New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[PrairieFella]

Seems like a Halifax replacement more than a Kingston replacement

Maybe not a bad thing. Corvettes, destroyers and subs? Cool.

 

[suffolkowner]

Maybe not a bad thing. Corvettes, destroyers and subs? Cool.

do we still need a MCDV replacement then?

 

[Czech_pivo]

do we still need a MCDV replacement then?

I'd think there'd still be a need for a smaller minesweeper class of ships, no?

 

[GR66]

Yah there are a bunch of CMC stats out there that don't line up. 40 pers, strike length VLS, 1000 tons, 105m long, proper warship with self defence capability...

Some of these circles do not overlap with each other very well or at all. But eventually things will line up and we'll get something.

I expect crew of 65 pers, 90m long, ~2500 tons. 8 strike length VLS, towed array sonar system, small helo or UAV flight deck and hangar, 57mm, SMART radar, CMS 330, single Fire Control Radar. Speed ~25 knots, CODAD engineering arrangement.

The one I don't fully understand is the strike length VLS. There are quite a few possible designs that would suit our needs without that requirement.

For land attack we'll have our new subs with VLS and F-35's (presumably). For surface warfare most Corvette designs we'd be looking at have NSM/Harpoon. For AD a system like RAM can provide self-defence with a smaller footprint.

The one explanation I've heard is to use the CMMC's to create an anti-ballistic missile "web" with SM-6's but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're having pretty significant design impacts to gain a capability that can be met in other ways. Ballistic missiles still aren't great at hitting moving targets...especially small ones like a Corvette so presumably it would be our land not our fleet that we'd be protecting. I'm sure it would be much cheaper to have land-based interceptors that fitting them on the CMMC. If there's a real need to have a floating ABM platform I'd think a minimally manned "arsenal" ship would be a more logical option and would be able to carry a lot more missiles.

Maybe there's some logical justification that I haven't heard but to me it seems like the kind of mission creep that will make this design a lot more complex and expensive than it needs to be.

 

[PrairieFella]

do we still need a MCDV replacement then?

That is completely beyond my scope of expertise lmao

 

[suffolkowner]

I'd think there'd still be a need for a smaller minesweeper class of ships, no?

i thinks so.
Ive always liked the the Kership/Gowind 1500?

ARA Bouchard (P-51) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

1500Tonnes
range 8000nm
87 m long
crew 30+30
30mm
helicopter hanger
6 of those or its ilk?

another 4 or 5 or 6 Halifax class replacements with the hulls built elsewhere and outfitted in Canada?
Can we port systems over from Halifax class we pay off?

Daegu-class frigate - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

3500 tonnes
122m long
range 4500nm
crew 140
16 VLS
8 Anti ship missiles
6 torpedoes
127mm
1 CIWS
hull mounted sonar

 

[Furniture]

do we still need a MCDV replacement then?

The CRCN seems confident that we can rent/build civilian ships to be floating pick-ups, hence the desire for a small warship rather than a direct MCDV replacement. Think in terms of a ship that can go do counter piracy/smuggling ops in places like the Gulf of Aiden/Gulf of Oman.

I'd think there'd still be a need for a smaller minesweeper class of ships, no?

I think the minesweeping concept has moved to motherships for USVs, so more of a commercial OSV type than a direct MCDV/warship.

The one explanation I've heard is to use the CMMC's to create an anti-ballistic missile "web" with SM-6's but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're having pretty significant design impacts to gain a capability that can be met in other ways. Ballistic missiles still aren't great at hitting moving targets...especially small ones like a Corvette so presumably it would be our land not our fleet that we'd be protecting. I'm sure it would be much cheaper to have land-based interceptors that fitting them on the CMMC. If there's a real need to have a floating ABM platform I'd think a minimally manned "arsenal" ship would be a more logical option and would be able to carry a lot more missiles.

I've not heard BMD mentioned in the briefings, so I think it's conjecture based on the strike length VLS, rather than a driving force behind wanting a strike length VLS. If hypothetically CTF150 wanted to shoot missiles at bag guys ashore, having a CMMC on site that can send a Tomahawk or two is a capability Canada/CTF150 may desire.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the concept for the CMMC is to pick up tasks normally done by CPFs right now. That way, rather than wearing-out our high-end RCDs for constabulary roles, we can use the CMMC, because it will be able to protect itself from the expected threats.

 

[GR66]

I've not heard BMD mentioned in the briefings, so I think it's conjecture based on the strike length VLS, rather than a driving force behind wanting a strike length VLS. If hypothetically CTF150 wanted to shoot missiles at bag guys ashore, having a CMMC on site that can send a Tomahawk or two is a capability Canada/CTF150 may desire.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the concept for the CMMC is to pick up tasks normally done by CPFs right now. That way, rather than wearing-out our high-end RCDs for constabulary roles, we can use the CMMC, because it will be able to protect itself from the expected threats.

It was likely from the Noah's Corner of Random Stuff substack article on the CMMC that I got the BMD comment. No direct attribution so can't say where or by whom it was being discussed:

We also got some confirmation on its role. Make no mistake. The navy views CMMC as a warship, a combatant.

They make that very clear. This will not be a simple OPV, in fact, we now know that the navy intends for CMMC to have strike-length MK.41 in some form.

This is something that has been rumored for a year now, that the navy wanted something with VLS. They have always wanted this capability, but this is the first we are hearing it laid out, with confirmation that the navy wants the full deal here, not tactical-length as some have suggested.

This is a major step up in capability, especially when the navy also intends for CMMC to come complete with a full anti-air and anti-sub sensor suite, either hull mounted or with a containerized towed array.

The primary task of CMMC is fairly laid out as well, Continental Defence. This has also been fairly well known, even Admiral Topshee has mentioned wanting a second tier combatant to complement the ‘Expeditionary’ River-Class.

CMMC will provide another layer to NORADs already growing suite of assets to detect, track and engage with hostile threats, but also give the navy a new combatant tailor made to defend Canada's territorial waters.

Not only that, but the navy fully intends to take advantage of that Strike-length MK.41, with mentions of using CMMC, linked to either NORAD or another, more capable vessel for more high-end roles like Ballistic-Missile Defence, or even Anti-Space Warfare!

 

[Rainbow1910]

I've not heard BMD mentioned in the briefings, so I think it's conjecture based on the strike length VLS, rather than a driving force behind wanting a strike length VLS. If hypothetically CTF150 wanted to shoot missiles at bag guys ashore, having a CMMC on site that can send a Tomahawk or two is a capability Canada/CTF150 may desire.

It was mentioned by somebody in the know on the program a few months ago. It was specifically mentioned as a role.

Captain Drew Graham (Director of Naval Requirements) recently did a Speakers Event for the Naval Association of Canada and had some interesting information to put forward to the public regarding the Kingston class and the future Canadian Multi-Mission Corvette. All of the information and photos below are taken from his slideshow, that I will link at the bottom for anybody interested.

Early concept images for CMC, obviously should be taken with a substantial grain of salt.

- Introduced to the public for the first time here as a recognized project, currently in the identification phase.

- Kingston's have been recommended for divestment as their hull certifications expire, final vessel in the class is approved for paying off in 2029.

- Proposed delivery timeline of mid-2030's, this is a very aggressive timeline, but is being heavily pitched as important to Government.

- CMC needs to be a "small warship", bridging the gap between DeWolf and River classes.

- Around the 1000 ton mark, likely a bit heavier.

- 105m long or less due to berthing plan requirements at existing/future base infrastructure.

- Requires its own organic sensor suite, including an air search radar and sonar (hull mounted or towed array) to defend itself against modern threats.

- Serious consideration being placed on strike length VLS (integrated or containerized?) in order to contribute to North American continental defence against ballistic missile and satellite threats through radar/CMS links to NORAD/other allied systems.

- 40 personnel compliment with automation.

- Care is being paid to cost effectiveness and use of containerized/modular payloads

- Unsure of CMC order size at this time, studies underway to determine this.

- Talks about domestic shipyards of middling size coming to maturity, potential candidates for this program. Potential issues with the NSS if this is followed.

 

[suffolkowner]

That is completely beyond my scope of expertise lmao

doesnt stop me
just an interested civilian

 

[DBNSG]

Seems like a Halifax replacement more than a Kingston replacement

Lets call them the Dartmouth Class

 

[Furniture]

It was mentioned by somebody in the know on the program a few months ago. It was specifically mentioned as a role.

He would certainly be in the know... I apparently missed that bit.

 

[dapaterson]

Lets call them the Dartmouth Class

More affordable and a better personality?

 

[Underway]

The one I don't fully understand is the strike length VLS. There are quite a few possible designs that would suit our needs without that requirement.

For land attack we'll have our new subs with VLS and F-35's (presumably). For surface warfare most Corvette designs we'd be looking at have NSM/Harpoon. For AD a system like RAM can provide self-defence with a smaller footprint.

The one explanation I've heard is to use the CMMC's to create an anti-ballistic missile "web" with SM-6's but that doesn't make a lot of sense to me. You're having pretty significant design impacts to gain a capability that can be met in other ways. Ballistic missiles still aren't great at hitting moving targets...especially small ones like a Corvette so presumably it would be our land not our fleet that we'd be protecting. I'm sure it would be much cheaper to have land-based interceptors that fitting them on the CMMC. If there's a real need to have a floating ABM platform I'd think a minimally manned "arsenal" ship would be a more logical option and would be able to carry a lot more missiles.

Maybe there's some logical justification that I haven't heard but to me it seems like the kind of mission creep that will make this design a lot more complex and expensive than it needs to be.

So what I'm thinking is that if the ship doesn't have a flight deck for helicopters (and probably only has a UAV deck) then you can use the space normally reserved for a hangar for a full strike lenght Mk 41 launcher, goes all the way to where the hangar top would be and launches from there.

If you have strike length, plus a robust LINK or/and a Cooperative engagement capability, then you can put whatever ordinance you want into the VLS. Be that ASROC, tomahawk or SM-6. You can also quad pack ESSM 2 (so have 32 self defence missiles).

As for why a light ship, there is something to be said for dispersion of your weapons systems. Having a launch platform at the right place to intercept is easier when you have multiple platforms that can be that launch platform.

This means that a lighter ship by modern standards can pack a heavy punch in specific circumstances.

That being said your reservations are completly valid. There are more ways to skin this cat and an arsenal ship is one of them. Though that might not have the geographic dispersion that the RCN is looking for.

Lots of bouncing balls here. To get the balance correct will be a challenge.

 

[Navy_Pete]

So what I'm thinking is after getting the AOPs, and JSS, while continuing to struggle with the current CPFs and subs with the ops tempo we have, we'll keep bleeding people faster than we can replace them, and then realize why an S3 doesn't replace a PO2 without 10 years of training and experience.

With the cost of CSC we'll cut from 15 to less than that, slash the number of subs to maybe similar to what we have now, then realize that we're out of sailors and can't afford the fleet we have, and the MCDV replacement will be another new ship dream project in a drawer somewhere.

Lots of good reasons to replace the MCDV, but we have no realistic plan to crew up our existing ships on paper, and maintenance facilities, 2nd/3rd line support etc is struggling to grow to do AJISS, so lots of practical reasons why I think we'll be lucky to get what we have on paper already.

If they want corvettes they need to cut something, and they won't do that either.

I'm actually realisitcally optmisitc we can deliver some capability despite decades of neglect while not killing too many people in the process, but this kind of fleet expansion is Pollyanna-ish and detached from 20+ years of trends that have no signs of reversing.

 

[GR66]

So what I'm thinking is after getting the AOPs, and JSS, while continuing to struggle with the current CPFs and subs with the ops tempo we have, we'll keep bleeding people faster than we can replace them, and then realize why an S3 doesn't replace a PO2 without 10 years of training and experience.

With the cost of CSC we'll cut from 15 to less than that, slash the number of subs to maybe similar to what we have now, then realize that we're out of sailors and can't afford the fleet we have, and the MCDV replacement will be another new ship dream project in a drawer somewhere.

Lots of good reasons to replace the MCDV, but we have no realistic plan to crew up our existing ships on paper, and maintenance facilities, 2nd/3rd line support etc is struggling to grow to do AJISS, so lots of practical reasons why I think we'll be lucky to get what we have on paper already.

If they want corvettes they need to cut something, and they won't do that either.

I'm actually realisitcally optmisitc we can deliver some capability despite decades of neglect while not killing too many people in the process, but this kind of fleet expansion is Pollyanna-ish and detached from 20+ years of trends that have no signs of reversing.

My thought is that rather than try to turn the CMMC into a Canadian-built wonder ship we simply purchase the 80% foreign-built solution off the shelf and take delivery ASAP.

As I noted in a post above (New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy) there's an existing design already in production with HHI - the HDP-1500neo - that will do most of what we are looking for. It should be able to take some load off the Halifax-class with 1/5 the crew requirement which is exactly what we need right now. Smaller crew requirements on new ships that don't require the same amount of maintenance. Retire one Halifax-class with each one we get and then as the River-class come online retire one Kingston-class.

 

[NavyShooter]

The perfect is the enemy of the good enough.

Find something that ticks a few of the boxes, but mostly, is available in the near term for us.

 

[Navy_Pete]

My thought is that rather than try to turn the CMMC into a Canadian-built wonder ship we simply purchase the 80% foreign-built solution off the shelf and take delivery ASAP.

As I noted in a post above (New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy) there's an existing design already in production with HHI - the HDP-1500neo - that will do most of what we are looking for. It should be able to take some load off the Halifax-class with 1/5 the crew requirement which is exactly what we need right now. Smaller crew requirements on new ships that don't require the same amount of maintenance. Retire one Halifax-class with each one we get and then as the River-class come online retire one Kingston-class.

Sure, but each class adds a burden to training, maintenance and support side of things, and there is a lot to do to actually take on a new class. We are already struggling to bring AOPs support online and get JSS up to speed, and the same training system has old facilities, outdated coursing and not enough trainers so that will just pressure the system.

We're already retiring the Kingston class because we don't have people or money, and doing the same for some subs. The CPF DWPs are being extended and going to almost no crew support for the same reason (which has big impacts on reactivation and repairs) so pretty much anything that doesn't involve getting rid of ships will pressure the whole ecosystem when it's already running beyond max. Even if someone gave us a huge budget tomorrow we are limited by people (not just us, AJISS and the shipyards are having trouble expanding)

CMMC looks sexy on paper, but if we're already redlining, can't put the pedal down further and call it rebuilding.

 

[Swampbuggy]

The CRCN seems confident that we can rent/build civilian ships to be floating pick-ups, hence the desire for a small warship rather than a direct MCDV replacement. Think in terms of a ship that can go do counter piracy/smuggling ops in places like the Gulf of Aiden/Gulf of Oman.

I think the minesweeping concept has moved to motherships for USVs, so more of a commercial OSV type than a direct MCDV/warship.

I've not heard BMD mentioned in the briefings, so I think it's conjecture based on the strike length VLS, rather than a driving force behind wanting a strike length VLS. If hypothetically CTF150 wanted to shoot missiles at bag guys ashore, having a CMMC on site that can send a Tomahawk or two is a capability Canada/CTF150 may desire.

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the concept for the CMMC is to pick up tasks normally done by CPFs right now. That way, rather than wearing-out our high-end RCDs for constabulary roles, we can use the CMMC, because it will be able to protect itself from the expected threats.

Especially considering the ability to quad pack certain missiles that is only possible with a strike length VLS, I believe.