Type 31 for Canada?

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am looking through the publicly available information on various warship shipbuilding programs in Canada and the UK, and on the projected schedules in particular.

The Canadian River class current projection is for FRASER to commission in the early 2030's (I will be generous and assume it will be actually in 2030) and the first 9 vessels to commission by 2040, with the last 6 commissioning between 2040 and 2050 (last one). Why a slower rate of production in the second decade is not made clear, but I will assume that it is because in that same decade (40 to50), the first five years will also include the development and designing of the next gen of RCN warships and they will start to build in parallel with the last Rivers during the second 5 years so that they (next gen) start to replace the older Rivers from 2051 on. At least that is what the Shipbuilding Strategy envisioned: continuous build.

When I look at all the various Type 26 derivatives construction schedules, I note that the production speed seems fairly constant throughout at a little over five years from "keel" laying (I put that in brackets because nowadays, the process starts differently than in the old days). On the other hand, the production speed for the Type 31 seems to be a little over three years.

Assuming no slippage in the River class production schedule occurs and assuming the HAL's will self retire the same way and at about the same age as the IRO's (44 years average), then the last HAL will self retire in 2040, at which time we will only have 9 River's in service. Not only do we not hit 15 warships in service, but we are 25% below current fleet levels. Any slippage in the River's production increases that gap.

If, on the other hand, we ran the following program, what would happen?

Program: A one time, one bid deal whereby the Government of Canada invites any Canadian shipyard to present a bid for the construction of six minimally Canadianized Type 31 frigates, the first one to be "laid down" no later than end of 2025, be in service NLT 2029 and the last one delivered by NLT end of 2035. Each bidder would have to negotiate its own deal with Babcock. Any Canadian yard could bid, but the ones that are already "selected" yard under the NSBS would have to guarantee, under severe penalties if they fail, that taking on such extra work would not delay their other productions by even one day.

By "minimum Canadianizing", I mean the following: Hotel services to be at North American electrical standards and, if they see fit and is easier to make it work, use CCS330 instead of TACTICOS as the combat system.

Under my "plan", one HAL would be retired every time either a Canadian Type 31 or a River class commissions so that all 12 HAL's would be retired by about 2037-38. After that year, you let the fleet build up to 15 ships with further River commissioning, at which point for every River coming into the fleet, you start selling the Canadian Type 31 to acceptable secondary markets.

What say you all?

 

[Fabius]

Why leave the bidders to negotiate with Babcock vs the GoC?
Do we have the capacity as a country to build another class concurrently? Davie maybe?

If we have another yard that can build a Type31 why not use them to simply build the River Class faster?

 

[YZT580]

Why leave the bidders to negotiate with Babcock vs the GoC?
Do we have the capacity as a country to build another class concurrently? Davie maybe?

If we have another yard that can build a Type31 why not use them to simply build the River Class faster?

Would each module be portable enough to transport from another yard for final assembly at Irving? There are probably several yards in the east that could handle that type of work. After all, Davie had a yard in Europe build units for the Asterix. And if more ground space is available for assembly Irving still owns St. Johns.

 

[Stoker]

What are you on about? We have enough issues with the CSC and you want to stand up another class of ship? All this does is give a future government cause to cut the amount of CSC's and use type 31's instead. Not to mention having to staff another project office that we don't have people for and operating a mixed fleet that will consume more resources that we don't have. You mention "minimum Canadianizing" and that's all and good however we also have different occupational health and safety standards to account for as well at a minimum, you have a very simplistic understanding of how we build ships in Canada. The whole idea of building 15 CSC's and not 3 air defence ships and 12 CSC's was to prevent exactly what you're proposing. No Canadian shipyard is going to accept a contract with the penalties as you describe.

There is only several ways in my opinion to increase production to account for any shortfall in keeping with the NSS, if there is any and your numbers seem off to be honest.

1. Increase capacity in building multiple CSC's either from the prime contractor building a separate site ie (in NS or reactivation of the Saint John site)

2. Invest in a government owned shipyard as a strategic asset and if the capacity exists design work and production of the CSC replacement.

 

[KevinB]

The solution seems to be to not slow the last CSC build timelines, but somewhere in the delivery schedule the RCN and NSS should be looking into the CSC replacement, and/or adding hulls to the fleet to replace the older CSC.

 

[Fabius]

Assuming no slippage in the River class production schedule occurs and assuming the HAL's will self retire the same way and at about the same age as the IRO's (44 years average), then the last HAL will self retire in 2040, at which time we will only have 9 River's in service. Not only do we not hit 15 warships in service, but we are 25% below current fleet levels. Any slippage in the River's production increases that gap.

I do think this is a legitimate problem but I am not convinced Canada has the will to solve it.
The best bet is to seek to accelerate River Class production and by 2040 have the design of the next ship well underway regardless of whether it’s an upgraded River or a new clean sheet design, production of which should aim to have the first of class being delivered at the same time as last of the River Class.

We are likely too late to fix the identified problem but we can aim not to repeat it.

 

[Swampbuggy]

I think if we were to do anything other than what is the plan right now, the only consideration might be to take Vard/Heddle up on the upgunned Vigilance vessel. At least, as a corvette, it would be less likely to cause a reduction in RIVER class numbers. With its containerized mission sets, it could provide a 75% solution to situations that are beyond an AOPS but where a CPF isn’t available. And, if there really is an actual desire to replace the KINGSTON class, you’ve checked that box at the same time. Once you have the destroyer numbers necessary to carry out the business of the RCN, they revert back to being your primary patrol craft for MCDV type operations.

 

[Eaglelord17]

The good news is we don’t have the manning needed for all those ships currently so a slower uptake really doesn’t make a huge world of difference for us. Its not likely we are going to pull the seamen necessary out of thin air.

 

[YZT580]

The good news is we don’t have the manning needed for all those ships currently so a slower uptake really doesn’t make a huge world of difference for us. Its not likely we are going to pull the seamen necessary out of thin air.

Manning is a red herring. If all 15 River class vessels were to be delivered by 2035 that is still 11 years in which to hire and train a total of 3000 sailors approximately. That would replace every current serving member. The liberals hired 21000 civil servants in 2023 alone. People need to quit wringing their hands in despair and resolve a soluble issue. Oh, and add the new submariners to that list as well. It isn't a whole lot of people. I have seen more than that at a Marlies game

 

[Stoker]

I think if we were to do anything other than what is the plan right now, the only consideration might be to take Vard/Heddle up on the upgunned Vigilance vessel. At least, as a corvette, it would be less likely to cause a reduction in RIVER class numbers. With its containerized mission sets, it could provide a 75% solution to situations that are beyond an AOPS but where a CPF isn’t available. And, if there really is an actual desire to replace the KINGSTON class, you’ve checked that box at the same time. Once you have the destroyer numbers necessary to carry out the business of the RCN, they revert back to being your primary patrol craft for MCDV type operations.

That is what Vard is hoping for with their variants I suspect. It's a solution to be sure . Lots of pit falls as it will all said and done take years to organize and plan and need personnel for multiple project management offices. Kingston Class replacements haven't been budgeted or even in the strategic plan as of yet and we're probably having a government change at some point. By the time you have the destroyer numbers 20 years have gone by.

I think we need a Kingston Class replacement sooner than later with sufficient capability to do more things but leave the warship tasks to warships. Light a fire under Irving's ass to come up with a solution to build extra ships currently either through their own means or bite the bullet and build our own government shipyard to help build the River Class and River Class replacements. A true strategic asset rather than be held hostage by the shipbuilding industry and use it to count towards our 2% GDP. End of the day its political will and funding, both things in short supply these days.

 

[suffolkowner]

With a 8+ to 20+ run on building the River class. I think we must accept that there will be a gap in ships available as it becomes more difficult to keep the Halifax ships running and less worthwhile to do so. Thats the cost of the late start to the program/strategy. We've already experienced that with the AOR's and might with the subs as well

 

[Eaglelord17]

Manning is a red herring. If all 15 River class vessels were to be delivered by 2035 that is still 11 years in which to hire and train a total of 3000 sailors approximately. That would replace every current serving member. The liberals hired 21000 civil servants in 2023 alone. People need to quit wringing their hands in despair and resolve a soluble issue. Oh, and add the new submariners to that list as well. It isn't a whole lot of people. I have seen more than that at a Marlies game

It isn’t though, we have had a tough time finding people for our Navy for the last 30 years. Its easy to say we hired 21000 into cushy high paying desk jobs. Its another all together to get someone into the Forces, especially the Navy.

 

[YZT580]

It isn’t though, we have had a tough time finding people for our Navy for the last 30 years. Its easy to say we hired 21000 into cushy high paying desk jobs. Its another all together to get someone into the Forces, especially the Navy.

you've got 11 years, that is 300 a year. We have just over 300,000 high school graduates per year. The number you need isn't even a rounding-out figure for those numbers so as I said, instead of wringing our hands and crying about it, find something that will appeal to people. Perhaps establish a naval base in the Turks.

 

[suffolkowner]

Concerns about manning issues should run through the whole organization and could say the same thing about RCAF modernization plans. We're likely twenty years out from having the same number of replacement frigates and are likely within that 20 yr timescale to have to make the decision to pay off a Halifax or two

 

[Maxman1]

It isn’t though, we have had a tough time finding people for our Navy for the last 30 years. Its easy to say we hired 21000 into cushy high paying desk jobs. Its another all together to get someone into the Forces, especially the Navy.

 

[Harris]

Manning is a red herring. If all 15 River class vessels were to be delivered by 2035 that is still 11 years in which to hire and train a total of 3000 sailors approximately. That would replace every current serving member. The liberals hired 21000 civil servants in 2023 alone. People need to quit wringing their hands in despair and resolve a soluble issue. Oh, and add the new submariners to that list as well. It isn't a whole lot of people. I have seen more than that at a Marlies game

Ack all, but do you honestly think all 3000 will go towards new platforms? We'll still be losing people that need to be backfilled. Where I work, we don't care about retention yet. It's all about recruiting. The questions I get today is how is recruiting going, not how are we retaining pers. In 5XX alone (I know we're talking Navy above and not Army, but I don't have Navy numbers), once the rules for retention change in Mar 25, we currently have number of pers who may be released. I'm assuming the Navy is also feeling the pinch as it seems pretty bare around Halifax. If the Soldier Readiness Programme (Reserves) is actually held to the current standard it has set, a large number of army reservists will also release due to attendance or other failings within the programme. All that to say, I'm not seeing an increase in the Navy of 3000+ from today's numbers in the Navy unless we dramatically change the way we do business. Unfortunately, as discussed in many other threads, the Gov't (of all stripes) is not willing to do that because the voters don't give a damn. Until not having a capable, staffed Military impacts them directly, I don't see this changing.

My 2 cents.

 

[YZT580]

Unfortunately, as discussed in many other threads, the Gov't (of all stripes) is not willing to do that because the voters don't give a damn. Until not having a capable, staffed Military impacts them directly, I don't see this changing.

My 2 cents.

This summarizes my entire argument nicely, thanks Harris. The problem is totally solvable. It simply requires government will regardless of what the voters think. People have a notoriously short attention span, it is up to the leadership to identify and act on known needs and not what will gain them the most votes in a particular region. In short, it is up to the leadership to demonstrate leadership.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My guess is that the speed of build for hull number 3 will be significantly faster than the previous 2 and that there will be a much more streamlined system by hull number 4.

Going back to the original question, I suppose that if the RN was also struggling to man one of their ships, we could lease a Type 31 to help cover gaps in our abilty to fulfil our responsibilities, with the intent to return it. That would protect the CSC program and the NSS.

 

[FJAG]

Unfortunately, as discussed in many other threads, the Gov't (of all stripes) is not willing to do that because the voters don't give a damn.

You know, I'm one of those naïve guys that believes representative government means that we elect people who make all the hard and right decisions for us and that they ignore the fact that the population may be somnambulantly wandering around too caught up in their personal affairs.

If governments aren't prepared to do that, we might as well just get rid of them entirely and just hold referendums on hot button issues on Facebook every two weeks or so while unelected bureaucracies do the detailed work.

I know, I know, I'm just spitting into the wind here. But honestly, They can't handle the economy; they haven't got a clue about foreign affairs; and they don't do defence. That's the big three for the Feds. Maybe if they got their noses out of stuff that belongs to the provinces, they'd have the time and money to do their job.