New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Halifax Tar]

With respect but didn't our old Deuce and a Halfs "go to war"?

My bigger concern is sending people to sea unnecessarily.

We have trouble recruiting and retaining. I want to use those volunteers as sparingly as possible, and put as few of them in harms way as necessary.

How big a platform does a platform have to be to have a useful mix of weapons AND a useful range? Once that is decided how few sailors do I absolutely have to put on board?

Deuce and half's are the equivalent of tankers.

Warships are the equivalent of AFVs/tanks.

One goes looking for a fight, the other doesn't.

In a high intensity conflict our doctrine around AORs would not be the same as now. They are considered HVUs.

 

[Furniture]

250 tons with a complement of 19 to 26

Hamina-class missile boat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Rauma-class missile boat - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

640 tons with a complement of 43

Visby-class corvette - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

These are what I will call "All-Aspect" vessels - the weapons may be short range but they cover the air, surface and sub-surface domains. The ships are designed for a fast sprint away from the dock and return following conclusion of an engagement and not for sustained patrols so they effectively only have one shift on board.

My point is that a vessel does not have to be big to be a, what can we call it, a multi-domain asset?

It does need to be big to carry enough fuel to range long distances and sprint at high speeds. And to survive high sea states.

But does it need a large, "traditional" Canadian crew? I know the LCS experience will get thrown in my face but other ships have found successful work arounds and that was before the current level of technology.

...

I still think the best security against drowning is to sail in the company of another ship.

The problem with those designs, is that they are designed for different waters, and very different strategic situations.

If we had an adversary on the other side of the Gulf of St Lawrence, then maybe those ships would make sense for us, but giver we have two very large oceans between us and anybody we are likely to fight, we need ships designed for being in open oceans, a long way from home. Even the proposed CMMC is a pretty large ocean-going class of ship.

 

[Maxman1]

That Hamina class boat would be a potent replacement for the Orcas.

 

[Rainbow1910]

That Hamina class boat would be a potent replacement for the Orcas.

Far too much combatant in the Hamina class, when something like the Orca needs to focus on its primary goal as a training platform.

 

[Kirkhill]

Deuce and half's are the equivalent of tankers.

Warships are the equivalent of AFVs/tanks.

One goes looking for a fight, the other doesn't.

In a high intensity conflict our doctrine around AORs would not be the same as now. They are considered HVUs.

So do they retain active defence measures or do they require escort?

 

[Kirkhill]

The problem with those designs, is that they are designed for different waters, and very different strategic situations.

If we had an adversary on the other side of the Gulf of St Lawrence, then maybe those ships would make sense for us, but giver we have two very large oceans between us and anybody we are likely to fight, we need ships designed for being in open oceans, a long way from home. Even the proposed CMMC is a pretty large ocean-going class of ship.

Understood, my point is that even a small boat can be a well-rounded boat.

 

[Halifax Tar]

So do they retain active defence measures or do they require escort?

Tankers will carry some CIWSs and .50s.

They will require escort 100%.

 

[Kirkhill]

Understood, my point is that even a small boat can be a well-rounded boat.

Tankers will carry some CIWSs and .50s.

They will require escort 100%.

Having noted that even a small boat can be a well rounded boat is it more appropriate to have a well-rounded boat/ship/vessel or a well-rounded task force.

The army doesn't have the luxury of equipping all vehicles with everything (LAV and Bradley experiments notwithstanding). It needs a mix of specialist vehicles task-tailored to the situation.

 

[Underway]

With respect but didn't our old Deuce and a Halfs "go to war"?

My bigger concern is sending people to sea unnecessarily.

We have trouble recruiting and retaining. I want to use those volunteers as sparingly as possible, and put as few of them in harms way as necessary.

How big a platform does a platform have to be to have a useful mix of weapons AND a useful range? Once that is decided how few sailors do I absolutely have to put on board?

Sailors at sea in the arctic may be easier to retain than troops on the ground in austre arctic conditions.

Understood, my point is that even a small boat can be a well-rounded boat.

Well rounded includes things like endurance and sea keeping.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Having noted that even a small boat can be a well rounded boat is it more appropriate to have a well-rounded boat/ship/vessel or a well-rounded task force.

The army doesn't have the luxury of equipping all vehicles with everything (LAV and Bradley experiments notwithstanding). It needs a mix of specialist vehicles task-tailored to the situation.

I'm not sure what you're on about now.

 

[quadrapiper]

Far too much combatant in the Hamina class, when something like the Orca needs to focus on its primary goal as a training platform.

Wonder how unique their handling is, too, given the waterjet system.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So do they retain active defence measures or do they require escort?

The Orca's already suffer stability issues, the best your going to get is a .50cal RWS. which would make them fairly effective at Harbour security.

 

[Underway]

After doing some thinking on my commute and some digging upon getting home I watched the actual speech by Carney (on 2x speed, I can't stand those political announcements) and he never actually stated "navy icebreakers" at all. He mentioned icebreakers in the same sentence as navy ships, but they were two different thoughts.

Also as much as I like Noah's blog, and the fact they usually have very good intel, I think they are wrong about the RCN wanting icebreakers. At least wrong about wanting them for a long time. I think the RCN is focused on integrating the new ships into the fleet and looking to build new capabilities in the following order. Digest AOPS and begin acceptance of JSS's. Then Subs/RCD. Then CMMC (CMC on the slide) and probably an Orca replacement, though the Orca replacement would come in the under 1000 ton NSS strategy and could be built very quickly from flash to bang.

I think Carney was refering to icebreakers in general and not naval specific ones, which would include everything going on a Davie and Seaspan, so its a non-commitment as all the MSV are icebreakers to an extent and the Polar Class 2+ will likely be finished after the election after this one.

However there is a guy who mentioned naval icebreakers and that Poliviere. Specifically called out two of them.

---

As far as coast guard being counted to NATO expendatures here's NATO's rules. Highlighted section applies.

A major component of defence expenditure is payments for Armed Forces financed from within the Ministry of Defence budget. Armed Forces include land, maritime and air forces as well as joint formations, such as Administration and Command, Special Operations Forces, Medical Service, Logistic Command, Space Command, Cyber Command. They might also include parts of other forces such as Ministry of Interior troops, national police forces, coast guards etc. In such cases, expenditure is included only in proportion to the forces that are trained in military tactics, are equipped as a military force, can operate under direct military authority in deployed operations, and can, realistically, be deployed outside national territory in support of a military force. Expenditure on other forces financed through the budgets of ministries other than the Ministry of Defence is also included in defence expenditure.

So basically if the Coast guard needs to do a number of things to be counted as a military force, but realistically they are not going to get there. Any promises to make the CCG a military force is likely to require very creative accounting or a very different approach to some of their operations.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sailors at sea in the arctic may be easier to retain than troops on the ground in austre arctic conditions.

A hot lunch will do that to you.

Well rounded includes things like endurance and sea keeping.

Seen.

 

[Kirkhill]

After doing some thinking on my commute and some digging upon getting home I watched the actual speech by Carney (on 2x speed, I can't stand those political announcements) and he never actually stated "navy icebreakers" at all. He mentioned icebreakers in the same sentence as navy ships, but they were two different thoughts.

Also as much as I like Noah's blog, and the fact they usually have very good intel, I think they are wrong about the RCN wanting icebreakers. At least wrong about wanting them for a long time. I think the RCN is focused on integrating the new ships into the fleet and looking to build new capabilities in the following order. Digest AOPS and begin acceptance of JSS's. Then Subs/RCD. Then CMMC (CMC on the slide) and probably an Orca replacement, though the Orca replacement would come in the under 1000 ton NSS strategy and could be built very quickly from flash to bang.

I think Carney was refering to icebreakers in general and not naval specific ones, which would include everything going on a Davie and Seaspan, so its a non-commitment as all the MSV are icebreakers to an extent and the Polar Class 2+ will likely be finished after the election after this one.

However there is a guy who mentioned naval icebreakers and that Poliviere. Specifically called out two of them.

---

As far as coast guard being counted to NATO expendatures here's NATO's rules. Highlighted section applies.


So basically if the Coast guard needs to do a number of things to be counted as a military force, but realistically they are not going to get there. Any promises to make the CCG a military force is likely to require very creative accounting or a very different approach to some of their operations.

I wonder if he is contemplating transferring the AOPS, all 8 of them, to the Coast Guard - he seemed to be making a lot of noise about drones, both aerial and maritime as well as guarding undersea infrastructure.

 

[Kirkhill]

I'm not sure what you're on about now.

I'll gather my thoughts and try again later. Cheers.

 

[Furniture]

I wonder if he is contemplating transferring the AOPS, all 8 of them, to the Coast Guard - he seemed to be making a lot of noise about drones, both aerial and maritime as well as guarding undersea infrastructure.

The RCN needs it's 6 APOVs. They are busy right now, and will continue to be busy for the foreseeable future.

 

[Underway]

I wonder if he is contemplating transferring the AOPS, all 8 of them, to the Coast Guard - he seemed to be making a lot of noise about drones, both aerial and maritime as well as guarding undersea infrastructure.

RCN is going to add a number of drones in the next two years. There is a competition for AOPS drones for ice nav and surviellence, as well as drone for the HFX's with a radar and EO/ISR. And other RCN programs for UXV's of various types, persistent sensors for arctic approaches etc...

 

[Kirkhill]

The RCN needs it's 6 APOVs. They are busy right now, and will continue to be busy for the foreseeable future.

RCN is going to add a number of drones in the next two years. There is a competition for AOPS drones for ice nav and surviellence, as well as drone for the HFX's with a radar and EO/ISR. And other RCN programs for UXV's of various types, persistent sensors for arctic approaches etc...

Would you swap them for Corvettes or Subs? Just thinking about whether it is easier to recruit for the Coast Guard or the Navy.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I am not sure one is easier than the other. I think all maritime services - RCN, Coast Guard and Merchant - are having a hard time recruiting. The current younger generation, even from the Maritimes, Quebec and BC, are mostly unaware of Canada being a maritime nation that relies on the sea for its wealth. It's not unusual, after all city living and airplanes dominate the world view in most developed nations. The sea is seen as some sort of an "amusement", with cruise ships dominating the people's view of the use of oceans. People just don't remember or are aware that 90% of the world's trade still travels by sea.