCN leadership than to hammer on the politicians who couldn't give two shits about capability, building process or anything at all that doesn't fit into their 5 year horizon.

 

[PuckChaser]

We didn't rent it: Ottawa HQ did, with the able assistance of the Army's logisticians.

No one asked the Navy ... until the Army gear had to be recovered. Then the Navy and special forces had to be called in.

Stoker's question remains valid, unless the Army is planning on moving a large volume of its heavy gear by sea in the near future but hasn't told anyone.

So RCN is not looking to move back towards peer conflict in Europe? I distinctly remember RCN distinguishing themselves by keeping SLOCs open and moving large amounts of equipment by sea...

Not saying these are the right ships to do that, but it's pretty short sighted to assume we'll never need that capability.

 

[FSTO]

So RCN is not looking to move back towards peer conflict in Europe? I distinctly remember RCN distinguishing themselves by keeping SLOCs open and moving large amounts of equipment by sea...

Those cargo ships were owned and manned by civilians. The RCN was the sheep herders and not the sheep.