Rebuilding a smaller mid sized Navy

[Ace_Existance]

Canada need more budget for naval warships

Canada has the Arctic, the north Atlantic, and the Pacific ocean to worry about, and with the Russians giving Canada so much problems over the Arctic, I think more Arctic dedicated warships with ASW capabilities are needed. As for the Canadian west and east coast, I think Canada needs proper Destroyers rather then just the Frigates they already have now. And Canada needs an helicopter carrier too, for ASW operations with the helicopter. And this helicopter carrier must also be Arctic capable right ? Unless you want to give all of the Arctic to the Russians.

 

[Sea Toby]

Canada has the Arctic, the north Atlantic, and the Pacific ocean to worry about, and with the Russians giving Canada so much problems over the Arctic, I think more Arctic dedicated warships with ASW capabilities are needed. As for the Canadian west and east coast, I think Canada needs proper Destroyers rather then just the Frigates they already have now. And Canada needs an helicopter carrier too, for ASW operations with the helicopter. And this helicopter carrier must also be Arctic capable right ? Unless you want to give all of the Arctic to the Russians.

Why would Canada want to kill the UN sanctioned 200 mile EEZ? By international law Canada has no right to any resources beyond the 200 mile EEZ. Even with this international law, other navies and ships including submarines can transit within the EEZ.

 

[My2Cents]

Canada has the Arctic, the north Atlantic, and the Pacific ocean to worry about, and with the Russians giving Canada so much problems over the Arctic, I think more Arctic dedicated warships with ASW capabilities are needed. As for the Canadian west and east coast, I think Canada needs proper Destroyers rather then just the Frigates they already have now. And Canada needs an helicopter carrier too, for ASW operations with the helicopter. And this helicopter carrier must also be Arctic capable right ? Unless you want to give all of the Arctic to the Russians.

What is required to make a ship ‘arctic capable’? Are you talking about ice breakers?

If you are talking about surface ASW vessels operating north of the Canadian mainland, that will, at most, be possible only a couple months per year. Maybe 1 or 2 months more if the vessel is an icebreaker, though some parts of Canada’s northern coastal waters may go years between accessible periods. Though I suspect that an operating icebreaker and ASW are incompatible due to the noise and likely damage to protruding equipment like sonar domes and snagged cables.

As for destroyers vs. frigates, what capabilities that the frigates lack do you feel are needed? Moving up to a destroyer would probably add a massive VLS capacity, an AEGIS style radar based area defense system (rather than point defense), and maybe a larger main gun, but are these capabilities that Canada actually needs?

An ASW helicopter carrier? While such things exist they have nearly all been scrapped or converted to light carriers with VTOLs. As has generally been the case, most exist as a political expedient to hide a light carrier the owners might not otherwise be permitted to have or operate by treaty or agreement with other services. ASW helicopter carriers are only useful for reinforcing a task force whose vessels are deficient in organic helicopter capacity, not generally a problem with modern frigate designs.

 

[gf0012-aust]

With submariners facing a career only on the west coast, then Australia needs submarines based on both coasts so they won't spend their entire career there. But there is also no doubt west coast based submarines are more vital for potential war fighting operations than east coast based submarines. There is a reason why they are based on the west coast.

The question remains though whether the Australian taxpayers want more tax relief than east coast based submariners.

subs were originally based on the east coast

they're based on the west coast for a number of reasons. (both strategic and logistical)

+ the largest sub training box in the southern hemisphere is a hiccup away
+ USN/RAN comms nearby
+ fleet support
+ recovery support

etc etc....

co basing them in the east would still leave support and other issues to be addressed

the issue is not necessarily about the geographical impact as thats a given - it gets down to what do they need to do to address retention to make west coast basing more palatable

if partners are unhappy - crew are unhappy, and once you get 80km out of Perth, Albany or Freo then you need to like 4wd'ing

 

[ASSAIL]

the issue is not necessarily about the geographical impact as thats a given - it gets down to what do they need to do to address retention to make west coast basing more palatable

This is an HR issue which is not unique to the RAN.
Mining companies resolve it with the FIFO (Fly in fly out) rosters.
Its only a short step in lateral thought for the RAN to intoduce similar practices and, given that sub patrols are usually protracted and there is a possibility of multi crewing, it could work quite well.

For all of us baby boomers this pandering is an anathema but the reality is that we now employ gen Y'ers and that's how you keep them! Any mining industry HR manager looking at this (sub manning) issue would be highly amused.

 

[aussienscale]

This is an HR issue which is not unique to the RAN.
Mining companies resolve it with the FIFO (Fly in fly out) rosters.
Its only a short step in lateral thought for the RAN to intoduce similar practices and, given that sub patrols are usually protracted and there is a possibility of multi crewing, it could work quite well.

For all of us baby boomers this pandering is an anathema but the reality is that we now employ gen Y'ers and that's how you keep them! Any mining industry HR manager looking at this (sub manning) issue would be highly amused.

Fair point, but where do you cut FIFO off for the Defence Force ? You make it purely for the Dolphin's and the Skimmers will want and eventually get it, SASR, Darwin, Etc Etc, it would open up a really big bag of you know what : also the mining industry actually produces an income and no doubt FIFO would be classed as a business expense etc

Defence spends taxpayers money, just a thought ?

Cheers

Note: Not sure why that did not quote properly ? In response to Assail's Post

 

[ASSAIL]

Fair point, but where do you cut FIFO off for the Defence Force ? You make it purely for the Dolphin's and the Skimmers will want and eventually get it, SASR, Darwin, Etc Etc, it would open up a really big bag of you know what : also the mining industry actually produces an income and no doubt FIFO would be classed as a business expense etc

Defence spends taxpayers money, just a thought ?

Cheers

Note: Not sure why that did not quote properly ? In response to Assail's Post

You do it in response to the known personnel shortcomings wherever they occur.
There are thousands of miners that FIFO from and to every major airport in Aust.

The fact that mines produce income is irrelevant IMHO. The labour market does not discriminate and competition is fierce.

The labour costs of mining industry are huge cf the AF. A edeckhand working on a harbour launch in Darwin earns $3000pw smoothed over the month. 2 weeks on, 12 hours a day, 2 weeks off. Qualifications required, Coxn ie CERT 11, something that every abble seaman would be overqualified for.
Just about every person working offshore earns northward of $200k with equal time on/off.
As an asside, I have just attended an HR workshop and what struck me was the changing face of the labour market and the differing expectations which Gen Y ers demand. They will soon make up 30% of the workforce and buy 50% of all goods and services (not that thats relevant)
Anyway, the point is we must change with the demographic.

 

[Ace_Existance]

another point of view on Canada's maritime requirements

OK, you guys are right that Canada doesn't need to have Full Destroyers and doesn't need helicopter carriers either, but that is because you sit in your gorgeous house by beautiful Canadian Rockies or your big beautiful houses in America, you don't realize the dangerous world we live in. Even though Canada think 200 nautical mile economic zone is enough to ensure their resources needs and territorial claims, but that is you thinking from your rich and big Canadian houses, and not what other people are thinking in their poor state and not so wealthy country. And in this world not everyone is as peaceful as the Canadians. I said Canada need Full Destroyers is because of the size of the ocean needed for Canada to guard and protect is huge. If you use small corvettes and small frigates its just gonna be not enough for one of the northern powers in this world. Are you not one of the northern powers ?

And as for the Arctic capable warships I'm talking about, is not just ice breakers, but ships capable of all arctic warfare, including moving through ice and doing operations for a long time in winter arctic if necessary, I'm only thinking that because Canada has such a huge territory across part of the Arctic, and if you are not interested in defending it, who will defend it for you. And yes Canada don't really see any threats as yet, but who can tell what the future will hold ? no one knows the future besides God.

That is all I was trying to say.

 

[My2Cents]

And as for the Arctic capable warships I'm talking about, is not just ice breakers, but ships capable of all arctic warfare, including moving through ice and doing operations for a long time in winter arctic if necessary.

So, what are the design requirements for making a ship arctic capable?

Can you name some ship classes that meet the requirements as 'arctic capable'?

 

[Ace_Existance]

So, what are the design requirements for making a ship arctic capable?

Can you name some ship classes that meet the requirements as 'arctic capable'?

what I meant was warships dedicated to operate in arctic conditions whether in winter or summer. The Americans and Russians probably already have such ships, but they are not warships but icebreakers, so I guess we could do it the cheap way by simply convert icebreakers like the Russian 'Arktika' class nuclear icebreakers into warships, then its good to go as arctic capable warships.

 

[Sea Toby]

what I meant was warships dedicated to operate in arctic conditions whether in winter or summer. The Americans and Russians probably already have such ships, but they are not warships but icebreakers, so I guess we could do it the cheap way by simply convert icebreakers like the Russian 'Arktika' class nuclear icebreakers into warships, then its good to go as arctic capable warships.

Winter and summer arctic capable ANY ship requires an icebreaker. Summer arctic capable ANY ship must have an ice strengthened hull to operate in thin ice. I am not aware of any warship which is ice strengthened, only OPVs.

Earlier this year the US icebreaker Healy broke the ice for an ice strengthened Russian oil tanker Renda to Nome, Alaska. To open the Soo Locks in late March or early April the US has a Great Lakes icebreaker Mackinaw, which is designed to operate as a buoy tender during the summer months. She is basically a slightly enlarged buoy tender designed with an ice breaker hull. For three or four months each year the Soo Locks are closed to Lake Superior. Whitefish Bay just west of the Soo Locks ices over each and every winter. Northern Michigan isn't considered anywhere near the Arctic.

It appears the US Coast Guard has cancelled two of eight new National Security Cutters to fund a new polar icebreaker, which could run up to one billion US dollars. She isn't expected to enter service for another ten years.

New Zealand ordered ice strengthen hulls for their Canterbury sealift ship and two new OPVs to operate in first year thin ice in the Southern Ocean.

 

[My2Cents]

what I meant was warships dedicated to operate in arctic conditions whether in winter or summer. The Americans and Russians probably already have such ships, but they are not warships but icebreakers, so I guess we could do it the cheap way by simply convert icebreakers like the Russian 'Arktika' class nuclear icebreakers into warships, then its good to go as arctic capable warships.

So you are proposing to construct a series of probably 30,000+ ton nuclear powered warships (24,000 tons basic Arktika + 6,000 tons for weapon systems and sensors (actually only about half the weight is for the systems, the rest is for deicing systems so they remain operational in winter conditions)?

• When conducting icebreaking operations ice breakers are too slow (<6 knots) to and unmaneuverable (the narrow passage carved though the ice requires either very a long radius turns or repeated backing and ramming actions).
• At those speeds a couple hours delay from detection to attack would probably not be significant.
• Intercept a submarine which is probably cruising at 12-20 knots, and can sprint at over 30 knots under the ice, is impossible.
• Icebreaking is acoustically noisy and incompatible with ASW operations. Icebreakers cannot mount large hull mounted sonar arrays due to ice chunks sliding over and under the hull, or towed sonar systems due to snagging on ice flows.
• The hull shape required for ice breaking is unsuitable for operations in rough seas or at high speeds (>16 knots), and vis versa, making these highly specialized vessels.
• Arctic winter conditions allow helicopter operation less than 50% of the time. In addition dipping sonar and sonar buoys cannot operate through ice.

At least with a pair of nuclear reactors on board they are unlikely to have to worry about freezing to death when (not if) they get stuck in the ice. However Canada is unlikely to ever seriously consider building nuclear vessels.

Finally, the Arktika class are only Polar Class 3 vessels (year round operation in 2nd year ice, design ice thickness < 3.0m). You would need a Polar Class 1 vessel (year round operation in all Polar waters, design ice thickness 4.0m+). No Polar Class 1 vessel has ever been built.

 

[Sea Toby]

To give an idea of the ice conditions when the icebreaker Healy escorted the oil tanker Renda to Nome, Alaska during the month of January, this is a link to a short Coast Guard video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YewJTcRx6Os[

Sailing only 25 miles overnight isn't really fast is it? A nation could achieve much better surveillance with helicopters or aircraft from a military viewpoint. Icebreakers have their roles, but I wouldn't consider them warships. I wouldn't bother attempting of turning icebreakers into warships. Ice strengthened OPVs maybe, but icebreaking frigates or destroyers no.