Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 343286 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 15,970
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 609
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1175 on: October 03, 2018, 09:46:35 »
Again, I'm assuming there is a spectrum of risk for operational employment based on how much of the "readiness training" a ship has done in Force Generation.  Is there formal events where "Sea Training" comes down to "check ride" a ship?
In the last few years they have updated our orders and issued a CFCD that outlines it all.  There is a set of Ship Standing Orders (SSOs) that covers off the day to day stuff and how to respond to emergencies.  If you go to the MARLANT website on the DWAN you can find them on the Sea Training (Atlantic) area.  That includes the various readiness levels and the training needed.  It starts at individual training and rolls up to collective training at the unit level, so is pretty comprehensive.  There is an equipment component as well with a whole set of trials for the ship systems to pass. 

Aside from class specific requirements though, it is pretty critical for sailors to jump from ship to ship and be able to slide into the normal routine, as that happens all the time.

Getting off topic, but the same concept will apply to CSC.  With the modern ships being intended to be more modular, capabilities theoretically roll on with a a system and crew component, and bolt on to the core crew.  Will be interesting to see when they select the ship how far they take that concept.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1176 on: October 03, 2018, 10:20:47 »
This thread is fascinating, but it certainly illustrates how thinly stretched the fleets must be. Looking ahead to the concept of Task Group, with potentially 4 surface warships and an AOR, it would seem to be a fairly lofty goal.  My takeaway from all of this, is that 15 CSC, 5-6 AOPS and 4 SSK’s won’t be quite enough to fulfill deployments and coastal protection/emergency response. There will have to be another platform to stay closer home. Right now it’s the MCDV, but there needs to be a discussion soon about what comes next, I would think.

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 179,591
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,894
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1177 on: October 03, 2018, 13:18:40 »
The answer to that Swamp is the AOPS.

In terms of readiness levels, having taken MON from a hulk in the 'loving' hands of ISI, to a warship having attained Standard Readiness level Work Ups, I can speak with some detail about how that process went - I realize that for the sake of PER points, someone has 'led change' and we now have BSSRTs or something like that, but basically, there were 5 states of readiness for a ship:

1.  Safe alongside
2.  Safe at Sea
3.  Reduced Readiness
4.  Standard Readiness
5.  High Readiness

A ship with "Safe at Sea" or higher could act as a deployer, but depending on the materiel, equipment, and personnel state, they would only be able to bring certain capabilities to the table. 

As an example, a ship that has only attained "Safe at Sea" could be sent with a boat-load of humanitarian aid to a disaster zone, and respond effectively.  Sending that same ship to the Persian Gulf would probably not be such a good plan.

The higher the readiness level, the more 'employable/deployable' the ship is. 

I could go into more depth, but, suffice to say that in my career, I've taken multiple ships through the whole series of readiness states, at least 4 times.  My last ship we went from having no power or even a functional PA system onboard all the way to integrated weapons system tracking and engagements. 

NS



Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Online Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,074
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,960
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1178 on: October 03, 2018, 13:58:34 »
This thread is fascinating, but it certainly illustrates how thinly stretched the fleets must be. Looking ahead to the concept of Task Group, with potentially 4 surface warships and an AOR, it would seem to be a fairly lofty goal. My takeaway from all of this, is that 15 CSC, 5-6 AOPS and 4 SSK’s won’t be quite enough to fulfill deployments and coastal protection/emergency response. There will have to be another platform to stay closer home. Right now it’s the MCDV, but there needs to be a discussion soon about what comes next, I would think.

That's not a loft goal, that's actually a complete reality.

Right now VDQ is on deployed in Europe, while Calgary and Asterix are deployed to SE Asia. Come October, HMC Ships Toronto, St. John's AND Halifax, as well as I believe 2 of the MCDVs (not sure which two, I want to say Summerside and Glace Bay) will all be deploying to Europe. So, by the end of October, we will have 5 frigates, 2 MCDVs and an AOR all at sea the same time (doing a mix of FG and FE).

That's 46% of our major combatants (counting Asterix as a major combatant) all forward deployed at the same time!

Actually, just checking the unclass sched right now, and it looks like for about a week in October, HMC Ships Regina, Vancouver, Edmonton and Whitehorse will all be at sea at the same time as the others I listed, so bump that number up to 60% of our heavies nad 33% of our small guys, all at sea at the same time.

How's them apples, eh Army? (and by apples I mean overall operational readiness of the RCN...)
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1179 on: October 03, 2018, 15:54:38 »
That's not a loft goal, that's actually a complete reality.

Right now VDQ is on deployed in Europe, while Calgary and Asterix are deployed to SE Asia. Come October, HMC Ships Toronto, St. John's AND Halifax, as well as I believe 2 of the MCDVs (not sure which two, I want to say Summerside and Glace Bay) will all be deploying to Europe. So, by the end of October, we will have 5 frigates, 2 MCDVs and an AOR all at sea the same time (doing a mix of FG and FE).

That's 46% of our major combatants (counting Asterix as a major combatant) all forward deployed at the same time!

Actually, just checking the unclass sched right now, and it looks like for about a week in October, HMC Ships Regina, Vancouver, Edmonton and Whitehorse will all be at sea at the same time as the others I listed, so bump that number up to 60% of our heavies nad 33% of our small guys, all at sea at the same time.

How's them apples, eh Army? (and by apples I mean overall operational readiness of the RCN...)

That’s with the current fleet of 24 surface warships, but I’m looking to when the MCDV’s are rotated out.

So, for a scenario, I’ll use MARPAC, with the assumption that the CSC split will leave them with 7 out of the 15 vessels. And, as it looks right now, MARPAC will have 2 out of 5/6 AOPS.

If, as the MND states, the goal is to be able to deploy a task group of 4 CSC and an AOR from each fleet, what does that leave guarding the gates back home? Out of the remaining 3 CSC, isn’t the plan to have 1 in long term maintenance, 1 in short term/RAMP and 1 doing work ups? Seems thin, especially if 1 or both of your West Coast AOPS are sent North for the summer?

Right now, the 6 MCDV’s each coast has shoulder a heavy load, can they be replaced by only 5-6 AOPS across the board?

This isn’t a rhetorical question, from me. I’d really like to know how they can do what they state they want to do and still leave the appropriate amount of coverage back home.

If it’s all in scheduling, then it must really limit the options with even a 3-4 vessel reduction.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 197,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,320
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1180 on: October 03, 2018, 20:14:06 »
Swamper - If I'm not mistook, a number of the Navy types on this site have stated at regular intervals that the MCDV is not being retired but retained and refurbished and will serve alongside the AOPS.

Or perhaps I misunderstand them and you.

 :cheers:
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1181 on: October 03, 2018, 20:47:56 »
Swamper - If I'm not mistook, a number of the Navy types on this site have stated at regular intervals that the MCDV is not being retired but retained and refurbished and will serve alongside the AOPS.

Or perhaps I misunderstand them and you.

 :cheers:

That’s 100% right...for now. It was how the fleet’s readiness was being discussed that got me wondering how they manage to do it all with 24 surface vessels, currently. In the next 5 years the AOPS will bring the total to 30 vessels, but this will include a far greater presence in the Arctic, so the demand on the fleet will still be very high. Then, in say 12-15 years, the MCDV will be retired and all these tasks will remain to be done by 12 fewer ships. That’s kind of worrisome, wouldn’t you say? I see a need coming for a fleet of smaller, cheaper, mainly coastal vessels to augment the AOPS and CSC and allow them to be sent wherever need dictates and still have a effective, efficient response team at home. I know the MCDVS will be here for a long time yet, but given how slowly the wheels turn in procuring new vessels, I believe that conversation should take place within the next 5 years, IMHO.

Offline LoboCanada

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,330
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 90
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1182 on: October 04, 2018, 08:24:07 »
Then, in say 12-15 years, the MCDV will be retired and all these tasks will remain to be done by 12 fewer ships. That’s kind of worrisome, wouldn’t you say? I see a need coming for a fleet of smaller, cheaper, mainly coastal vessels to augment the AOPS and CSC and allow them to be sent wherever need dictates and still have a effective, efficient response team at home. I know the MCDVS will be here for a long time yet, but given how slowly the wheels turn in procuring new vessels, I believe that conversation should take place within the next 5 years, IMHO.

How about this as an alternative:

As the CSCs start coming online, make the CPFs replace the MCDVs. Yes, they are more expensive and intensive to run, but they'll be cheaper to run than building new OPVs (or starting a 15 year replacement project for them). And yes, they are overkill for the job, but why not (you could keep them in a low-readiness state considering the job)? As each CSC is brought in, thats 1 more CPF to start O-OPV (Overkill-OPV) patrolling. As the later CSC builds come on, you can start to retire the first CPFs, and by that time the 15 year MCDV project would have started (hopefully) to cut steel.

Offline standingdown

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 54,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,366
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1183 on: October 04, 2018, 08:49:38 »
How about this as an alternative:

...

No.

Have you been on either class of vessel? I'm sure the Navy will be along soon to pick this apart if any of them feel the need...

Online SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,700
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,066
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1184 on: October 04, 2018, 09:14:57 »
How about this as an alternative:

As the CSCs start coming online, make the CPFs replace the MCDVs. Yes, they are more expensive and intensive to run, but they'll be cheaper to run than building new OPVs (or starting a 15 year replacement project for them). And yes, they are overkill for the job, but why not (you could keep them in a low-readiness state considering the job)? As each CSC is brought in, thats 1 more CPF to start O-OPV (Overkill-OPV) patrolling. As the later CSC builds come on, you can start to retire the first CPFs, and by that time the 15 year MCDV project would have started (hopefully) to cut steel.
No.
We will be luckily to keep the 12 Frigates we have floatable until the CSCs come, much less keep them past that point.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 427,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,023
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1185 on: October 04, 2018, 09:24:44 »
Operating cost differential between CPF and MCDV is an order of magnitude; crewing is nearly the same.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1186 on: October 04, 2018, 10:18:14 »
As far as it goes, the replacement for an MCDV doesn’t have to be anything over the top, like using a CPF would be. I’d say something along the lines of the USCG Sentinel class. It’s a version of the same vessel that became the HERO class for the CCG, but a little bigger and I think a little more durable in heavy seas? Building 6-7 of those with twin fast launch RHIBS, an RWS and a 25kt speed requirement shouldn’t be overly expensive.

It should be adequate for Canadian coastal defence/interdiction and frees up the CPF/CSC/AOPS to go wherever else the Navy’s business sends them.

My point to this whole thread wasn’t really to find an MCDV replacement, but rather to find out what we have available for home water defence when the big guys are gone and the MCDV’s are in the Caribbean or Africa. If it’s not OPSEC, can anyone say what the basic level of Naval defence Canada requires in home waters?

Online FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,616
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1187 on: October 04, 2018, 11:23:38 »
Can anyone say what the basic level of Naval defence Canada requires in home waters?

Don't ask any of our political leaders. They have no clue that we even have a coastline! :D

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1188 on: October 04, 2018, 14:57:53 »
Don't ask any of our political leaders. They have no clue that we even have a coastline! :D

🤣

But also,

😭...

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 26,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,672
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1189 on: October 04, 2018, 22:54:10 »
can anyone say what the basic level of Naval defence Canada requires in home waters?

#@Hiltontheshark
 He’s got us covered.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 125,940
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,867
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1190 on: October 04, 2018, 23:00:44 »
Orca's Class vessels armed with Newbies learning to navigate

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 320
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1191 on: October 05, 2018, 10:59:25 »
a phone to the pentagon

Online Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,074
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,960
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1192 on: October 05, 2018, 11:35:04 »
can anyone say what the basic level of Naval defence Canada requires in home waters?

Several thousand miles of Ocean between us an the nearest potentially hostile nation.

Some newfie fisherman with a working VHF during trappin' seasun'.

1 x Filipino monkey...
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,140
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 114
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1193 on: October 05, 2018, 16:17:31 »
Thanx guys, I’ll sleep much better tonight. 👀

Offline standingdown

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 54,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,366
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1194 on: October 05, 2018, 17:11:02 »
What Spencer100 said.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 320
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1195 on: October 05, 2018, 18:07:48 »
Plus it works in both possible situations  first "we are being invaded, please take care of that". Or the second US is invading " we would like to talk terms, please".  ;)

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 35,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,524
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1196 on: October 05, 2018, 18:32:10 »
How bad is the issue of illegal fishing boats from Spain off our east coast? I remember that being an issue in the head lines years ago? Could a case still be made we need more ships to prevent illegal fishing? in our EEZ?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 427,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,023
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1197 on: October 05, 2018, 19:58:05 »
If only we had some group responsible to Guard our Coast.  Whatever could we call them?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 13,470
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 477
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1198 on: October 05, 2018, 20:30:16 »
How bad is the issue of illegal fishing boats from Spain off our east coast? I remember that being an issue in the head lines years ago? Could a case still be made we need more ships to prevent illegal fishing? in our EEZ?

It was called the Turbot War... has receded into the past.

I sailed twice with ready duty ship at the time, the mighty warboat Nipigon (it wasn't a happy wardroom).  Both times left on a Fri night and came back on the Mon morning when they changed their minds (7-11 and 14-18 Apr 95; checked my log).  We even had ROE the second time...

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 53,580
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 606
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1199 on: October 05, 2018, 20:47:33 »
If only we had some group responsible to Guard our Coast.  Whatever could we call them?

Sounds good to me.  Give the OPVs to the Coast Guard and replace the Kingston-Class with another MCM vessel.  No point having a navy if an enemy can keep our ships bottled up in port by laying mines.

I'd rather see the RCN supplement the CSC's with a multi-purpose corvette.  Something that has good range, has ASW capabilities (towed array sonar and capability to embark a Cyclone if required) but cheaper and less crew requirement than the CSC. 

Maybe something like this:  https://saab.com/naval/submarines-and-warships/naval-surface-ships/nextgenerationcorvette/

I could live with Canada having a fleet something like this:

12-15 x CSCs
12 x Corvettes
6 x AOPS
8-12 x MCM's
2 x Asterix
2 x JSS
6-8 x SSKs

I'd love to add 2 x Amphibious Assault Ships to give us the ability to project ground forces as well, but I think the above would do a pretty good job of protecting Canada's maritime approaches and be a major asset to our allies as well.

The above force might sound like dreaming but when it comes down to it we in North America are basically an island.  Our Navy (and the RCAF) will always be our best defense and also be key to our being able to project force overseas.  Ultimately if the budget is limited and choices have to be made I'd choose to build up our Naval and Air forces over our land forces.