Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Fedup]

Their proposed solutions are pork barrel work for Quebec based Davie. The real solution would have been the acquisition of the two Mistrals. Unfortunately our dysfunctional procurement allowed this opportunity to escape to Egypt. Rather than pi$$ing about with conversions, a couple of JC class LHDs should be considered which would provide military and HADR capability.

 

[Long range]

The Canadian military needs to be built similar to the US Marine corps our country is so large we need to be a expeditionary force just to reach parts of it lol we need lots of sealift capability as well as airlift capability

 

[Novascotiaboy]

The need is there. The events where such capability was required are well known.

What is required is a concerted bi partisan push to get such a capability thru the political process.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ar...ships-frigates-irving-canadian-navy-1.5404650

The AOPS will be deployed to multiple areas to support government plans. Although they have a cargo capacity they would IMHO be better paired with some form of cargo vessel such as the LST 120 to move out size cargo and vehicles.

As noted in the report posted by MrC C17 and Hercules cargo delivery is limited by available airport availability and the number of flights needed to move a similar amount of supplies is very costly.

As much as I would like a couple of Juan Carlos flat tops I can not see that happening. Too big. Too offensive. Too costly to operate and man. Maybe in twenty years if we can get our feet wet with something more modest. Until then a couple of seacans on an AOPS with a pickup and a zodiac will have to suffice.

 

[alexsa]

I actually managed to find a reference to the report on Project Protector (actually more Canterbury centric than I remembered and not as long ago) at Defence contractual dispute — the power of mediation | Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment

And, the report itself at http://www.nzdf.mil.nz/downloads/media-centre/independent-review-safety-hmnzs-canterbury.pdf

Again, amazed by the Internet.

Yep .... and finding 7 and 8 are relevant noting the vessel was intrinsically safe but its acquisition was compromised by the time frame and cost drivers. To be fair NZ got a lot of ship(s) for 500 mil but they do not appear to have been entirely suitable for the roles now being undertaken.

Lets be honest the Australian purchase of B1 and B2 (the LHA’s purchased post the lessons learnt off Fiji) was also cost driven as and that ended up being a very expensive option after the conversion was completed. Capable ships at the end of the day but their longevity was compromised by their original condition and the fact they were flogged hard while in service. Similarly the ANZAC was compromised by a decision to go for a ‘patrol frigate’ fitted for but not with (again cost driven) resulting in the need for serious upgrades to make them suitable for the current environment.

It would appear the ADF and DoD have learnt from these errors and have been procuring more capable vessels with growth potential (noting this is limited in the DDG). Canada appear to be on the same path with the CSC but the other elements of the ship building plan appear to be all over the place in as far as I can see...... I could be wrong

 

[Novascotiaboy]

Nope not wrong. Spot on actually with your outlook.

A look at AOPS says much about the RCN. This class of vessel is being thrust upon the Navy and they are trying to use it as best as they can. Up north, off the Newfoundland coast in the North Atlantic and around the world supporting operations in low intensity peace support, HADR and counter narc operations.

Regardless of what I think of the vessels or the process by which we have gotten them these vessels will add to the abilities of the RCN and other government departments.

A question that I have for those far more knowledgable here is COULD additional weapon systems be bolted on and supported by the existing sensors such as SSM or ASW weapons? I am sure I read about a towed sonar capability in a shipping container trialed on a Kingston MCDV.

 

[Calculus]

Picture of the bridge of the HMCS Harry Dewalt during her recent builder's trials (courtesy the RCN MARLANT twitter feed MARLANT (@RCN_MARLANT) | Twitter):

 

[Calculus]

First of the Skeldar V200b UAVs (courtesy RCN Twitter feedRoyal Canadian Navy (@RoyalCanNavy) | Twitter). This is the base vehicle. It still lacks all the sensors (optical and radar). More on this here: Qinetiq-led Team Selected for Canadian UAV Requirement and here FARNBOROUGH: UMS Skeldar launches V-200B UAV

 

[Calculus]

Interesting video on the AOPV class: See The Future: Canada's Lead Arctic And Offshore Patrol Ship, What You Need To Know

 

[Calculus]

A question that I have for those far more knowledgable here is COULD additional weapon systems be bolted on and supported by the existing sensors such as SSM or ASW weapons?

The ships have a CMS (CMS330 in fact, and as the following link shows, with a full suite of capabilities: Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships. This suggests strongly that they have been built for future upgrade. They were designed to accommodate a larger naval gun (see top paragraph on p. 51 of this: https://gvcc.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/NSPS_GVC_Analysis_Jan2013_01282013.pdf), reputedly up to a 76mm main gun, and a Phalanx over the hangar, so some limited war-fighting capability appears to have been planned for. However, I'm not sure how effective the ship's main radar (Terma Scanter 6002) and associated sensors are with regards to detection of targets and guidance of missiles. Some data on the 6002 here:https://www.terma.com/surveillance-mission-systems/radar-systems/naval-radar-surveillance. Also, where would these missiles go? There does not appear to be much space for such a capability...

I should emphasize here that the RCN does not envision using these ships in any type of offensive operation. For the purposes they will be used, which are arctic sovereignty patrols, sig int, HADR, drug enforcement, SAR, and support for scientific research, these ships as delivered are perfectly adequate.

I am sure I read about a towed sonar capability in a shipping container trialed on a Kingston MCDV.

Yes, that would be TRAPS (TRAPS - Towed Reelable Active/Passive Sonar - GeoSpectrum Technologies Inc), and that system has been confirmed publicly by the RCN as being a part of the AOPV tool kit (Royal Canadian Navy ships to test new variable depth ASW sonars). I do not believe they would be permanently fitted with TRAPS, however.

 

[ngatimozart]

Bit of RCN history.

 

[walter]

With many decades as a naval architect and marine engineer, I think that I would find a detailed crewing breakdown for the Makassar-class and LST 120 interesting. If you started adding a helicopter with aircrew to the LST, as was suggested, the 22 would grow. Even a small amount of automation would probably be cost effective at reducing the 121 in the higher crew cost Canadian environment. Also, there could be inconsistencies in who is being counted as “crew.” The devil is in the details with crewing.

IMHO, you want your amphibious ships to be as “military” as you can afford and a ship with a dock is handy. But something is better than nothing and Damen LSTs are certainly way better than nothing. You just have to be careful to not make a major mistake and end up with a ship that needs a lot of work to be satisfactory like HMNZS Canterbury.

Damen and Merwede(now Royal IHC)are 2 completely different shipbuilders,just to let you know,offcourse.

 

[shipJGR]

Damen and Merwede(now Royal IHC)are 2 completely different shipbuilders,just to let you know,offcourse.

Sorry. I didn’t mean to imply that they were the same yard. In fact, if I remember correctly, Damen’s protest over loosing Project Protector was another interesting aspect at the time.

All I meant to say is that it is important to look for best value and not just lowest cost.

The videos from Australia do seem to support the theory that a dock is helpful even for HADR.

 

[Calculus]

Sure

The Attack will be an order of magnitude more complicated than Collins, with a lot of new and untested technology. Therefore,

1. The lead ship will be delayed, due to teething pains, and costs will rise as a result

2. The $50 Billion budget will prove to be too little

3. The politicians will get up in arms, and there will be "inquiries"

4. The general public will lose patience, with the Collins issues still fresh in mind (if they have forgotten about Collins, ABC will be quick to remind them)

5. The project will be curtailed, or possibly even cancelled.

This does not even take into account the inevitable scope creep, or questions of manning, to name a few. And to claim that the issues with Collins were all on Kockums is blatantly wrong, as is described here: Australia’s Collins-Class Submarines Enter a 20th Year of Trouble To paraphrase: "An Australian audit reported that the entire program was beset with poor planning, lack of client-shipyard coordination, lack of performance vision, and poor craftsmanship from the builder Kockums."

From an outsiders perspective Attack seems like Collins all over again, except on an even larger scale. I admire the sheer ballsy nature of the project, and hope it succeeds, and if so, that Canada buys some as well, but a hell of a lot of things will need to execute perfectly for this to happen, and history would suggest that for Australia this will be a very difficult project to see to completion. This is not a criticism or an attack, just an observation, however, and I am happy to be proven wrong.

I stand by my previous statements:

French company asked for 15-month extension on design of Australia's new submarine fleet

Doesn`t mean this program won`t happen, but given the complexity it is virtually certain this will be late and is already way over budget (the original budget being $50 Billion AUS, the budget quoted in the article is "around $80 Billion to acquire". That's a massive increase.).

 

[Calculus]

Perhaps SM-3s are in the CSC's future: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-ballistic-missile-defence-canada-1.5407226

 

[John Fedup]

Yes, have to agree given the radar selection. Serious discussions about SM-3s start at some point after the first ship is launched assuming land basing isn’t planned. Politically, having ships with SM-3s should be an easier sell to the electorate. Any down turn in the geopolitical situation might see land basing as well.

 

[Mattshel]

A pretty clear indication from Lockheed Martin today that the CSC will integrate the Aegis Fire Control Loop, it is mentioned a couple of times. As well as that Canada will soon be the second-largest operator of Aegis vessels in the world.

Media - Lockheed Martin - Releases

I would expect quite a lot of information over the next couple of days coming from SNA 2020 including potential interviews with Lockheed as they are no longer presenting an FFG(X) variant and there were some rumblings last year at the same conference that they would like to offer the CSC for the FFG(X) program.

Quite interesting to note as well that there have already been quite a few radar antennas produced thus far. Also of note is that the Spanish F-110 frigates will host the first Lockheed SSR based S-Band Radar, this may mean that both Antennas shown on the CSC may be based on Lockheed's SSR technology with both S-Band and X-Band antennas.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

A pretty clear indication from Lockheed Martin today that the CSC will integrate the Aegis Fire Control Loop, it is mentioned a couple of times. As well as that Canada will soon be the second-largest operator of Aegis vessels in the world.

Media - Lockheed Martin - Releases

I would expect quite a lot of information over the next couple of days coming from SNA 2020 including potential interviews with Lockheed as they are no longer presenting an FFG(X) variant and there were some rumblings last year at the same conference that they would like to offer the CSC for the FFG(X) program.

Quite interesting to note as well that there have already been quite a few radar antennas produced thus far. Also of note is that the Spanish F-110 frigates will host the first Lockheed SSR based S-Band Radar, this may mean that both Antennas shown on the CSC may be based on Lockheed's SSR technology with both S-Band and X-Band antennas.

What this suggests is that CMS330 is Aegis (of a sorts). This is something that was discussed several times on this thread, but with no definitive answer. This article is the closest to confirming that it is. As I stated before, I think CMS330 has Aegis modules controlling the radar and weapons, but has a different HMI preferential to Canada. My speculation.

 

[Calculus]

What this suggests is that CMS330 is Aegis (of a sorts). This is something that was discussed several times on this thread, but with no definitive answer. This article is the closest to confirming that it is. As I stated before, I think CMS330 has Aegis modules controlling the radar and weapons, but has a different HMI preferential to Canada. My speculation.

Exactly. CMS330 will be the "front end", and will incorporate the Aegis common source library (CSL).

This is shaping up to be an incredibly powerful platform. I'm still hoping to see a few more Mk41 cells up front.... With a radar like this, it seems silly not to max out the missile capacity, even if you don't initially buy full load-outs for all 15 ships.

 

[Black Jack Shellac]

Exactly. CMS330 will be the "front end", and will incorporate the Aegis common source library (CSL).

This is shaping up to be an incredibly powerful platform. I'm still hoping to see a few more Mk41 cells up front.... With a radar like this, it seems silly not to max out the missile capacity, even if you don't initially buy full load-outs for all 15 ships.

Agreed on the missiles. The rendering in @Mattshel's link shows 24 cells, but I don't put too much stock in these any more as there are multiple versions. If Procurement Canada has their proverbial sh*t together they will see the value in putting a minimum of 32 cells on, even if they are not filled. This makes mission specific load-outs much more flexible. I am laying this on Procurement Canada as I doubt anyone in the Navy is recommending only 24 cells.

 

[Long range]

If the government doesn't try to water down the combat capability to save money this will be a hell of a ship a purpose built sub Hunter with a high end air defense system it's definitely a LM ship with them providing the radar ,cms ,mk 41 and exls launchers as well as the bulk of the EW system I'm hoping for 48 vls cells and CEC hopefully we find out soon