Author Topic: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)  (Read 5136 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,377
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #50 on: March 31, 2017, 12:13:46 »
I know that there is a great myth built around the Corvette Navy in Canada. And no doubt the very miserable existence and resulting hardship suffered by that "branch" of the navy means that it developed a narrative of its view of the war that made it worth it to fight in that way. However, and this is the sad historical truth: The Corvette Navy achieved very little other than rescuing merchant seamen from their sinking ships and fooling those same merchant seamen into believing the navy cared and was protecting them.

The corvettes were an emergency program begun shortly before the beginning of the war as a stop gap measure to produce a lot of cheap little vessel very quickly, with minimum equipment and basically useless of the task other than showing up, to stop the gap until the real anti-submarine vessels (the much larger castle class corvette/frigate and the river class frigates, together with some C and V class destroyers) arrived and air power could be brought to bear every where. The basic corvettes* around the convoys achieved a less than 2% efficiency in stopping submarines in the first three years of the war. In that time, however, 90% of the merchant ship traffic went through unscathed as a result of routing of convoys. By the mid 1943, the larger ASW ships arrived in strength, together with the escort carriers and the tide was finally turned. Our Canadian "Corvette navy" myth makes little out of the fact that, while we acquired and operated 111 corvettes in WWII (only 14 of which were acquired after 1943), we also acquired and operated, starting in 1942, 55 Castle class and river class frigates, 7 destroyers (not including the tribals, which were all serving with the RN nor the old american four-stackers, that were little better than the corvettes) for convoy escort duties. These were ultimately the backbone and most efficient vessels.

My point here is that we should stop looking at a wartime emergency measure as the model for building the Navy in peacetime, when we have all the time needed to get the actual ship you need for the task you conclude is yours(If Great Britain had the time in 1938, they would have gone straight to frigates and destroyers without bothering with corvettes). If we build now, with the time in hand, we should build the proper ship for the job we do.

And, BTW, I am happy to see that Chris dragged the Holland class patrol vessels of the Dutch navy in the picture. The Dutch have four o those ships, but guess what, Chris: A single Halifax takes all four of them out without even a scratch on her paint. That is how useless at war fighting they are. Ah! You ask: Why do the Dutch have them then? Just like many European continental countries (and the UK), the Dutch use these vessels for constabulary work of their government, law enforcement and overseas territory "protection", which means drug/human trafficking and police work (in the case of the UK, they are used for fisheries protection only).

That is fine for those countries where the government has adopted that legal framework and scheme for its action at sea. In Canada, we have not. The legal framework in which we work assigns war fighting only to the RCN. The law enforcement rests with the RCMP, fisheries protection with that part o the Coast-guard, etc. etc. So we, in the Navy, do not have the legal authority to act as a constabulary force++. This may change but it is a government decision.

I agree with Lumber just above: The government has to decide first what mission it wishes the navy to have, then pick the proper ship for it. But so far our mission has fallen between the number 2 and number 3 suggested by Lumber, and that means that the lowest vessel that can effectively do the job is a frigate - and when we have time in hand, that is what we should build.   
 


*: By the time the larger, more effective ASW escort ship started to arrive in numerical strength by the end of 1942, the corvettes could finally start to be taken into long refits and finally fitted with all the ultra modern ASW equipment that had been developed for the frigates, so that by the end of the war, the corvettes that remained bore no resemblance with the ones that had fought the first half of the war at sea. 

++: That is, BTW, one of the never resolved problem with the AOPS. The government which ordered those vessels, and the current one, have yet to adopt legislation that empower the Navy to act with the AOPS. It is domestic peace time ops we are talking about here and the rules are not the rules of war - thus not operations under Rules of Engagement. For constabulary work, we need proper authority (peace officer power under law) and proper use of minimum force rules and training. It has not yet been approved, or even developed. Think about it, a merchant ship is doing something fishy in our waters and an AOPS sees it. On what basis can the Captain act or use his gun? Without legal cover, she wouldn't do anything but report to the RCMP.

And, once again, we are circling back to the heart of the matter: Canadian Security and Threat Perception.

The Department of National Defence has not been concerned with National Defence since at least WW2.  In 1964 the UKs War Office and Admiralty Office became the Ministry of Defence following the US elimination of the US Department of War and the Navy Department with the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.  Orwell wins again.   We call Offence Defence.  Our National Defence effort is predicated on making war somewhere else.  Forward Defence looks an awful lot like Offence to some folks.  Both on our side of the line and on the other side.

We can't sell Canadians on a War Department so we sell them on a Defence Department.  But we don't want to do Defence because there is nothing to Defend against.  Norwegian Trawlers in Baffin Bay, Colombian drugs in the Gulf of St Lawrence and rusty Japanese trawlers loaded with bodies just don't rise to the levels that justify Frigates and Brigades.  Our Defence needs are adequately served by the RCMP, armed Border Guards and Park Wardens and CSIS.  One gap apparently has opened up with the loss of an armed Fisheries Patrol but that could be fixed without spending billions on Canadian Surface Combatants.  The biggest obstacle, apparently is a union that thinks dodging bullets once every decade is somebody else's job.  (Just thinking about that Fisheries Gatling Gun - that era - there was still a swashbuckling element to life back then that permitted the possibility of civilians acquiring Maxim guns and mounting them on their sealing vessels if they wanted to - I remember reading an account of an assassination attempt on Victoria's life during a parade - the assailant was shot by a bullet from a civilian pistol fired by a policeman - the police were unarmed and the troops rifles were unloaded - but civilians in the crowd were throwing their weapons to the coppers to manage the incident).  A different world.

But anyway, back to Defence.  The Air Force can make a better case for being a necessary service by virtue of its NORAD role but even there we are not the primary target.  We just inhabit the wasteland that buffers the target. If the target is damaged we will be damaged.  It is in our interest to assist the target in its defense or else our wasteland will become their wasteland.

All Canada really "needs" is a constabulary capability operating within our economic sphere (including our lands, our EEZ, our internationally agreed Fisheries Areas and SAR Zones).  There are not many reasons to believe that we are going to be militarily challenged over any of those areas.  Armed pirates and smugglers and bike gangs other "outlaws" do not rise the level of a military threat.  They represent the upper level of constabulary threat for which the government should be prepared.    And vessels like the Holland and the AOPS meet those requirements.  Aircraft like the Cormorant, the Herc, the Twotter, the Griffon and UAVs meet those requirements.

Beyond that our War Department needs are whatever our citizens are willing to accept.  Ultimately that means a limited budget from which Canada can supply some brave Auxiliaries who put themselves at the disposal of the Government of the Day to assist Allies in Need.

Canadians will not accept launching air strikes off of Canadian decks against Libya as a justification for a Carrier Group.   They will not accept landing a mechanized brigade in Lebanon as a justification for either the brigade or the ships necessary to transport it and escort it.  They will accept their ships and sailors bouncing around off the Horn of Africa arresting and releasing pirates so long as it doesn't cost too much and nobody gets hurt.

One thing Canadians MIGHT accept is building Boy Scout ships - ships that deliver aid and relief - ships with large holding capacity for beans, blankets and bandages, for water treatment both ashore and afloat, power plants, civil engineering equipment, fuel distribution systems, ships with excellent ship to shore connectors (helicopters, landing craft, mexeflottes).  In other words logistics ships that specialize in support.

With that justification central to the presentation then you might have a better chance of pitching the need for a protection force capable of escorting the Boy Scouts as they work in troubled parts of the world under the Maple Leaf and the Red Cross/Crescent/Mogen...  Now you have a justification for escort vessels, for expeditionary air, for a marine force.  You are back in the Defence game.  You are defending a little piece of Canadian Goodness thousands of miles away from a caring public glued to their monitors for 30 seconds.

And meanwhile, all of those capabilities will supply the Government of the Day more capabilities to despatch brave Auxilliaries to the aid of Allies in Need.

 ;D >:D  It must be Friday to be this cynical.

If DND really wanted to help itself it would double down on Asterix and the Maritime Support Ships (even if they are crewed and operated by an outfit like FedNav with naval assistance).
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #51 on: March 31, 2017, 12:46:27 »
And, once again, we are circling back to the heart of the matter: Canadian Security and Threat Perception.

The Department of National Defence has not been concerned with National Defence since at least WW2.  In 1964 the UKs War Office and Admiralty Office became the Ministry of Defence following the US elimination of the US Department of War and the Navy Department with the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.  Orwell wins again.   We call Offence Defence.  Our National Defence effort is predicated on making war somewhere else.  Forward Defence looks an awful lot like Offence to some folks.  Both on our side of the line and on the other side.

We can't sell Canadians on a War Department so we sell them on a Defence Department.  But we don't want to do Defence because there is nothing to Defend against.  Norwegian Trawlers in Baffin Bay, Colombian drugs in the Gulf of St Lawrence and rusty Japanese trawlers loaded with bodies just don't rise to the levels that justify Frigates and Brigades.  Our Defence needs are adequately served by the RCMP, armed Border Guards and Park Wardens and CSIS.  One gap apparently has opened up with the loss of an armed Fisheries Patrol but that could be fixed without spending billions on Canadian Surface Combatants.  The biggest obstacle, apparently is a union that thinks dodging bullets once every decade is somebody else's job.  (Just thinking about that Fisheries Gatling Gun - that era - there was still a swashbuckling element to life back then that permitted the possibility of civilians acquiring Maxim guns and mounting them on their sealing vessels if they wanted to - I remember reading an account of an assassination attempt on Victoria's life during a parade - the assailant was shot by a bullet from a civilian pistol fired by a policeman - the police were unarmed and the troops rifles were unloaded - but civilians in the crowd were throwing their weapons to the coppers to manage the incident).  A different world.

But anyway, back to Defence.  The Air Force can make a better case for being a necessary service by virtue of its NORAD role but even there we are not the primary target.  We just inhabit the wasteland that buffers the target. If the target is damaged we will be damaged.  It is in our interest to assist the target in its defense or else our wasteland will become their wasteland.

All Canada really "needs" is a constabulary capability operating within our economic sphere (including our lands, our EEZ, our internationally agreed Fisheries Areas and SAR Zones).  There are not many reasons to believe that we are going to be militarily challenged over any of those areas.  Armed pirates and smugglers and bike gangs other "outlaws" do not rise the level of a military threat.  They represent the upper level of constabulary threat for which the government should be prepared.    And vessels like the Holland and the AOPS meet those requirements.  Aircraft like the Cormorant, the Herc, the Twotter, the Griffon and UAVs meet those requirements.

Beyond that our War Department needs are whatever our citizens are willing to accept.  Ultimately that means a limited budget from which Canada can supply some brave Auxiliaries who put themselves at the disposal of the Government of the Day to assist Allies in Need.

Canadians will not accept launching air strikes off of Canadian decks against Libya as a justification for a Carrier Group.   They will not accept landing a mechanized brigade in Lebanon as a justification for either the brigade or the ships necessary to transport it and escort it.  They will accept their ships and sailors bouncing around off the Horn of Africa arresting and releasing pirates so long as it doesn't cost too much and nobody gets hurt.

One thing Canadians MIGHT accept is building Boy Scout ships - ships that deliver aid and relief - ships with large holding capacity for beans, blankets and bandages, for water treatment both ashore and afloat, power plants, civil engineering equipment, fuel distribution systems, ships with excellent ship to shore connectors (helicopters, landing craft, mexeflottes).  In other words logistics ships that specialize in support.

With that justification central to the presentation then you might have a better chance of pitching the need for a protection force capable of escorting the Boy Scouts as they work in troubled parts of the world under the Maple Leaf and the Red Cross/Crescent/Mogen...  Now you have a justification for escort vessels, for expeditionary air, for a marine force.  You are back in the Defence game.  You are defending a little piece of Canadian Goodness thousands of miles away from a caring public glued to their monitors for 30 seconds.

And meanwhile, all of those capabilities will supply the Government of the Day more capabilities to dispatch brave Auxiliaries to the aid of Allies in Need.

 ;D >:D  It must be Friday to be this cynical.

If DND really wanted to help itself it would double down on Asterix and the Maritime Support Ships (even if they are crewed and operated by an outfit like FedNav with naval assistance).

Are you "gasp" talking about a coherent foreign policy? You picked a bad day to quite sniffing glue!  :salute:

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,377
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #52 on: March 31, 2017, 13:38:00 »
Are you "gasp" talking about a coherent foreign policy? You picked a bad day to quite sniffing glue!  :salute:

Dammit, thanks for the reminder.  I knew I was forgetting something.   ;D
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,978
  • Freespeecher
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #53 on: March 31, 2017, 13:39:42 »
WRT ASW and the need for lots of sensors, this can actually be accomplished using robotics. A very clever ship called the "Wave glider" does not even have an engine, it uses the actions of the waves to propel it and a solar panel to operate its sensor suite. While this may sound rather ridiculous, you could literally buy and deploy them by the thousands for the cost of a single frigate. Small ships like the MCDV's could putter around and drop wave gliders overboard in long piquet lines, and collect the data for use by the prosecuting forces (either our own or allied ships/planes/submarines). Wave Gliders also have the ability to communicate on their own, so it is quite possible to use aircraft or other means to disperse wave gliders and not have a controlling ship if necessary.

This is the most likely version of the "swarm navy" that is both affordable for Canada, feasible with current technology and useful to ourselves and our allies.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Let me check my Giveashitometer. Nope, nothing.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 169,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,133
    • Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators - AES OP
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #54 on: March 31, 2017, 14:40:14 »
OK, thousands of them.  You'd have to be able to process and exploit the data realtime for it to be of any real use.  How do we do that?

Might be better to open up Shelburne again and get those capabilities back...
« Last Edit: March 31, 2017, 14:43:41 by Eye In The Sky »
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,377
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Thucydides

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 177,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,978
  • Freespeecher
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #56 on: April 01, 2017, 00:14:49 »
OK, thousands of them.  You'd have to be able to process and exploit the data realtime for it to be of any real use.  How do we do that?

Might be better to open up Shelburne again and get those capabilities back...

The sort of "Big Data" processing capabilities needed are getting progressively smaller, cheaper and more capable. Google, FaceBook, Twitter and other social media sites process millions to billions off data points about their users and site traffic every day, so dealing with hundreds to thousands of small robotic sensors is a snap, comparatively speaking. (You can even buy versions of the IBM "Watson" program which won Jeopardy to run on an individual PC, although for the sort of data processing we would want a small Beowulf cluster aboard each ship would probably be suitable.

And if we want specific military grade hardware and software, the US military's "Third Offset" is identifying ways to track and manage huge amounts of data and operate swarms of robotic and semi autonomous weapons, so that sort of technology would fit well with robot ships and sensors.
Dagny, this is not a battle over material goods. It's a moral crisis, the greatest the world has ever faced and the last. Our age is the climax of centuries of evil. We must put an end to it, once and for all, or perish - we, the men of the mind. It was our own guilt. We produced the wealth of the world - but we let our enemies write its moral code.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Let me check my Giveashitometer. Nope, nothing.
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 169,120
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,133
    • Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators - AES OP
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #57 on: April 01, 2017, 05:19:25 »
So process on platform, eliminate anything that doesn't meet *required criteria* and then broadcast to somewhere, and have it looked at by operators.

Sounds like a mobile, newer version of SOSUS.

I wonder how the Navy folks would like to have some of these to drop.  If they can broadcast on certain fregs, LRPA and MH types could also possibly tune in and listen real-time.
The only time you have too much gas is when you're on fire.

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 9,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,141
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #58 on: April 01, 2017, 07:28:07 »
WRT ASW and the need for lots of sensors, this can actually be accomplished using robotics. A very clever ship called the "Wave glider"

This is the most likely version of the "swarm navy" that is both affordable for Canada, feasible with current technology and useful to ourselves and our allies.

The Wave glider would be useless without the ability to get sensors below the sonic layer depth.

Then that data has to be transmitted back, which is quite significant.   Who monitors it?  Do we get auto detect software?





Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 43,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 521
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #59 on: April 01, 2017, 07:54:06 »
OGBD - My reference to the "Corvette Navy" was a reference to the focus on a larger, ASW focused navy as opposed to a smaller ASuW focused navy, not a suggestion that the future RCN buy large numbers of incapable, small ships just for the sake of numbers.

For example, with more modern technologies could you produce a ship roughly analogous to the capabilities of the Halifax Class (towed array sonar, ASW helicopter, good range/endurance, and moderate self-defence AD and ASuW capability) that can effectively operate with a smaller crew?  If for the same money and crewing requirements as 12-15 CSCs as currently envisioned you could instead have 18-20 of these ASW ships? 

I'd go further to argue that an eventual Kingston Class replacement should be the exact same hull with just the gun and hull sonar. If war comes you add a containerized towed-array sonar, a containerized AD missile system and embark an ASW helicopter.  That would virtually allow us to double the size of our combat-capable fleet (in our ASW focused role) as well as have enough hulls to keep a shipyard in perpetual production for the RCN.  Win-Win?

Throw in some of the unmanned sensor nodes that Thucydides is talking about and in my opinion you'd have a navy that has more military value than what we'll have if we continue down our current path.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 82,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,571
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #60 on: April 01, 2017, 09:16:51 »
My post was not directed at you GR66, at least not you alone or the point you were making. It seems that every time the issue of number of ships comes up one way or the other, someone pulls out the corvettes of WWII as if it proved that a large number of small, less capable ships works "because it won the battle of the Atlantic". It just isn't the case: The corvettes barely made any difference, and in fact came close to losing the battle in 1942.

Your idea of trading in the concept of 6000 to 7000 tons frigates for more numerous smaller ones in the same 4000-4500 tons range as the Halifax's is certainly a reasonable one. So much so, in fact that the French navy has embraced it with a new class of frigates (the FTI), which is also being developed for the export market - and more specifically the Australian export market. Here's link to it: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/fti-medium-size-frigates

On a more serious note, I think I am getting around to Chris Pook's thinking: We need large number of lightly armed and manned vessels. The ideal one for me is huge fleet of large "ocean-going" RHib's with a crew of six, a .50 cal forward for ASuW and AD, a reelable very long tube stethoscope in the back with a rack of hand grenades for ASW. Imagine: we could get 35 of these for each Halifax we decommission.

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 8,035
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 417
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #61 on: April 01, 2017, 10:27:33 »

On a more serious note, I think I am getting around to Chris Pook's thinking: We need large number of lightly armed and manned vessels. The ideal one for me is huge fleet of large "ocean-going" RHib's with a crew of six, a .50 cal forward for ASuW and AD, a reelable very long tube stethoscope in the back with a rack of hand grenades for ASW. Imagine: we could get 35 of these for each Halifax we decommission.

I imagine it's difficult to talk with your tongue so firmly jammed into your cheek.  [:p. Problem is though that the .50 cal is just a pop gun so right off the bat the Senate will be losing their collective minds on that one.


Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 22,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,202
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #62 on: April 01, 2017, 10:49:20 »
If you want to see how the smaller crew, plug and play and swarm tactics is working out, the USN is doing it now with the LCS. How about we learn some lessons from them before we go down that path. Please?

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 73,064
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,202
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #63 on: April 01, 2017, 11:23:11 »
I have a feeling any swarm Navy engaging against a larger, better equipped Navy would look something like this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BLj3aYPXEEo

The Navy has its own experience dealing with swarms of smaller boats.  Libyan War in 2011, HMCS Charlottetown thwarted an attack on Port of Misrata.  I know an officer who was the Navigator of the ship at that time.  The engagement was over in about 30 secs due to the overwhelming fire superiority of the Halifax Class frigate.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,377
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #64 on: April 01, 2017, 11:36:10 »
...
On a more serious note, I think I am getting around to Chris Pook's thinking: We need large number of lightly armed and manned vessels. The ideal one for me is huge fleet of large "ocean-going" RHib's with a crew of six, a .50 cal forward for ASuW and AD, a reelable very long tube stethoscope in the back with a rack of hand grenades for ASW. Imagine: we could get 35 of these for each Halifax we decommission.

Should I have ducked on that one?   [:D
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 73,064
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,202
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #65 on: April 01, 2017, 11:40:50 »
Chris, I find this entire discussion fascinating.  The biggest detractor IMO against using small ships is the lack of a sufficient energy supply to power the weapon systems, radars, sonars, etc. 

We've pretty much maxed out our energy efficiency with the internal combustion engine so until we find a more efficient power supply that's smaller and more cost efficient, we're stuck with the present construct.

The smaller the ship, the less capable the sensor suite, the less stand off the ship is afforded.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2017, 11:44:24 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,377
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #66 on: April 01, 2017, 12:12:38 »
Despite the continued effort on the part of some to reduce that argument to absurdities Humphrey I still stand by my point.

If you want a 50 MW power plant then spec a 50 MW power plant and build a hull around it to keep it (and its associated sensors and other kit) afloat then figure out how few people you need to operate it. 

And I will continue to argue against the practice of pricing ships on a per tonne basis as the PBO did and the US does.

From the testimony supplied via the AOPS thread

Quote
Warships - 40% ship 60% weapons
Ships - 50% labour 50% materials

Assume, as I did on the other thread, a $1,000,000,000 CAD expenditure.

$600,000,000 for the weapons and sensors
$400,000,000 for the ship.

Now assume that I maintain the weapons and sensors suite - holding that budget fixed but I opt to increase the size of the ship by 50% from, for example 4000 to 6000 tonnes.

That $400,000,000 is $200,000,000 in labour and $200,000,000 in material.

Now a 6000 tonne hull will have more material but it won't have 50% more material.  Its engines will be 50% more powerful but they won't be 50% larger or cost 50% more.  The labour to build the larger vessel will be more but it won't be 50% more.  The engineering MAY be greater but it won't be 50% greater. 

Regardless, let us assume that a 6000 tonne hull will cost 50% more than a 4000 tonne hull.

Your $400,000,000 Ship becomes a $600,000,000 ship.
To that you add the same $600,000,000 weapons suite.

Your total project now costs you $1,200,000,000 instead of $1,000,000,000 and you end up with a more flexible ship with longer legs (and possibly/probably better speed and seakeeping).

And I seriously doubt that the escalator would be near that 20% shown above and more likely be closer to 10%.

At that point you are now debating 10x 4000 tonne hulls at 1 BCAD or 8 to 9x 6000 tonne hulls at 1.1 to 1.2 BCAD.

Meanwhile you have the crewing requirement. 

Let's stipulate a current crew of 225 all in including air dets.

Let's also leave out the discussion of moving all the way down to the Maersk or even LCS levels of crewing and move up the scale.  The Danes and the Dutch manage with 100 or so. 

Is it unreasonable to suggest that technology has progressed enough since 1980 to permit a crew of 225 to be reduced?  Even a reduction from 225 to 175, or even 150 would free up enough budget to make up the shortfall in the project above so that we could afford to buy all 10 hulls at the higher displacement.

I intentionally push limits so people will tell me why not.  Once that is defined then it is easier to discover that which might be.   :cheers:
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 82,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,571
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #67 on: April 01, 2017, 12:41:11 »
Now I am the one confused, Chris (and left wondering if the date has something to do with your latest post  ;D).

This whole thread started more or less when you brought the notion of numerous smallish type of ships "expandable" as opposed to the type of frigates the RCN is seeking (you specifically referred to the HMCS BRAS D'OR as an example of what you had in mind).

Now it looks like you are supporting the argument (which many of us here have been supporting and explaining for a long time) that a larger design is ok because the difference in size doesn't really cost that much for the extra sea keeping and habitability it gives you.

Do you still support the "large number of small ships swarm" view, or not?

And BTW, smaller crew than the ones we currently have are possible, and actually utilized by some navies, without going down to the unsustainable levels the Americans are attempting on their LCS. The FREMMs have crew of 145 and 147 (Italy) respectively, the Type 26 are planned for a crew of 118, the French upcoming FTI are planned for crew of 123, and as you know the Iver Huitfeld's have a crew of 117.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,377
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #68 on: April 01, 2017, 13:01:02 »
I do indeed still support the notion of a large number of small vessels versus a single mega ship with the entire Navy onboard.

The question for me is where is the acceptable dividing line.  My ongoing concern is that the apparent emphasis on maintaining a particular crew size and extrapolating from 1980s technology is resulting in an ever decreasing fleet size and an ever decreasing capability as well as an ever increasing vulnerability.

To be honest I don't know if the optimum ship size is 100, 1000, 2000, 6000 or 10,000 tonnes.  Nor do I begin to know what the optimum crew size is.  I BELIEVE that technology generates advantages that it is not obvious to me that the RCN (and the Canadian Forces in general) exploits to the fullest. 

In part, I suggest, that the problem arises from 65000 people whose first priority, a rational and well considered priority - it is mine as well, is keeping bread on their tables.  Cutting numbers does not do that.  Given that then the labour budget is fixed and new technologies end up being added to the capital budget - which necessitates an overall increase in the defence budget.

Now, I will agree that we need a larger budget.   I will agree that we can use all 65000 people in support of the national interest.  Where I start having problems is when the money isn't there and hard choices have to be made.

We appear to default to a tendency to fund 65000 people sitting at desks.  (In the spirit of RHIBs and .50s).

Edit: WRT to the MONTREAL experiment - my concern there would be that the experiment is at risk of proving that you can't run MONTREAL without a crew of 225.  Which to my mind tells me nothing about what is possible with a more modern design.
« Last Edit: April 01, 2017, 13:05:10 by Chris Pook »
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 171,765
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,377
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #69 on: April 01, 2017, 14:45:04 »
One final thought - on the $600,000,000 weapons and sensors suite:

I could also see benefit in splitting that suite up between a number of smaller hulls in the name of flexibility and survivability even though costs would increase through the need to maintain additional power plants.  But I don't necessarily see the need to have all vessels manned with the same set of capabilities.  Auxiliary vessels could, in my opinion, have Maersk style crews or even be uninhabited.
Over, Under, Around or Through.
Anticipating the triumph of Thomas Reid.

"One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”  - James Lovelock

Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others. [Ambrose Bierce, 1911]

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 168,306
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,609
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #70 on: April 01, 2017, 15:28:22 »
The Navy has its own experience dealing with swarms of smaller boats.  Libyan War in 2011, HMCS Charlottetown thwarted an attack on Port of Misrata.  I know an officer who was the Navigator of the ship at that time.  The engagement was over in about 30 secs due to the overwhelming fire superiority of the Halifax Class frigate.

And....what did the NAVO tell you about that occurrence?

I can speak with some certainty that the only rounds that CHA fired during that towards an enemy during that deployment was exactly 11 rounds of .50 cal.  That was during the night time engagement where we were fired at from shore, via truck mounted AAA systems (23mm I think they were decided to be.)

This might be a photo of me taken that night in the AFT ERT:



I was in the OPS room the evening when the Tomahawks zipped over our heads within a few thousand feet of the ship.  It was pretty neat to see them from that close-up watching over the CIWS operator's shoulder.

I was in the AFT SIS when the morning rocket attack happened when they fired a truckload of what we believed were BM-21's at us.  We didn't go to Action Stations that day...the NBP was up on the flight deck doing their morning work-out and they called in the attack...otherwise we'd have had no idea they'd even shot at (and missed) us.

I was operating the SEOSS watching the front lines west of Misratah watching the ambulances drive casualties back to the city from the front, and watching the tracers go both ways across the front, that was interesting to watch. 

I will argue that your impressions of what CHA did during that operation in terms of force employment might be a bit....off.

Like I said, we fired 11 bullets from 1 belt of .50 cal. 

If you're talking in terms of the kinetic effects that we enabled by calling in air strikes?  Oh yes, we called in hundreds of targets, and almost 25% of them encountered...high speed non-linear deconstruction.  We had a lookout one afternoon who noted dust clouds approaching the city through the salt flats SE of the city, checked with his Big Eyes, saw tanks, reported it, which ended up getting called up to the FAC on an Aurora, which ended up getting CF-18's called in to drop on them.  Absolutely saved the city from getting cut-off from the port.  That OSBN did a great job!

All that said....I was onboard for the whole trip, and I don't recall a swarm attack.  I recall there being 3-4 RHIBs launched one evening with 'special' cargo onboard...but we didn't light them up, that was an allied ship that was with us.

Sorry to be so contrary, but again, I think someone's blowing smoke at you.

NS



Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 73,064
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,202
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #71 on: April 01, 2017, 19:03:36 »
And....what did the NAVO tell you about that occurrence?

I can speak with some certainty that the only rounds that CHA fired during that towards an enemy during that deployment was exactly 11 rounds of .50 cal.  That was during the night time engagement where we were fired at from shore, via truck mounted AAA systems (23mm I think they were decided to be.)

This might be a photo of me taken that night in the AFT ERT:



I was in the OPS room the evening when the Tomahawks zipped over our heads within a few thousand feet of the ship.  It was pretty neat to see them from that close-up watching over the CIWS operator's shoulder.

I was in the AFT SIS when the morning rocket attack happened when they fired a truckload of what we believed were BM-21's at us.  We didn't go to Action Stations that day...the NBP was up on the flight deck doing their morning work-out and they called in the attack...otherwise we'd have had no idea they'd even shot at (and missed) us.

I was operating the SEOSS watching the front lines west of Misratah watching the ambulances drive casualties back to the city from the front, and watching the tracers go both ways across the front, that was interesting to watch. 

I will argue that your impressions of what CHA did during that operation in terms of force employment might be a bit....off.

Like I said, we fired 11 bullets from 1 belt of .50 cal. 

If you're talking in terms of the kinetic effects that we enabled by calling in air strikes?  Oh yes, we called in hundreds of targets, and almost 25% of them encountered...high speed non-linear deconstruction.  We had a lookout one afternoon who noted dust clouds approaching the city through the salt flats SE of the city, checked with his Big Eyes, saw tanks, reported it, which ended up getting called up to the FAC on an Aurora, which ended up getting CF-18's called in to drop on them.  Absolutely saved the city from getting cut-off from the port.  That OSBN did a great job!

All that said....I was onboard for the whole trip, and I don't recall a swarm attack.  I recall there being 3-4 RHIBs launched one evening with 'special' cargo onboard...but we didn't light them up, that was an allied ship that was with us.

Sorry to be so contrary, but again, I think someone's blowing smoke at you.

NS

Well jee whiz, he Def did blow smoke up my butt then.  No names no pack drill!  :salute:

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 82,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,571
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #72 on: April 01, 2017, 20:50:02 »
Since there is only one NAVO onboard at any given time, you guys should both know who you are talking about  ;D.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 73,064
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,202
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #73 on: April 01, 2017, 20:58:03 »
Since there is only one NAVO onboard at any given time, you guys should both know who you are talking about  ;D.

Hencev why my lips are now sealed hahahaha

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 168,306
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,609
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: The swarm navy (split from: The Defence Budget)
« Reply #74 on: April 01, 2017, 22:39:32 »
Oh yes. I know.

I was on CHA in 2001 as well when we were doing OP Augmentation, and was on the helm when we had 6-8 small boats suddenly pop up on RADAR and visual at a range of less than 5 miles.  Quite certain that after the fact we ID'd them as Boghammers.  They got....close...and we were....busy....getting people out to the bridge wings to man the .50's.  I recall exactly who the 2OOW was on the bridge that day too.  He kinda panicked a bit....I just wanted someone to relieve me from the helm and give me one of the bridge rifles to help out....in the end they settled for zipping around us a bit, then they went away. 

The likelihood that our new CMS and sensors would give us a better chance to pick them up is reasonably high, so we may not end up as surprised as we were that day. 

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer: