Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Humphrey Bogart]

what you will have at the start of a war is basically all you will ever have. Systems are simply too complex to be produced quickly. The ship building programme is a good notion that is 15 years late in starting (or more). If we do it right, from about hull 10 onwards we will be basically into a new build, new design so no, we will never have 15 CSCs but maybe 9 with the shipyards building the next generation thereafter.

Only true if you don't make anything yourself.

 

[newfin]

The US will not give us yard space.

Full stop.

This warship building programs trouble was created and begun around the same time as Trudeau the 1st came on the scene. Since then, every single federal government (maybe Mulroney is the only exception, or perhaps was the least damaging) has completely or nearly completely ignored the military. We all know it here, we all know that it's because of a lack of votes for any issue to do with the military, security or nationalism. A naive, Canadian, sweet view of the world permeates our anglo culture. And we live benevolently next to the most powerful country in human history so our citizens do not feel threatened; geography and Uncle Sam make us falsely feel more secure than we really are. But the solution is not to buy American ships, the solution is to build our own and to keep doing it. Ship building, warship building is a national skill we need to develop and keep. Many smaller countries mange to. So should we. Buying from the Yanks is the easy thing to do. So would buying from the Koreans but we need that skill set here, so we have no choice but to develop those skills and go through the agony of having to put it all back in place. We, as a society, kept electing politicians who ignored the military. The politicians see it as wasted money that could be spent on anything else. Building ships in American yards while allowing your own domestic industry to die is not in our national interests. Building here is the only choice even if it costs more. Some things are more important than money. There is also the issue that you can't assume the US will always be a friendly country. Look at Trump's record regarding Canada. We may soon see more scorn and irrational, reactionary behaviour from him to us. Canada needs it's own RCN and Coast Guard ship building and renewal programs.

 

[Furniture]

what you will have at the start of a war is basically all you will ever have. Systems are simply too complex to be produced quickly. The ship building programme is a good notion that is 15 years late in starting (or more). If we do it right, from about hull 10 onwards we will be basically into a new build, new design so no, we will never have 15 CSCs but maybe 9 with the shipyards building the next generation thereafter.

What actually happens, as happened in WWII, is the big brains in the Western alliance come up with "good enough" solutions that can be hammered out in large numbers. Think M4 tanks, Castle Class frigates, the Emergency measures destroyers, etc..

None of those things was the best cutting edge technology, but they were all "good enough" and because the allies had industrial capacity we could churn them out in huge numbers.

If we allow our shipyards to become nothing but repair yards, we lose the ability to build emergency measures ships, same for our auto industry. If we allow it to wither entirely, we lose the ability to churn out modern logistics vehicles that will be the backbone of any future war.

 

[Halifax Tar]

What actually happens, as happened in WWII, is the big brains in the Western alliance come up with "good enough" solutions that can be hammered out in large numbers. Think M4 tanks, Castle Class frigates, the Emergency measures destroyers, etc..

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Underway]

What actually happens, as happened in WWII, is the big brains in the Western alliance come up with "good enough" solutions that can be hammered out in large numbers. Think M4 tanks, Castle Class frigates, the Emergency measures destroyers, etc..

And yet there was a ton of stuff that was cutting edge technology. Aircraft carriers, radars, fire control systems, submarines, fighters, code breaking computers, radios, sonars, medical technology, superbombers, and so on.

There is always a mix. Some things can be good enough (Liberty ships), and other things need to be top of the line (USS Midway).

 

[Furniture]

And yet there was a ton of stuff that was cutting edge technology. Aircraft carriers, radars, fire control systems, submarines, fighters, code breaking computers, radios, sonars, medical technology, superbombers, and so on.

There is always a mix. Some things can be good enough (Liberty ships), and other things need to be top of the line (USS Midway).

Fair, but if we are being honest, the cutting edge stuff was less important in the end that the "good enough". The Cromwell tank was better than the M4, but the Brits made a lot less of them, and made them later...

We didn't win because we "out technologized" the enemy, we out produced them, and had the manpower to crew what we pumped out.

I'm not suggesting we abandon cutting edge technology at all, what I am saying is simply this; when it comes to wartime production, we will find a way to make a lot of "good enough" kit.

 

[Kirkhill]

And yet there was a ton of stuff that was cutting edge technology. Aircraft carriers, radars, fire control systems, submarines, fighters, code breaking computers, radios, sonars, medical technology, superbombers, and so on.

There is always a mix. Some things can be good enough (Liberty ships), and other things need to be top of the line (USS Midway).

Would it be fair to say that there were technologies available, which were not passing peacetime adoption standards, were given tryouts and adopted and adjusted on the fly out of desperation? Funds that were denied in peacetime were released under wartime rules. Projects that required funds in peacetime were made possible through conscripted and dollar a day labour. Funds that that were going to replace existing equipment with more of the same were diverted to new innovations. Unproven ideas were given shots. And manufacturing was expanded and sped up so that there was redundant capacity to both do the usual and the novel concurrently.

Failures were tolerated.

Merlin engines, Defiants, Spitfires, Hurricanes, Lancs, radars, HFDF, stens, Mosquitoes.....

All of those and an infinity of others, hessian parachutes for cargo drops, air support of troops in the jungle... The SAS

Some stuff worked first time most didn't. And people died from the failures. But people were saved and the war won from the successes.

Ukraine is demonstrating exactly the same innovation trajectory today.

UAVs are not new. Cheap UAVs that can be wasted are not new. RC boats are not new. But the established forces have no requirement to do anything but what they have done. The Ukrainians now and the Brits in 1939 have not options but to keep trying the other thing ... until they find things that work.

 

[KevinB]

Only true if you don't make anything yourself.

Using the mirror room isn’t a good example.
Unless it was to illustrate the perception of making things yourself.

 

[Kirkhill]

And yet there was a ton of stuff that was cutting edge technology. Aircraft carriers, radars, fire control systems, submarines, fighters, code breaking computers, radios, sonars, medical technology, superbombers, and so on.

There is always a mix. Some things can be good enough (Liberty ships), and other things need to be top of the line (USS Midway).

That comment, Underway left me thinking....

Aircraft carriers of WW2

Japan started the war with ten aircraft carriers

seven American aircraft carriers at the beginning of the hostilities, although only three of them were operating in the Pacific.

seven aircraft carriers afloat, the Royal Navy

RN Carriers

Argus - 1914 civilian liner converted to carrier 1916-1918
Hermes - 1917 aircraft carrier
Eagle - 1913 battleship converted to carrier 1918-1924
Furious - 1915 battle cruiser converted to carrier 1925
Courageous - 1915 battle cruiser converted to carrier 1924-1928
Glorious - 1915 battle cruiser converted to carrier 1924-1930
Ark Royal - 1935 aircraft carrier

These seven ships constituted the RN's carrier fleet in September 1939

Illustrious - 1937 aircraft carrier commissioned 1940
Indomitable - 1937 commissioned 1940
Formidable - 1937 commissioned 1940
Victorious - 1937 commissioned 1941

These four were ordered in the run up to the war but were a bit late to the fight.

Implacable - 1939 commissioned 1943
Indefatigable - 1939 commissioned 1944

These two were modifications to the 1937 design

Audacious class - 1942 cancelled 1945
Malta class - cancelled before construction 1945

These never made it to the field.

Light Carriers 1942

These were simplified naval designs that could be built quickly in civilian yards.

Colossus Class - 1942 commissioned 1944 - 8 ships plus 2 maintenance carriers
Majestic Class - 1945 commissioned 1946 - 6 ships
Centaur Class - 1944 commissioned 1953 - 4 ships

Merchant Carriers

These vessels were laid down as civilian grain carriers and oil tankers and sailed as civilian vessels although some were taken into service

Catapult Aircraft Merchant - CAM ships with one rocket launched Hurricane, 50 catapults ordered, first launch 1941
Merchant Aircraft Carrier - MAC ships with 6 Hurricanes or Swordfish on a flat weather deck on an active merchant ship, 52 built from June 1941
Auxiliary Aircraft Carrier - Merchant ships converted to active warships with flat tops (HMS Audacity launched as Empire Audacity in June 1941)

MAC Carriers in RN service as Auxiliary Aircraft Carriers

Activity - 1940 commissioned 1942 - Dundee built refrigerator merchantman commissioned into the RN in 1942 as a carrier
Nairana Class - 1941 commissioned 1943 - 3 UK built merchantman commissioned into the RN in 1943 as carriers
Rapana Class - 8 1934 tankers convert to MAC carriers in 1943
Pretoria Castle - 1938 civilian liner commissioned as a carrier in 1943

US built Escort Carriers in RN service

Archer - 1939 commissioned 1941 - US built merchantman commissioned into the RN in 1941 as a carrier
Avenger Class - 1939 commissioned 1942 - 3 US built merchantmen commissioned into the RN in 1942 as a carrier
Bogue / Attacker Class - 1941 commissioned 1942 - 11 C3 merchants converted on their US slips to carriers and commissioned into the RN
Bogue / Ruler Class - 1942 commissioned 1943 - 23 C3 merchants ordered from the US as carriers and commissioned into the RN


.....

By my count that means that the

RN started the war with a mixed fleet of carriers, 6 of which were ancient conversions and only one of which could be considered modern in its day. That was pretty much a prototype

7 Admiralty carriers in the water at the opening gun
6 Admiralty carriers on the slips that saw service before the end of hostilities

8 Light Carriers built to civilianized Admiralty patterns that entered the water from 1944 and saw service
10 Light Carriers commissioned after hostilities had ended
2 classes of Light Carriers abandoned

52 MAC carriers created from civilian hulls
38 Escort carriers built in the US from civilian hulls or civilian designs
...

I think that that is fairly representative of the war effort at large.

Of 121 carriers only 7 of them could be considered the result of the peacetime planning process.
Ark Royal, Illustrious and her three sisters, Indefatigable and Implacable.

The others were either ancient WW1 trials and conversions from civilian hulls or WW2 civilian conversions.
The Light Carriers blended Admiralty and Civilian practices and "no great loss if they die", as Jimmy the Sixth said about his fellow Scots.

Planning only gets you so far.

The ability to react, adapt and innovate is at least as important.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

The combined op between the USN and RN in regard to a British Carrier in the Pacific helped both navies adopt ideas and practices from each other. Fighter Direction Control was a practice used by the RN , which the USN adopted to improve their operations. In turn the RN took on ice cream machines which was a major morale booster and the RN Captain involved went on to improve living conditions for RN sailors postwar thanks to his time working with the USN.
Armoured Aircraft Carriers).

 

[Underway]

There's a lot more then that. Off the top of my head, the armoured carrier designs of the RN resulted in a much smaller air complement. The USN used larger air complements. The USN borrowed a number of the RN armoured designs to improve their CV survivability (blast doors on the hangar deck for example and armoured flight decks) and the RN leaned into larger air wings.

 

[suffolkowner]

BAE Systems Starts Construction of New Shipbuilding Hall in Scotland - Naval News

Construction has begun on a huge new ship build hall that will transform and enhance shipbuilding in Glasgow, Scotland.

www.navalnews.com

170m long by 80m wide with 2 100 tonne cranes and two 20 tonne cranes designed to build two side by side with other technological improvements totalling 300 million lbs

Will we start ours before we start on the first CSC?

 

[calculus]

BAE Systems Starts Construction of New Shipbuilding Hall in Scotland - Naval News

Construction has begun on a huge new ship build hall that will transform and enhance shipbuilding in Glasgow, Scotland.

www.navalnews.com

170m long by 80m wide with 2 100 tonne cranes and two 20 tonne cranes designed to build two side by side with other technological improvements totalling 300 million lbs

Will we start ours before we start on the first CSC?

I've been wondering the same thing. Is the expansion of ISI a mandatory requirement to start production, or can blocks be started in the existing facility? There does not seem to be much information in the public domain about that expansion in Halifax, other than the $463Mil price tag. That price seems in the same ballpark, however, as the BAE expansion in the link provided by @suffolkowner, and there is a strong relationship between BAE and ISI, so we can probably extrapolate similar capabilities.

 

[FSTO]

Thoughts on this article?

Philippe Lagassé: Time to worry about our warships

The question isn’t why we aren’t buying cheaper ships, but whether we’d be prepared to accept less capability to cut costs.

www.readtheline.ca

 

[YZT580]

Thoughts on this article?

Philippe Lagassé: Time to worry about our warships

The question isn’t why we aren’t buying cheaper ships, but whether we’d be prepared to accept less capability to cut costs.

www.readtheline.ca

I thought he made a good argument. He explained why the differences in costs, why ours were so much more expensive, why the price for what we were after was not out of line and the process that was involved. There was more of it to like than dislike

 

[Stoker]

I've been wondering the same thing. Is the expansion of ISI a mandatory requirement to start production, or can blocks be started in the existing facility? There does not seem to be much information in the public domain about that expansion in Halifax, other than the $463Mil price tag. That price seems in the same ballpark, however, as the BAE expansion in the link provided by @suffolkowner, and there is a strong relationship between BAE and ISI, so we can probably extrapolate similar capabilities.

As I understand it they are infilling the harbour now as part of the expansion.

 

[KevinB]

I’m sure that some complain about costs given:

US Navy contracts shipbuilders for nine new Arleigh Burke destroyers

The nine future flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers comprise enhanced capabilities, including Missile Defence Radar and Combat System.

www.naval-technology.com

15B for 10 AB DD’s however there is a big difference between building another 10 of something you built 60’ish of already, as well as how we cost things down here.

 

[quadrapiper]

I won't address the points about Canada buying Constellations, other folks have already done so better than I could have earlier in the thread.

Along with all the other issues with that idea, would a US "smallish" combatant be designed assuming logistical supports or operating environments (less independent and with closer logistical support) than RCN or RN ships?

Russia lost an old, outdated and potentially horribly maintained vessel to anti-shipping missiles.

...in relatively constricted waters while IIRC doing something that required it to operate far closer to a hostile shore than (guessing here) was probably ever envisaged even when new?

 

[Stoker]

I’m sure that some complain about costs given:

US Navy contracts shipbuilders for nine new Arleigh Burke destroyers

The nine future flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers comprise enhanced capabilities, including Missile Defence Radar and Combat System.

www.naval-technology.com

15B for 10 AB DD’s however there is a big difference between building another 10 of something you built 60’ish of already, as well as how we cost things down here.

Isn't that just for the hull and mechanical. Most of the costs are hidden as the government supplies most of the combat systems and is not counted.

 

[KevinB]

Isn't that just for the hull and mechanical. Most of the costs are hidden as the government supplies most of the combat systems and is not counted.

I don't think hidden is really the appropriate word -- but yes a lot of equipment for them is GFE.
We generally GFE (Gov't Furnish Equipment) major items so the OEM doesn't need to 1) Buy them themselves 2) Mark them up.