New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Rainbow1910]

Do we really need that to happen?

Armed icebreakers? I'd argue not, given that is what the AOPS initially started as and it was pretty quickly found to be a niche, insanely costly capability to hoist upon the Navy. There was apparently a large PC-3 class icebreaker considered in 2006-2007 for the Navy, sporting a 57mm main gun and some .50 caliber machine guns for year round Canadian Arctic operations. This would eventually morph into the AOPS as we know it, after it became clear that such a vessel would be ungodly expensive and complex, alongside being utterly useless in any other roles besides sitting in the North with nothing to realistically do. When the shipping season comes to an end in the North, the place effectively clears out there is nothing to really patrol against.

It was a waste of time, effort and money then, and it would be a similar White Elephant to hoist upon the RCN at this point as well. Say what you will about the AOPS, but atleast they are useful vessels in a variety of roles. If any more heavy icebreakers are being made, they should be going to the CCG where they belong.

Old render of the design mentioned above.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Armed icebreakers? I'd argue not, given that is what the AOPS initially started as and it was pretty quickly found to be a niche, insanely costly capability to hoist upon the Navy. There was apparently a large PC-3 class icebreaker considered in 2006-2007 for the Navy, sporting a 57mm main gun and some .50 caliber machine guns for year round Canadian Arctic operations. This would eventually morph into the AOPS as we know it, after it became clear that such a vessel would be ungodly expensive and complex, alongside being utterly useless in any other roles besides sitting in the North with nothing to realistically do. When the shipping season comes to an end in the North, the place effectively clears out there is nothing to really patrol against.

It was a waste of time, effort and money then, and it would be a similar White Elephant to hoist upon the RCN at this point as well. Say what you will about the AOPS, but atleast they are useful vessels in a variety of roles. If any more heavy icebreakers are being made, they should be going to the CCG where they belong.

Old render of the design mentioned above.

I agree 100%
I'd argue that putting in a 4-6 places where a .50 cal gun could be mounted in dire times of need should be made but that's it.
The RCN doesn't need these ships to be push onto them.

 

[Underway]

Armed icebreakers?

They didn't say armed. They said Navy. And they didn't say icebreaking warship. I'm not excluding that possiblity (as if you want to fight with the Russians you need guns) but there is a distinct possibility that "armed" may not reach any further than the JSS armament (with CIWS and 50 cals).

IF we're looking at submarines and more ships in the arctic for longer or year round than I can see a through line to an RCN icebreaker. I'm thinking more of a Russian style deep sea tug, to provide all the logistical and repair support for RCN ships that get into a tight spot up north.

Bunkering, workshops, chinook landing pad, hospital, sub rescue capability. Maybe more personnel carrying and deployment capability. An A-JSS for the home game.

Not saying this is a good idea or its a critical requirement, NSS II is likely in the brainstorming phase to a certain extent and I expect the crazy whiteboard ideas are leaking out.

I see this as a good sign, particularly as they are thinking about NSS II, and are going to try and deliver on that continuous build philosophy. Be willing to take some creative risk here as this moment in history requires some bigger swings.

 

[Czech_pivo]

They didn't say armed. They said Navy. And they didn't say icebreaking warship. I'm not excluding that possiblity (as if you want to fight with the Russians you need guns) but there is a distinct possibility that "armed" may not reach any further than the JSS armament (with CIWS and 50 cals).

IF we're looking at submarines and more ships in the arctic for longer or year round than I can see a through line to an RCN icebreaker. I'm thinking more of a Russian style deep sea tug, to provide all the logistical and repair support for RCN ships that get into a tight spot up north.

Bunkering, workshops, chinook landing pad, hospital, sub rescue capability. Maybe more personnel carrying and deployment capability. An A-JSS for the home game.

Not saying this is a good idea or its a critical requirement, NSS II is likely in the brainstorming phase to a certain extent and I expect the crazy whiteboard ideas are leaking out.

I see this as a good sign, particularly as they are thinking about NSS II, and are going to try and deliver on that continuous build philosophy. Be willing to take some creative risk here as this moment in history requires some bigger swings.

There are thinking about NSS II because someone at the very top keeps talking about Corvettes and that these Corvettes need to have some teeth to them and when looking around inside Canada our choices are rather slim.

 

[Furniture]

That's a really dumb way to come up with a technical restriction, when they are ignoring the complete lack of people to operate a corvette class on top of existing fleet plans (which we already don't have enough people for).

Why assume we'll magically fix attrition and have a significant growth in trained people in trades that are trending to 40% remar but then assume we can't figure out a few additional jetties somewhere in the Halifax region? They also don't have jetties for the CSCs or subs so expansion is needed anyway.

I suspect the length is there not just for berthing, but also to prevent scope creep and ending up with an F-125...

 

[Underway]

That's a really dumb way to come up with a technical restriction, when they are ignoring the complete lack of people to operate a corvette class on top of existing fleet plans (which we already don't have enough people for).

Why assume we'll magically fix attrition and have a significant growth in trained people in trades that are trending to 40% remar but then assume we can't figure out a few additional jetties somewhere in the Halifax region? They also don't have jetties for the CSCs or subs so expansion is needed anyway.

Does it fit is a perfectly valid design constraint. If they need more space then a new project for jetty space needs to be created, (like with AOPS in Halifax and RCD in Esquimalt). As well this seems still to be a lot of whiteboard brainstorming, so how a design eventually shakes out when industry gets involved is something different.

Ships take just as long to plan/build as sailors. Navies are a series of 10 year plans. In 10 years what does the pers situation of the RCN look like. And for NSS II (which is likely a longer timeframe than 10 years) what dos the pers situation look like then.

Your constant (if valid) complaints about pers ignores the passage of time before any of these build programs are going to pass and any efforts or changes in recruiting, retention or training in the meantime. Building the fleet includes people. And brainstorming out to a 15 year timeframe doesn't negate any efforts on the pers side. Assuming the pers side won't work (in 15 years) ignores the imperative for the RCN to plan platforms anyways. Can't stop building because maybe in the future we wont have people. All projects have underlying assumptions and the assumption that we'll have some people to sail these ships has to be in place. Otherwise lets just give up, assume the RCN is screwed and go home. Why plan for the future.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The RCN doesn't need these ships to be push onto them.

The RCN doesn't need any more ships that aren't warships, unless they are tankers or prime movers.

We have a fight coming and we need to be ready.

 

[Rainbow1910]

They didn't say armed. They said Navy. And they didn't say icebreaking warship. I'm not excluding that possiblity (as if you want to fight with the Russians you need guns) but there is a distinct possibility that "armed" may not reach any further than the JSS armament (with CIWS and 50 cals).

IF we're looking at submarines and more ships in the arctic for longer or year round than I can see a through line to an RCN icebreaker. I'm thinking more of a Russian style deep sea tug, to provide all the logistical and repair support for RCN ships that get into a tight spot up north.

Bunkering, workshops, chinook landing pad, hospital, sub rescue capability. Maybe more personnel carrying and deployment capability. An A-JSS for the home game.

Not saying this is a good idea or its a critical requirement, NSS II is likely in the brainstorming phase to a certain extent and I expect the crazy whiteboard ideas are leaking out.

I see this as a good sign, particularly as they are thinking about NSS II, and are going to try and deliver on that continuous build philosophy. Be willing to take some creative risk here as this moment in history requires some bigger swings.

There is a distinct and very obvious implication that if you are having icebreakers built for the Navy, they are going to be armed. They are pushing a narrative here and to try to weasel out of it, I think is pretty disingenuous on their part. Saying "armed" and slapping some CIWS/HMG's on it would be incredibly amusing political theatre.

I think what you are describing could have value, but I get the feeling that isn't what is being proposed here. Armed icebreakers have been in the Conservative mindset for decades and fits well with the idea that the current party is pushing, given they would be big fat vanity projects that one could point to in order to show "how serious we are about the Arctic". I would bet something along the lines as what I shared above is more likely, although I would be much less hostile to something akin to an ice strengthened multi-purpose vessel.

Something like G-LAM?

 

[Underway]

There is a distinct and very obvious implication that if you are having icebreakers built for the Navy, they are going to be armed. They are pushing a narrative here and to try to weasel out of it, I think is pretty disingenuous on their part. Saying "armed" and slapping some CIWS/HMG's on it would be incredibly amusing political theatre.

I think what you are describing could have value, but I get the feeling that isn't what is being proposed here.

We'll have to see when more rumours leak out. I'm happy to eat crow as we're just speculating here.

Armed icebreakers have been in the Conservative mindset for decades and fits well with the idea that the current party is pushing, given they would be big fat vanity projects that one could point to in order to show "how serious we are about the Arctic".

Normally you and I are in lockstep on this stuff (yay team!) but I think, at least the way you are explaining yourself, you are conflating conservative election platforms with RCN future planning, and given past history those things are not very congruent.

I would bet something along the lines as what I shared above is more likely, although I would be much less hostile to something akin to an ice strengthened multi-purpose vessel.

Something like G-LAM?

This looks like a San Antonio style LPD or more like the Dutch Karel Doorman JSS. Not sure I had icebreaking LPD on my bingo card here. Certainly don't have armed icebreaker though so anything is possible.

The RCN doesn't need any more ships that aren't warships, unless they are tankers or prime movers.

We have a fight coming and we need to be ready.

I agree. Another JSS is a better idea than an RCN icebreaker.

 

[Czech_pivo]

We'll have to see when more rumours leak out. I'm happy to eat crow as we're just speculating here.


Normally you and I are in lockstep on this stuff (yay team!) but I think, at least the way you are explaining yourself, you are conflating conservative election platforms with RCN future planning, and given past history those things are not very congruent.


This looks like a San Antonio style LPD or more like the Dutch Karel Doorman JSS. Not sure I had icebreaking LPD on my bingo card here. Certainly don't have armed icebreaker though so anything is possible.


I agree. Another JSS is a better idea than an RCN icebreaker.

Can we just say another 2 maybe 3 JSS so that we always have 1 on the ready on the West coast and one on the East?

 

[Underway]

Can we just say another 2 maybe 3 JSS so that we always have 1 on the ready on the West coast and one on the East?

I think 3 JSS is the sweet spot and we can retire Asterix. But like I pointed out an A-JSS might be interesting so there is some capability extention there.

 

[Maxman1]

There is a distinct and very obvious implication that if you are having icebreakers built for the Navy, they are going to be armed. They are pushing a narrative here and to try to weasel out of it, I think is pretty disingenuous on their part. Saying "armed" and slapping some CIWS/HMG's on it would be incredibly amusing political theatre.

Slap one of these on the bow deck.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Does it fit is a perfectly valid design constraint. If they need more space then a new project for jetty space needs to be created, (like with AOPS in Halifax and RCD in Esquimalt). As well this seems still to be a lot of whiteboard brainstorming, so how a design eventually shakes out when industry gets involved is something different.

Ships take just as long to plan/build as sailors. Navies are a series of 10 year plans. In 10 years what does the pers situation of the RCN look like. And for NSS II (which is likely a longer timeframe than 10 years) what dos the pers situation look like then.

Your constant (if valid) complaints about pers ignores the passage of time before any of these build programs are going to pass and any efforts or changes in recruiting, retention or training in the meantime. Building the fleet includes people. And brainstorming out to a 15 year timeframe doesn't negate any efforts on the pers side. Assuming the pers side won't work (in 15 years) ignores the imperative for the RCN to plan platforms anyways. Can't stop building because maybe in the future we wont have people. All projects have underlying assumptions and the assumption that we'll have some people to sail these ships has to be in place. Otherwise lets just give up, assume the RCN is screwed and go home. Why plan for the future.

It's not just recruiting people though; we also a lot more training capacity to actually generate those people. Those are 5-10 year efforts on their own and have to be in place before you really start growing people, so a 15 year ship build horizon actually isn't long enough to generate all the people you need with 5-15 years of experience and training, plus 5-10 years to actually figure out how to train more people (including getting QSPs etc in place).

This isn't a new concern, and was raised at least 10 years ago when we retired the 280s and were starting the NSS, so I think our plans need some realism injected into them and hard decisions made (like paying off the MCDVs, getting rid of Oriole and actually focusing on training and growth, not running the fleet into the ground).

We've been 7 years away from sorting out the HT trade replacement for 5 years now, so our track record doesn't actually indicate a miraculous turnaround on the pers side, and we're already behind there on what we need for RCDs.

I get why they want these, but the RCN is great at focusing on sexy things and ignoring the boring things that actually keep ships operational (to at least meet commercial safety standards)) and supplied, so when we aren't tracking to have enough people to operate CSC, expanding the sub fleet and adding an entirely new class isn't planning for the future, it's dreaming.

 

[suffolkowner]

Aren't the aops the rcn armed icebreakers ?
We took the 57mm of them and replaced it with the 25mm

 

[Underway]

I want to point out that when the RCN first was first proposed armed icebreakers they scoffed and rejected the idea out of hand. AOPS was within the probability of impact area for the solution. It's at the right time as the MCDV's reach end of life and as the arctic is starting to open up. I would argue they are a success beyond what was expected (expectation were granted pretty low).

If the RCN is considering armed icebreakers than that's a response to significant changes in the geopolitical security environment. Be that Russia invading Ukraine, China being a near arctic state, the US becoming more isolationist or whatnot. Armed icebreakers would have to make sense for the change in focus to being concerned about arctic sovereignty.

The RCN recommend solutions to security problems to the government. That's how AOPS became a thing. So if there is a problem and an armed icebreaker is the solution then we'll have to see what the looks like. Because there is a lot of room in "naval icebreaker" vague labeling for a large variety of solutions (ex: A-JSS, icebreaking warship, icebreaking LPD/LHD and so on)

 

[Underway]

Aren't the aops the rcn armed icebreakers ?
We took the 57mm of them and replaced it with the 25mm

They are build to civilian ship standards, not naval standards for the most part. A proper icebreaking warship would have significantly increased compartmentalization, armour around magazines, different damage control, blast control zones, EMP resistance, blast resistance designs, shock mounted equipment and various other expensive changes.

 

[GR66]

I want to point out that when the RCN first was first proposed armed icebreakers they scoffed and rejected the idea out of hand. AOPS was within the probability of impact area for the solution. It's at the right time as the MCDV's reach end of life and as the arctic is starting to open up. I would argue they are a success beyond what was expected (expectation were granted pretty low).

If the RCN is considering armed icebreakers than that's a response to significant changes in the geopolitical security environment. Be that Russia invading Ukraine, China being a near arctic state, the US becoming more isolationist or whatnot. Armed icebreakers would have to make sense for the change in focus to being concerned about arctic sovereignty.

The RCN recommend solutions to security problems to the government. That's how AOPS became a thing. So if there is a problem and an armed icebreaker is the solution then we'll have to see what the looks like. Because there is a lot of room in "armed icebreaker" vague labeling for a large variety of solutions (ex: A-JSS, icebreaking warship, icebreaking LPD/LHD and so on)

The highlighted is key to getting a grasp on what is being proposed. Like you say there's a big difference between an ice breaker that is armed and a combatant that has an ice strengthened hull.

 

[PrairieFella]

There is a distinct and very obvious implication that if you are having icebreakers built for the Navy, they are going to be armed. They are pushing a narrative here and to try to weasel out of it, I think is pretty disingenuous on their part. Saying "armed" and slapping some CIWS/HMG's on it would be incredibly amusing political theatre.

I think what you are describing could have value, but I get the feeling that isn't what is being proposed here. Armed icebreakers have been in the Conservative mindset for decades and fits well with the idea that the current party is pushing, given they would be big fat vanity projects that one could point to in order to show "how serious we are about the Arctic". I would bet something along the lines as what I shared above is more likely, although I would be much less hostile to something akin to an ice strengthened multi-purpose vessel.

Something like G-LAM?

Looks perfect honestly. For the actual Navy folk here, where would the best place to put a flotilla to support something like this for potential arctic troop movements be? East? West? Somewhere new like Churchill? My thinking is the bare minimum would be the need for a rail head since you need a way to get troops and kit to the ship, so that rules out places like Iqaluit.

 

[Fabius]

Could not 2-3 things be true?

First, the RCN needs to focus on rebuilding its personnel strength and getting the RCD and JSS and subs in service.

Second, Canada has a need to commence new design work if we want to maintain what we have created so far.

Third, we need a consistent build program to maintain the trades skills we have built up.

The first is easy, stay the course.

Second, get the design teams working on a corvette and armed icebreaker design now. Doesn’t matter if we don’t build, only build one or build an entire class. It’s the design work experience that matters now.

Third, add another two JSS post the last of the Coast Guard ships coming out of Seaspan.

 

[OldSolduer]

The RCN doesn't need any more ships that aren't warships, unless they are tankers or prime movers.

We have a fight coming and we need to be ready.

What's the point of having a "warship" if it can't go to war? Guns, torpedoes etc.....

Arm the hell out them...