Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[SeaKingTacco]

I don’t disagree with you.

They have low crew requirements (relatively) and have a large area of mission configurable space to use.

And if all they are doing is driving around with the fleet hauling missiles, the crew could go even lower.

 

[Navy_Pete]

And if all they are doing is driving around with the fleet hauling missiles, the crew could go even lower.

I thought the crew was increased because they realized they didn't have enough to do the basic operations and maintain the ship. Short term you can skip some maintenance, but things break down pretty quickly if you try and keep that up. As soon as you have people on board as well, there is a lot of baseline stuff you have to do to keep up with basic commercial standards (which isn't high). Even if you treat the ship as essentially disposable there is some basic requirements to at least 'survive' long enough for people to get off in cases of normal DC stuff (fires/floods).

The RCN is appalling at that aspect, especially with our fire/flood incident rate being more than an order of magnitude higher than our allies in similar context for ship age.

 

[Kirkhill]

And if all they are doing is driving around with the fleet hauling missiles, the crew could go even lower.

The engineering has already been done.

Austal USA delivers EPF-13; the US Navy's largest surface vessel with autonomous capability

COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT 20 FEBRUARY 2023 Austal USA delivers EPF-13; the US Navy's Largest Surface Ship with Autonomous Capability Austal Limited (Austal) (ASX: ASB) is pleased to announce Austal USA has delivered Expeditionary Fast Transport USNS Apalachicola (EPF 13) to the United States Navy...

www.austal.com

Same builder as the LCS-Independence, same size approx, same power plant and propulsors, multi-hull design.

The only thing is I think the USN has an actual plan for the Independence ships and the Spearheads.

Navy Expanding Littoral Combat Ship Missions as Both Classes Shrink - USNI News

The challenge to the Navy’s surface fleet came in from the U.S. Pacific Fleet headquarters: deploy six littoral combat ships west of the International Dateline by 2025. Littoral Combat Ship Squadron 1 answered the call from the PACFLEET CO Adm. Sam Paparo. It’s the San Diego, Calif.,-based...

news.usni.org

Navy changing LCS maintenance and staffing practices

More sailor maintenance and changes to crew sizes are in the works for the troubled LCS fleet, officials say.

www.defensenews.com

And it may include missiles, but not necessarily in bulk.

US Navy LCS Successfully Fires SM-6 from MK 70 Payload Delivery System - Naval News

US Navy Littoral Combat Ship USS Savannah (LCS 28) successfully launched an SM-6 missile from a MK 70 Mod 1 Payload Delivery System.

www.navalnews.com

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I thought the crew was increased because they realized they didn't have enough to do the basic operations and maintain the ship. Short term you can skip some maintenance, but things break down pretty quickly if you try and keep that up. As soon as you have people on board as well, there is a lot of baseline stuff you have to do to keep up with basic commercial standards (which isn't high). Even if you treat the ship as essentially disposable there is some basic requirements to at least 'survive' long enough for people to get off in cases of normal DC stuff (fires/floods).

The RCN is appalling at that aspect, especially with our fire/flood incident rate being more than an order of magnitude higher than our allies in similar context for ship age.

Please stop making everything about the RCN’s abysmal maintenance record.

If the USN (and apparently Canada) are considering arsenal ships, I am saying that to sail the vessel for a month or two, the crewing requirements could be pretty low, because they have no other job than to stay in station, keep link alive and keep the props turning.

I am making no comment on what the crewing in port would be to keep the ship maintained. I will stipulate that you are correct and it would higher, ok?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Please stop making everything about the RCN’s abysmal maintenance record.

If the USN (and apparently Canada) are considering arsenal ships, I am saying that to sail the vessel for a month or two, the crewing requirements could be pretty low, because they have no other job than to stay in station, keep link alive and keep the props turning.

I am making no comment on what the crewing in port would be to keep the ship maintained. I will stipulate that you are correct and it would higher, ok?

Smaller crews with increased automation means more complex systems and additional maintenance.

If we suck at maintaining less complex things with more people, adding complexity and having less people isn't going to make it better. It only adds capability if it can deploy and stay off the wall in a sustainable way, just like aircraft are only useful if you have enough maintainers and operators to use them. It takes a lot to keep a ship ready to go to stay on station for a month and keep the props turning, and you can't just preserve it and hope for the best. It's a steel assembly floating in salt water; rust never sleeps

 

[Stoker]

At this point, the requirements are pretty much locked in so it's more trying to make them work together. RCN influence is pretty limited, and now they are at the point of being told what they need to do to adapt to CSC.

The selection of AEGIS has massive implications for crewing, so they need to figure that out, as our current trade structure on CSE/Combat doesn't align. Given how long it's taking to get HTs back, and how little concrete has been done after deciding to get rid of stewards, I'm not optimistic we'll have some kind of trade structure/training in place to actually qualify the first few crews on the AEGIS and combat systems.

Especially is you lose the AEGIS certification.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Especially is you lose the AEGIS certification.

Or get it to begin with. I like how the USN doesn't mess around with that, but they seem a lot stricter on standard things we do like changing team members.

 

[Stoker]

Or get it to begin with. I like how the USN doesn't mess around with that, but they seem a lot stricter on standard things we do like changing team members.

Yes we had a 3 hour briefing and question period from a LCdr with the project. Seems to be a totally new way of doing business, even the personnel requirements alone is way different from what anyone is used to.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Smaller crews with increased automation means more complex systems and additional maintenance.

If we suck at maintaining less complex things with more people, adding complexity and having less people isn't going to make it better. It only adds capability if it can deploy and stay off the wall in a sustainable way, just like aircraft are only useful if you have enough maintainers and operators to use them. It takes a lot to keep a ship ready to go to stay on station for a month and keep the props turning, and you can't just preserve it and hope for the best. It's a steel assembly floating in salt water; rust never sleeps

if they go this route, the ship will be less complicated, not more.

 

[RDBZ]

I don't disagree, now any changes are strictly because of normal design spiral changes. Suspect we'll still get small local changes as things go obsolete between now and build, but now down to space layouts.



Much more extensive then that though; our trade and the RAN trades are based on the RN trades; the AEGIS system certification is based around the USN operator/maintainer setup. We might end up smashing the CSE techs and Combat ops together to a certain extent. Honestly that work is about 5 years behind already with how brutally slow we are at the training review.

It's a sweet design though, but I think the additional watchkeeping requirement for AEGIS is going to kill the RCN. I also don't think we are prepared to maintain all the remote operation capabilities that you will need to safely operate the plant normally, when the MSED is down to 10-15% of the full crew complement. At least we convinced the crewing people a rounds person is still necessary, because that's how the systems are designed to be operated. If we let it degrade like we have the CPFs, and try and crew it with half the core people, we'll end up losing it to a normal peacetime event.

It's not mission impossible though, if the RAN's experience with the Hobart class is indicative.

 

[Kirkhill]

if they go this route, the ship will be less complicated, not more.

They will be something between a self-propelled barge and an Offshore Supply Vessel.

Hornbeck to acquire six high-spec OSVs from Edison Chouest

Hornbeck Offshore Services Inc., Covington, La., announced yesterday that it will acquire six high-spec new generation offshore supply vessels from Nautical Solutions LLC, an affiliate of Edison Choue

www.workboat.com

Offshore Vessels for sale

shipselector.com

And the hotel space could be reduced further to a standby wheelhouse and the heads if the "crew" stays aboard the mothership destroyer with the destroyer's air det.

 

[Kirkhill]

HMCS Anticosti (MSA 110) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Envisage a longer, faster version of the Anticosti with a smaller crew that may not be aboard.

 

[GR66]

Realistically your arsenal USV would only need to be deployed when the risk of conflict is high and for training. The bulk of the fleet could be kept in dry dock most of the time and only taken out periodically to make sure everything is in working order and to practice coordination with the mother ship's crew.

 

[Underway]

It will be in place for operators, the SOU is basically already signed, just the details to work out. RCN crews will be traveling to the US (as will RAN crews) for the first 5-10 years before we get our own training centre built (site has been ID'd at Stad, initial architecture drawings exist, next is budget and qualification of the site).

Right on cue!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cfb-halifax-to-get-new-188m-training-facility-1.7032438

 

[Halifax Tar]

Right on cue!

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/cfb-halifax-to-get-new-188m-training-facility-1.7032438

I wonder what they are going to tear down ? Not much free real estate in that postage stamp sized chunk of th base.

I would have thought Windsor Park would have been a better choice.

 

[FSTO]

Wellington House?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I didn't see any specific location in the article, other than CFB Halifax, which could include anything from the main base to the old FF/DC school or even Shearwater for that matter.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Wellington House?

I'm pretty sure it's deemed a historic property. As such we've locked it up, turned off the utilities and are letting it divest itself over time.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I'm pretty sure it's deemed a historic property. As such we've locked it up, turned off the utilities and are letting it divest itself over time.

Ah! The Montreal downtown development model is spreading.

 

[Stoker]

I wonder what they are going to tear down ? Not much free real estate in that postage stamp sized chunk of th base.

I would have thought Windsor Park would have been a better choice.

It will be built on part of the sports field apparently.