Canadian Navy Spending Spree

[riksavage]

"Halifax's Irving Shipbuilding is getting the $25-billion contract to build 21 Canadian combat ships and Vancouver's Seaspan Marine has been awarded an $8-billion contract for seven non-combat vessels, the federal government announced Wednesday afternoon."

Halifax, B.C. yards win shipbuilding work - Politics - CBC News

Any idea what the combat ships are going to comprise of? I understand the RCN decided not to get involved with the T26 programme and I doubt they will be building from scratch so they must be looking at partnering with an offshore design team.

At the end of WWII Canada had the worlds 4th largest Navy, looks like they plan to give the service a much needed boost.

 

[StevoJH]

CBC News - Interactive: Shipbuilding

15 Frigates and Destroyers on a common hull. Budget $25 Billion. (Delivery 2021-)
6-8 Arctic patrol ships. Budget $3.1 Billion (Delivery 2015-2021)
2 JSS (plus one option). Budget $2.6 Billion (Delivery 2017-2018)
140m Icebreaker. Budget $720 Million (Delivery 2017)
3 Fisheries Vessels. Budget $244 Million (Delivery 2013-2016)
78.1m Hydrographic Vessel. Budget $120 Million (Delivery 2014)

Looks like all will be canadian built, though I don't think it mentions where the designs are coming from.

Quite an impressive build program. Now if AusGov could just place an order for an even dozen T26/CSC with construction at either Williamstown after the launch of the final AWD or ASC starting as soon as possible......

 

[SASWanabe]

Self Deleted. Stevo beat me to it

 

[riksavage]

CBC News - Interactive: Shipbuilding

15 Frigates and Destroyers on a common hull. Budget $25 Billion. (Delivery 2021-)
6-8 Arctic patrol ships. Budget $3.1 Billion (Delivery 2015-2021)
2 JSS (plus one option). Budget $2.6 Billion (Delivery 2017-2018)
140m Icebreaker. Budget $720 Million (Delivery 2017)
3 Fisheries Vessels. Budget $244 Million (Delivery 2013-2016)
78.1m Hydrographic Vessel. Budget $120 Million (Delivery 2014)

Looks like all will be canadian built, though I don't think it mentions where the designs are coming from.

Quite an impressive build program. Now if AusGov could just place an order for an even dozen T26/CSC with construction at either Williamstown after the launch of the final AWD or ASC starting as soon as possible......

The RN & RCN would be foolish not to cooperate on this order, there must be commonality between the two, particularly those slated as AsW platforms. Even if it meant the RN making changes to suit Canadian requirements. Havung a common hull of potentially 25+ ships to meet both T26 & the CSC requirement would save a load of cash.

With RN vessels expected to operate in the South Atlantic any additional hardening of the hulls required by the RCN would also fit the UK's requirement for a blue water go anywhere combatant.

 

[StevoJH]

Add in the RAN and RNZN and you get a class size of ~38 ships, most of which will be in the Frigate configuration.

The RAN ships would be getting AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM rather then Artisan & CAMM though.

 

[riksavage]

Add in the RAN and RNZN and you get a class size of ~38 ships, most of which will be in the Frigate configuration.

The RAN ships would be getting AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM rather then Artisan & CAMM though.

I suspect Artisan + CAMM will work out cheaper than AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM, but then again I can't see the Canadians going for a European solution over SM-2/ESSM. This could end up a win, win situation for both the RAN & RNZN, both need to be able to operate in unforgiving Oceans like the Canadians so there has to be a degree of commonality.

 

[StevoJH]

Yes, Artisan will probably work out cheaper then AUSPAR, from memory AUSPAR has been mentioned as a possible SPY-1 successor.....so its probably a lot more capable as well.

But if the RAN and Australian Government want AUSPAR, they'll probably get it.

 

[riksavage]

Yes, Artisan will probably work out cheaper then AUSPAR, from memory AUSPAR has been mentioned as a possible SPY-1 successor.....so its probably a lot more capable as well.

But if the RAN and Australian Government want AUSPAR, they'll probably get it.

FLAADS M on the plus side is relatively simple to install and can dovetail with a wide range of sensors. It might prove an attractive option for smaller combatants or as a retrofit should circumstances dictate a sudden upgrade (Ice breakers if the search for oil in the Arctic turns nasty). What ever sensor array the RCN chose they could dovetail in CAMM quad packs. That might provie attractive in a fitted for but not with vessel for self-defence to deal with the arrows, if not the bowmen.

 

[StobieWan]

FLAADS M on the plus side is relatively simple to install and can dovetail with a wide range of sensors. It might prove an attractive option for smaller combatants or as a retrofit should circumstances dictate a sudden upgrade (Ice breakers if the search for oil in the Arctic turns nasty). What ever sensor array the RCN chose they could dovetail in CAMM quad packs. That might provie attractive in a fitted for but not with vessel for self-defence to deal with the arrows, if not the bowmen.

CAMM is set to quad pack in either Mk41 or Sylver and it's very sensor agnostic so the choice of radar and silos doesn't have to be impacted. It'd be very easy to order something entirely hung around SM2 and ESSM and then integrate CAMM after the fact.

As long as there's some sort of a radar and a means to tap into the datalink for CAMM, it should work fine.

All the interviews with the Type 26 design team seem to indicate they'd paint the thing in pink and fitted with nerf darts if they think it'd meet customer spec so I'm utterly certain the RCN could get a design that'd work.

Canada did however, rule out an international partnership over Type 26 about a year ago. I'm not sure *what* they'd want to do then - not sure what the reasons were but it was a pretty public thing more or less the week that a UK minister was making encouraging noises.

 

[swerve]

I suspect Artisan + CAMM will work out cheaper than AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM, but then again I can't see the Canadians going for a European solution over SM-2/ESSM.

Did the Canadians ever formally abandon the APAR programme? If there's still a Canadian stake in it, the APAR/SMART-L/SM-2/ESSM track might be attractive for the destroyers, with a cut-down ESSM-only version for frigates.

APAR will need updating by the time construction starts, but that should happen anyway, & work on it gives Canada a way back in as a major partner.

 

[JTF-2]

Add in the RAN and RNZN and you get a class size of ~38 ships, most of which will be in the Frigate configuration.

The RAN ships would be getting AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM rather then Artisan & CAMM though.

Are those 2 navies ready for an upgrade to there fleet?

 

[StobieWan]

Are those 2 navies ready for an upgrade to there fleet?

Both navies need replacement for their Anzac frigates, which are Meko designs adapted locally - they're still viable but out of of growth margin and will need replacing in the timeframe for Type 26. I suspect that the Australians will take a GP variant of the F100 design they selected for the Hobarts - and that by commutation, the NZ Navy will pick up whatever the Australian forces select.

I have to say, if Canada, Australia and New Zealand did go with the Type 26, I'd pay, like Hooooooj amounts for a print of four of the ships (including the RN one) in line abreast. I'm not unusually sentimental about the commonwealth but I do take pleasure in reading about any of the ones I've just listed doing well, as I have relatives in all of them. So, please, make an old and not very bright man happy and buy the bloody ship..

Ian

 

[StevoJH]

Are those 2 navies ready for an upgrade to there fleet?

The ANZAC's will need replacing beginning in the early to mid 2020's.

But as Stobiewan has said, the current ASMD upgrade is completely using up whatever is left of their growth margins.

I should be noted that there is actually space for an extra 8 VLS cells on board, but not the weight margin to actually fit them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I have to say, if Canada, Australia and New Zealand did go with the Type 26, I'd pay, like Hooooooj amounts for a print of four of the ships (including the RN one) in line abreast. I'm not unusually sentimental about the commonwealth but I do take pleasure in reading about any of the ones I've just listed doing well, as I have relatives in all of them. So, please, make an old and not very bright man happy and buy the bloody ship..

And that and BAE's bottom line is the only strong argument for such a buy. I would much prefer to see the RAN getting the ship they really need that can be built and sustained in Australia rather than all this nonsense. I'm pretty sure the Canadians think the same.

 

[StobieWan]

And that and BAE's bottom line is the only strong argument for such a buy. I would much prefer to see the RAN getting the ship they really need that can be built and sustained in Australia rather than all this nonsense. I'm pretty sure the Canadians think the same.

What do you think they need then? That's an honest question - from the perspective of self interest, as long as we get an approximately Type 23 replacement with bigger teeth, I'm happy.

From the perspective of Australia/NZ - am I on the nail in suggesting a GP Hobart is the most likely possibility?


On a Canadian perspective - I've no idea - they need some sort of ship - a box, of the right size with space for the right sensors and weapons - what do you think is most likely for the RCN?

Ian

 

[Abraham Gubler]

What do you think they need then? That's an honest question - from the perspective of self interest, as long as we get an approximately Type 23 replacement with bigger teeth, I'm happy.

The RAN has publically specified two capabilities for the SEA 5000 ship: force level ASW and land strike. The former means high end bow sonar and towed active/passive sonar, naval helicopter(s) and FS/A160 sized UAVs. The later means Tomahawk or similar (JASSM-VL). I also very much doubt they will settle for less than the ANZAC ASMD Mk 2 capability (CEAFAR, AMB and 64 ESSM Mk 2). So weaponry will be at least MK 45 Mod 4, 32-64 strike length VLS cells, Phalanx/Typhoon and a 2-3 helo sized hangar.

From the perspective of Australia/NZ - am I on the nail in suggesting a GP Hobart is the most likely possibility?

It’s the size of hull needed though the ASW focus may require an electric propulsion system in which case there would be little from the F100 design except the hullform kept. So a new hull is more than possible. The Type 26 would on paper meet these needs but it doesn’t offer anything that a domestic design wouldn’t. It isn’t an AEGIS design with all that complexity and risk that needs to be taken into account.

But certainly after building three (and hopefully getting it right by no. 3) reusing the F100 hull and vehicle system makes a lot of sense for risk. Also the Hobart class is being built with a high end sonar and ASW combat system. Keeping all this for SEA 5000 would have a range of delivery and sustainment advantages. Just design and built a new above main deck structure with more hangar space, new torpedo rooms and radar top hamper. Even the excess space of AEGIS combat system can be used to advantage as joint C2 space and/or CMS growth space.

On a Canadian perspective - I've no idea - they need some sort of ship - a box, of the right size with space for the right sensors and weapons - what do you think is most likely for the RCN?

All I know is they want the same hull in either destroyer (AAW) and frigate (ASW) versions.

 

[riksavage]

All electric drive for AsW platforms is still a question mark due to noise. Will have to see if the RCN opt for conventional diesels.

Also building a ship capable of carrying 2-3 helo's, 64 VLS and UAV/UUV's means funds need to be made available to buy all those additional assets on top of the actual ships themselves. I would hate to see a ship venture out of port with zero helo's, half-filled silos and no UAV's because all the budget was exhausted building the actual ships. The RCN buy needs to take into consideration other factors before they come up with the final design, will there be enough fat planned in the MOD budget to buy all the extra fillers that separate fantasy fleets from operational reality.

 

[Rickyrab]

All electric drive for AsW platforms is still a question mark due to noise. Will have to see if the RCN opt for conventional diesels.

Also building a ship capable of carrying 2-3 helo's, 64 VLS and UAV/UUV's means funds need to be made available to buy all those additional assets on top of the actual ships themselves. I would hate to see a ship venture out of port with zero helo's, half-filled silos and no UAV's because all the budget was exhausted building the actual ships. The RCN buy needs to take into consideration other factors before they come up with the final design, will there be enough fat planned in the MOD budget to buy all the extra fillers that separate fantasy fleets from operational reality.

Sometimes, compromise is necessary, especially when budgets are limited. If a ship is too expensive to have a lot of bells and whistles added to it, then the ship needs to be downsized and a compromise struck, even if it means less carrying capacity.

If I were Canada and I were out to build ships, the first two things I'd look for are hulls capable of breaking ice and cargo carrying capacity (whatever the cargo is; it can be specified). Canada is one of the world's largest countries and it has one of the world's longest oceanic shorelines - and much of that shoreline is bound in fragile ice, susceptible to global warming. Hence, icebreaking hulls would be a good idea. (They would also help defend against Russia, who is Canada's "northern" neighbor (antipolar neighbor? Opposite-side-of-the-North-Pole neighbor?), if push ever came to shove.) Russia, of course, would be wise to do the same, and for the same reasons.

Australia is not largely icebound; it's in more tropical waters, and thus does not have as much of an icebreaking need, although such hulls would be helpful on the Antarctica run.

EDIT: Yes, weapons systems are important too, of course. But how effective are your weapons going to be if you can't carry any?

 

[SteelTiger 177]

I've heard that the JSS program has had some problems I'm surprised that Ottawa hasn't looked at other designs such as the Rotterdam-class LPDS or Newport class LSTs we have in mothballs.Also I hope The Canadian Maritime Forces also give consideration to possible developing an LHA or LHD for its forces.

 

[StevoJH]

I'm surprised that Ottawa hasn't looked at other designs such as the Rotterdam-class LPDS or Newport class LSTs we have in mothballs

I'm sorry, but I laughed at this bit. Given the Australian experience along with what happened recently with the Malaysian ship, they would have to be insane to even consider picking up a Newport class!!