A few weeks/months ago Oldgateboatdriver produced a
Dream Navy predicated on the same number of sailors/seamen/mariners as are currently engaged crewing our existing fleet. He used an upper limit of 4400 souls including MCDV crews drawn from the reserves. That generated a 38 ship fleet capable of doing everything we do now and support an expeditionary lift in excess of 4400 troops with vehicles, boats and helicopters.
If we take a look at the current CPFs and consider their capabilities we find that the capabilities broadly conform to what is expected of any General Purpose Combatant. It has Sonar and Radar to sweep large areas to supply situational awareness. It has an ability to launch and recover helicopters in heavy seas to be able to extend its area of influence broadly as well as refine the intelligence picture. It has an ability to launch missiles to engage a variety of targets at a variety of ranges. Those “missiles” broadly speaking, include torpedoes. It has a variety of guns ranging upwards from 12.7 mm for close in defence, through anti-aircraft weapons to a weapon designed to engage larger surface targets at extended range.
The CPF is not unique. Many other vessels supply the same capabilities. Not all vessels supply the same quality of capability – and I will try to leave the discussion of crew quality out of the equation just now. Suffice to say that I am sure that Canada’s crews are as good as anyone’s and better than most.
Where am I rambling to?
If we look at the CPF, based largely on 1970s and 1980s technology, it requires a complement of 225 to crew all the stations necessary to supply those capabilities on that 4750 tonne vessel.
If I follow OGBD’s lead on his Dream Navy and take a look at what might be possible when reviewing the options for the CSC to replace the CPF and the DDHs then I come to this list comparing manning requirements of vessels that I think might be suitable General Purpose candidates to replace the CPFs:
CPF Halifax 225
F124 Sachsen 230
F100-7Provinces 202
T45 Daring 190
T26 (Future) 150
F125 (Future) 105-120
Absalon/Huitfeldt 101
FREMM 108
Formidable 70 (Ships Crew with an additional Helidet of 15 for a total complement of 85)
Endurance 65
Now by the time we get down to the Royal Singapore Navy's 3500 tonne Endurance the apples are starting to look distinctly like oranges. It is a Frigate of a useful size but it is missing a useful missile capability. On the other hand the French Formidable from which it evolved, with its 32 cell SAM launcher, 8 Harpoons, 6 Torpedoes, 76mm gun and 4 12.7s does seem to be at least in the same ball park as the CPF. I am sure I will be corrected.
I am also sure that the discrepancies in manpower can be justified on many other grounds that I don’t understand. However if the limiting factor in fleet development is manpower and the ability to recruit and pay for crew, while at the same time maximizing both the number and size of platforms, there does seem a case to be made that we could, as OGBD pointed out, considerably increase our capabilities by better exploiting technology.
Even if we were to set a notional crew size of 75, or 1/3 of the crew of a CPF, couldn’t we crew two vessels for each one that we are crewing now and use the reduction in Person-Years to help pay for the extra hulls?
Additionally if more use were made of Reservists and Civilian Personnel to man vessels not engaged on standing tasks, or not involved in high risk services to the fleet, could we not afford to procure more capabilities that way?
I believe I understand one of the counter-arguments that a large crew is necessary to keep a damaged ship afloat and in the fight.
But doesn’t that argument tend to run in circles? A bigger crew requires a bigger vessel which creates a bigger target that costs more money to defend. It also represents a greater loss of live and money and capability if lost. Additionally cramming a large number of people into a small space means that each individual is at greater risk in the event that the ship is hit in any given spot.
Conversely a larger vessel, with fewer crew, the numbers being made up with technology and electric motors, offers the crew less risk of being at the point of impact when the ship is hit. The reduced crew means that fewer lives are put at risk. The increased number of platforms means that a smaller portion of the fleet’s capabilities are lost if the ship is lost. And a smaller crew means less time to evacuate the vessel.
Additionally, spare space for passengers and a greater variety of connectors, like larger helicopters, ships boats and LCVPS enhances flexibility when the need arises.
Does a large crew in cramped quarters really serve the fleet’s interests best?
Having gone through all of that meander – to get back to the point of this thread and “New Ships(Cheap)”.
I would dearly like to see Canada pick up the spare Bay and possibly the Ocean but I don’t think either thing can be done until we free up manpower by downsizing the crews on the CPFs which means we have to wait until the CSCs are built. For that reason I don’t see it being worthwhile to pick up the Ocean just now. She is a combat vessel, as i understand it, designed to go into harms way. She needs a regular Navy crew. If we want to build OGBD’s dream fleet then it has to happen over time by commissioning CSCs as we pay off the CPFs and concurrently adding the additional platforms. And that is going to take time.
Now, on the other hand, the Bay, a non-combatant logistics craft with a small crew and a useful capability that can be exploited immediately. Couldn’t that be a worthwhile purchase to be crewed by a mix of reservists and civilians?
Ramble ends.