New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Edward Campbell]

I really don't care how "menacing" or whatever our ships might appear. I am concerned with only two things:

    1. Performance ~ can they do what the government is likely, over the next 25 years, to ask of them? and

    2. Cost ~ how many can we afford?

These ships were ugly ...

   

    ... and they remained ugly even after their fo'c's'les were extended, and their bigger sisters were not much less ugly ...

         

          ... but they did what was asked of them at a cost (in dollars and "buildability" and ship handling) that was affordable.

My understanding is that the RCN wants 25± surface combatants. I'm not convinced that the defence budget can afford even a dozen of the big, sophisticated Canadian Surface Combatant and a half dozen Harry DeWolf class ships; hence my questions about a mixed fleet of, say, 8 to 12 CSCs, 4-6 Harry DeWolfs and 10 to 12 corvettes ... all being "buildable" and "maintainable" in Canadian yards, all being more or less suitable for the range of tasks that are likely to be assigned, and all being affordable in dollars (to buy and operate) and crews.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I think there may be bit of a misunderstanding here E.R.C.: I think the Navy plan calls for 25 "major" warships (as opposed to "minor" warships like the MCDV's).

The split range would be 14-15 CSC, 4-5 AOPS and 5-6 submarines. The favoured split would be 15-4-6.

 

[GR66]

...

My understanding is that the RCN wants 25± surface combatants. I'm not convinced that the defence budget can afford even a dozen of the big, sophisticated Canadian Surface Combatant and a half dozen Harry DeWolf class ships; hence my questions about a mixed fleet of, say, 8 to 12 CSCs, 4-6 Harry DeWolfs and 10 to 12 corvettes ... all being "buildable" and "maintainable" in Canadian yards, all being more or less suitable for the range of tasks that are likely to be assigned, and all being affordable in dollars (to buy and operate) and crews.

Is that size of fleet still affordable?  The CSC program is looking for 15 hulls with no Corvettes and the ability to obtain this with the available cash is being questioned.  Will dropping the number from 15 to 8-12 free up enough to build 10-12 Corvettes?

It appears from my limited understanding that modern "Corvettes" have roughly similar combat capabilities to the current Halifax-class Frigates (in terms of # of missiles) but with roughly half the crew (understanding that there are issues with that).  That being said, could you get away with a fleet of 20 x Corvettes with 1 new build per year from Canadian shipyards to provide fleet stability for the RCN and permanent industrial benefits without the current boom/bust cycle.  This core fleet would be able to fulfill most of the roles of the existing 12 x Halifax-class (maybe less range, endurance and flexability due to the smaller size and reduced crew) as well as provide an upgraded capability from the existing 12 x Kingston-class. 

This "core" fleet could be suplemented with 4-6 higher-end destroyers (with AAW/Command capabilities) that could either be built domestically leveraging the ongoing warship building capabilities realized from the Corvette contract, or purchased overseas. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Two points GR66:

First, modern corvettes have about the same firepower as the Halifax class - except in ASW because none can carry a helicopter of the same class as the Sea Kings/Cyclone. But they do not have the same combat capabilities. The frigates have a much more complex and sophisticated sensors, communications and command and control suite that gives them marked advantage over corvettes.

Second point, and I have made this point before, if you start from a given amount of combat systems, sensors and communication gear you wish to put on a ship, the difference in cost between a 2000 tons corvette or a 5000 tons frigate is not very big - perhaps in the order of 10 to 15 % more. For the added endurance and crew comfort (especially in our waters of the grand Banks or off Haida Gwai) the difference in price is easily worth it.
 

 

[GR66]

Two points GR66:

First, modern corvettes have about the same firepower as the Halifax class - except in ASW because none can carry a helicopter of the same class as the Sea Kings/Cyclone. But they do not have the same combat capabilities. The frigates have a much more complex and sophisticated sensors, communications and command and control suite that gives them marked advantage over corvettes.

Second point, and I have made this point before, if you start from a given amount of combat systems, sensors and communication gear you wish to put on a ship, the difference in cost between a 2000 tons corvette or a 5000 tons frigate is not very big - perhaps in the order of 10 to 15 % more. For the added endurance and crew comfort (especially in our waters of the grand Banks or off Haida Gwai) the difference in price is easily worth it.

Excellent info.  Thanks.

So, if we could have a corvette design that could carry a Cyclone-class helicopter that would solve the ASW gap? 

As for the sensors (i.e. "combat capabilities" vs firepower) would that only apply where the ships are NOT deployed along with an AAW-capable ship?  Am I correct in my understanding that the purpose of an AAW ship is to use its more advanced sensors to direct both it's own weapons AND those from other ships?  In effect the non-AAW ships are really arsenal ships?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

No, the difference between the AAW ships and the other frigates is that the AAW ship carries more powerful air search and air tracking radars (such as having a Aegis radar system, for instance) and carries - this is the biggest difference - a large complement of long range AA missiles, so it can provide area air defence. The general purpose ships carry lesser anti air assets, usually of the shorter range type, for point defence purposes only.

 

[GR66]

Are those point defence missiles directed by the AAW ship or the general-purpose ship carrying them?  Are the short-range air defence radars on a general-purpose frigate (like the Halifax-class) better than what can be installed on a corvette-sized ship?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The general purpose ship controls her own weapons, unless involved with a "co-operative" engagement, something which is only available to ships that carry that command and control system - American made - and only available to a very few nations outside the US.

And the air search radars on a current generation frigate (I will leave the HAL class out specifically) are usually of a higher caliber than on modern corvettes. For instance, on a frigate, you may find the SMART-L/APAR combination of search/track AA radars, while a corvette would only carry a SMART-S one. (I know, the HAL have been retrofitted with SMART-S only but that is because they do not have the room on the superstructure to mount the other combination mentioned, and stretching the hulls to make superstructure room available would have been too expansive for the mid-life refit.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

As Lasers become smaller and more powerful, likely they will be a good choice to supplement existing armament on small vessels, working a close in defense system against ASM's and small vessels.

 

[quadrapiper]

As Lasers become smaller and more powerful, likely they will be a good choice to supplement existing armament on small vessels, working a close in defense system against ASM's and small vessels.

Is the requirement for massive generating systems to support the laser expected to disappear as well? Or is there something on the horizon that will run off a submarine-sized reactor plant, or a reasonable conventional generator setup?

 

[Kirkhill]

Is the requirement for massive generating systems to support the laser expected to disappear as well? Or is there something on the horizon that will run off a submarine-sized reactor plant, or a reasonable conventional generator setup?

A liter of marine distillate weighs 0.89 kg.
A kg of distillate contains 42 MJ/kg (Low Heat Value)
A liter of distillate contains 37 MJ of energy

A Generator Set is 40% efficient in producing electricity
A liter of distillate will produce 15 MJ of electricity or 15,000 kJ

The Laser on the USN Ponce is rated at 30 kW or 30 kJ/s
A liter of distillate will power that laser for 500 sec or 8 minutes and 20 sec.

How many 30 kW motors do you have on board currently?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You might end up with some sort of capacitor system for smaller ships where you get X number of shots in a given time. I am thinking for engagements like the IDF Corvette vs a Hezbollah ASM, you likely need 2-3 shots to stop/damage a larger missile, you might have enough shots to engage 2 ASM's at that rate before having to recharge. The bonus will be the lesser top hamper of the laser, mount and wiring compared to a gun/missile system. It may mean that newer small ships might require larger/more generators to accommodate for these types of weapons.

 

[Underway]

...Math...
The Laser on the USN Ponce is rated at 30 kW or 30 kJ/s
A liter of distillate will power that laser for 500 sec or 8 minutes and 20 sec.

How many 30 kW motors do you have on board currently?

The USS PONCE uses a dedicated diesel generator to provide power to the laser because this give it a 35% efficiency and the electrical system can be separated from the rest of the ships systems (which would have required more engineering and greater risk to the ships overall power grid).

Secondly the laser on the PONCE is a collection of 6 smaller industrial lasers that focus on a single spot.  This means that you only need to store or provide 5kW of energy to each laser individually.  This is a much easier engineering challenge that 30kW from one source.

You might end up with some sort of capacitor system for smaller ships where you get X number of shots in a given time. I am thinking for engagements like the IDF Corvette vs a Hezbollah ASM, you likely need 2-3 shots to stop/damage a larger missile, you might have enough shots to engage 2 ASM's at that rate before having to recharge. The bonus will be the lesser top hamper of the laser, mount and wiring compared to a gun/missile system. It may mean that newer small ships might require larger/more generators to accommodate for these types of weapons.

You need lasers in the 100kW range to do those things which are still a long way off.  In order to kill something that moves fast you need to get a huge amount of energy on the target in the shortest amount of time possible.  A 30kW weapons won't do that currently and needs a couple of seconds to burn through something to cause damage.  It also doesn't have a good range in its ability to cause damage (1NM or so).  The best thing about the LaWS (Laser Weapons Systems) currently is that they can dazzle targets, paint targets, and provide excellent optics for the crew.  They are also low training time (being controlled with basically an Xbox controller) for most sailors.

http://www.navy.mil/submit/display.asp?story_id=84805

There is no doubt in my mind that by the time the CSC comes online that there will be readily deployable shipborne LaWW that are effective in a number of circumstances.  Hopefully the ship design is flexible enough to allow for installation.  I'm sure it will be as they don't take up much space as shown in this picture.

 

[Kirkhill]

A 125 kW generator.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Is the requirement for massive generating systems to support the laser expected to disappear as well? Or is there something on the horizon that will run off a submarine-sized reactor plant, or a reasonable conventional generator setup?

No, the massive generating systems are required for the Transporter System to beam the NBP onto another ship*.  


*in 2935 the RCN will be looking for volunteers/OD's to test this.

 

[Journeyman]

*in 2935 the RCN will be looking for volunteers/OD's to test this.

By 2935, they will be hoping that at least 3 of the 16 serving sailors will volunteer, to be overseen by the 4,568 Flag Officers at NDHQ National Kumbaya Chat Circle. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

As Lasers become smaller and more powerful, likely they will be a good choice to supplement existing armament on small vessels, working a close in defense system against ASM's and small vessels.

Colin is the one who is right here: Laser will always only be a supplementary combat system. You will still need all the other weapons system because nothing will ever replace kinetic ammunition where infliction of damages to an enemy is concerned and because lasers will always have two irremediable drawbacks: (1) you need good vis. Fog and rain will disperse and render ineffective; and, (2) it can be rendered useless with a simple parade: mirrors. Start painting your anti-ship missiles with mirror paint and voila - no more lasers to worry about.

A 125 kW generator.

Perfect:

Now, insert into a compartment below deck that is three time that size. Dismount from wheels and instead remount on base welded into the ship's structural beams, but take care to (1) shock mount to resist blast in nearby compartments and (2) rubber isolate mount to eliminate transmission of any vibration to the ship hull. Then cocoon to cut noise. Add fuel lines coming from the main tanks from two different directions (feel free to get them to supply a locally located day tank if you wish) - add fuel filters banks. Now modify the oil pan so that the suction on the lube oil will not be lost when the whole thing constantly pitches up and down by 20 degrees along the shaft axis and rolls up to 50 degrees from side to side (by the way, this violent motion also is a driving factor on how solidly the thing must be connected to the deck). Now, take this lube oil and pump it through external piping to go through first a set of micron oil filters then a heat exchanger where sea water cools the oil before returning to the engine - provide for a sea water pump to run this sea water through the heat exchanger. Clone this lube oil system so that you have a second one as backup and provide valve blocks to switch from one to the other. Now do something external similar to this to cool the engine's cooling water system, also doubled for back up. Then, provide fume extraction system and run the exhaust through long piping system to evacuate to the outside, passing through some chiller system to hide its infra red signature. As the compartment is a steel box, provide a source of air, basically a fan system drawing air from the upper deck, that will also provide final cooling in the compartment environment.

Now you have a naval generator set to operate separately from the ship's main generators. 

 

[GAP]

pffft !!!...............easy peasy.......go nuclear!....... ;D

 

[Colin Parkinson]

OGBD or you can do what the CCG and just hard mount it to the frames, the R class had 1 generator hard mounted for pumps, we always ran that one for the first week of the patrol, it was a relief when we switched to the isolated one. 

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

But the R-Boats didn't have to evade detection by submarines. did they!  ;D