New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Czech_pivo]

Nah, here's my forecast:

3 x CSC - then, with the realization that HOLY COW THESE ARE SPENDY, someone will suggest pulling some of the combat Suite off the Halifax's and slap it onto the AOPS, then build a few more AOPS.

So, we get 6x 'first flight' AOPS for offshore patrol duties, with 1x25mm.

Then we get 3x CSC that are effectively the (very late) replacements for the 280s.

Then...we get another 12 AOPS with a 57mm on the foc'sle, the 2D RADAR slapped on top, a CIWS on the aft of the superstructure, a basic comm suite upgrade and a single FCS and a quad pack of ESSM in a containerized launcher that can be swapped out for a quad pack of harpoons instead.

Just enough for the public to call it a warship, and our 3x CSC will be rotated around the world projecting power for us.

Brutal

 

[Czech_pivo]

In reality we'll get 3 CSC as the equipment for them are in the pipeline and then the new government will decide then if they will go ahead with the rest of the order or decide on a cheaper option such as the type 31 or other. We'll probably receive 4 to 6 submarines built offshore. 6 AOPS. 6 to 8 replacements for the Kingston class, larger ship, able to deploy overseas with lightly armed with a small caliber gun, no missiles or helo. 2 JSS with Asterix being returned to Federal Fleet.

Brutal.
We should just go back to being a colony.

 

[RedFive]

Brutal.
We should just go back to being a colony.

That wouldn't work, the UK would actually demand we hold up our end of the bargain...

 

[Kirkhill]

That wouldn't work, the UK would actually demand we hold up our end of the bargain...

They couldn't get rid of Newfoundland fast enough. What makes you think they would want 9 more like her?

 

[Underway]

Harpoons are bolt on, 57 mm gun, CIWIS, are pretty much bolt on as well. (I'm talking out of my ass here but I'm sure the engineers will back up my MARS confident statement?

Harpoons are relatively bolt on. CIWS is kinda bolt on (needs some really good datum referencing), 57mm is definatively not bolt on. At least not the variety the RCN currently uses. And it also needs a FC radar as well.

Would you be willing to expand on the term ‘survivability’?
What is meant by this term? Is it the ability to ‘survive’ 1 anti-ship missile? The ability to survive 1 torpedo hit? The ability to survive more than 1+ anti-ship missile?
Is survivability based solely on the size of the ship? Or is it a combination of naval design, size of ship, firefighting capabilities and redundancy of services/tools?

Survivability is a number of things and normally we use the term qualitatively not quantitatively. How well can a ship defend itself, and also the the ability of a ship to take battle damage and still keep fighting.

A corvette wouldn't necessarily have the redundant systems required to take any battle damage and keep fighting. Example CPF has redundant combat management system cabinets. Losing one of those spaces and the ship may still be able to keep fighting. A corvette would only have a single space, no redundant backup servers etc...

Corvettes are smaller. Larger tonnages are harder to sink. Historical data indicates that a ship can take one 1000lb bomb per 2000 tons cubed. So 2000 ton ship will sink at ~one bomb, a 4000 ton ship at ~two bombs and 8000 ton ship ~three bombs. Of course thats historical data and some ships have sunk with much less damage, or survived with much more.

This is because larger ships have more distance between critical spaces, have the room for more then one damage control section bases etc... and a lot more reserve buoyancy.

Smaller ships have less crew. You can literally throw bodies at a damage control problem and just through shear weight of effort deal with it sometimes. Perhaps not ideal nor efficient but lots of trained sailors allow for better DC responses.

So when I say a corvette has reduced survivability vs a frigate its not a precise number, but an overall ability of a ship to deal with damage due to a number of factors.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Harpoons are relatively bolt on. CIWS is kinda bolt on (needs some really good datum referencing), 57mm is definatively not bolt on. At least not the variety the RCN currently uses. And it also needs a FC radar as well.


Survivability is a number of things and normally we use the term qualitatively not quantitatively. How well can a ship defend itself, and also the the ability of a ship to take battle damage and still keep fighting.

A corvette wouldn't necessarily have the redundant systems required to take any battle damage and keep fighting. Example CPF has redundant combat management system cabinets. Losing one of those spaces and the ship may still be able to keep fighting. A corvette would only have a single space, no redundant backup servers etc...

Corvettes are smaller. Larger tonnages are harder to sink. Historical data indicates that a ship can take one 1000lb bomb per 2000 tons cubed. So 2000 ton ship will sink at ~one bomb, a 4000 ton ship at ~two bombs and 8000 ton ship ~three bombs. Of course thats historical data and some ships have sunk with much less damage, or survived with much more.

This is because larger ships have more distance between critical spaces, have the room for more then one damage control section bases etc... and a lot more reserve buoyancy.

Smaller ships have less crew. You can literally throw bodies at a damage control problem and just through shear weight of effort deal with it sometimes. Perhaps not ideal nor efficient but lots of trained sailors allow for better DC responses.

So when I say a corvette has reduced survivability vs a frigate its not a precise number, but an overall ability of a ship to deal with damage due to a number of factors.

Thank you for that; this sort of informed discourse is why Army.ca/Navy.ca is so valuable.

 

[NavyShooter]

Bear in mind - the military is a tool of the Government. We use what tools we are given.

The Government is run by people who are not, for the most part, military.

The people who vote for the Government are not generally military - nor are many Canadians well versed in what a 'warship' actually is.

From the public perspective, a warship is a gray boat with some weapons on it, some RADARs and a Canadian Flag.

The Government will - someday - change, and some folks with fiscal responsibility may take over. At that point, they will realize that the fancy warships that have long been promised are really really expensive...and military projects are very often the first, most visible, form of cutting that's done as a cost saving measure.

What happens if the GOC turns around and says "RCN, you're not getting CSC, you're getting more AOPS - deal with it."

The answer is, much weeping and gnashing of teeth, and then the RCN has to figure out what we can do with a fleet of AOPS instead of actual warships.

But, from the public perspective, our sailors will get new ships, money will be saved, the shipyards will stay open building things, jobs will be sustained, and everyone, except for the military, will be happy.

NS

 

[Stoker]

Bear in mind - the military is a tool of the Government. We use what tools we are given.

The Government is run by people who are not, for the most part, military.

The people who vote for the Government are not generally military - nor are many Canadians well versed in what a 'warship' actually is.

From the public perspective, a warship is a gray boat with some weapons on it, some RADARs and a Canadian Flag.

The Government will - someday - change, and some folks with fiscal responsibility may take over. At that point, they will realize that the fancy warships that have long been promised are really really expensive...and military projects are very often the first, most visible, form of cutting that's done as a cost saving measure.

What happens if the GOC turns around and says "RCN, you're not getting CSC, you're getting more AOPS - deal with it."

The answer is, much weeping and gnashing of teeth, and then the RCN has to figure out what we can do with a fleet of AOPS instead of actual warships.

But, from the public perspective, our sailors will get new ships, money will be saved, the shipyards will stay open building things, jobs will be sustained, and everyone, except for the military, will be happy.

NS

True however I'm fairly certain we are getting at least three CSC as the long lead equipment has been ordered. I do suppose they could say shag it and cancel the whole thing and incur the wraith of LM in ligation so there's that. You are correct on how the public perceives the RCN but not correct on a whole fleet of AOPS as a alternative.

 

[KevinB]

At the end of the day if Canada cuts the CSC program down below 12, the GoC is going to get hauled over the coals by Allies.

You are already a bunch of free loaders when it comes to defense. The idea that you can cut anything out of the CAF budget at this point is laughable.

The GoC should look inside itself and slash the bloat, but DND isn’t the place to do it.

 

[GR66]

Canada has made the commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Keeping the CSC build is one of the best ways to work toward achieving that while at the same time supporting Canadian jobs/industry.

 

[dapaterson]

At the end of the day if Canada cuts the CSC program down below 12, the GoC is going to get hauled over the coals by Allies.

You are already a bunch of free loaders when it comes to defense. The idea that you can cut anything out of the CAF budget at this point is laughable.

The GoC should look inside itself and slash the bloat, but DND isn’t the place to do it.

Cutting the program to 12 is a decision that can be pushed off two decades or so, given current program timelines.

Lots of time for governments of every stripe to delay and obfuscate.

 

[GR66]

Actually the expensive programs that Canada already has on the books (shipbuilding, F-35's, P-8s and NORAD modernization) are pretty good wins for any Government party. The projects are already in the public awareness and it won't be like having to sell the electorate on something new. They can also fall back on the argument that the deals are already done so cancelling them would waste a lot more money.

At the same time they show our Allies that we're taking modernization seriously with high end capabilities coming online even if we don't manage to hit the magic 2% GDP number.

Edited to add: I'd argue that new projects like the submarine replacement, tanks, tracked IFVs, AD (beyond what's been announced for Latvia), etc. are more likely to be targeted for elimination/delay by the government.

 

[Good2Golf]

Canada has said it’s made the commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Keeping the CSC build is one of the best ways to work toward achieving that while at the same time supporting Canadian jobs/industry.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Canada has the fiscal capacity to spend as much (temporarily) as 4% of GDP on defence IF, but only if, there is the political will.

I am 99.9% certain that political will does NOT exist.

Both the Liberals and their Conservatives poll assiduously for their own, private, internal purposes. They both hear exactly the same things from almost all Canadians:

There is NO serious military threat to Canada - thus there is no need to beef up our defences;​

IF a threat suddenly, unexpectedly materializes then the USA will protect us - we have a deal, don't we?​

The economy, the climate, health care and crime are all high on Canadians' agendas - defence is not.​

​

There are reasons why Pierre Poilievre is not banging the defence spending drum; not even one seat, anywhere in Canada, will turn on that issue.

 

[suffolkowner]

I doubt Irving/LM/BAE would be too happy about any changes to whatever terms everyone has agreed to. One of the benefits of domestic pork barreling is that its harder to walk away from. 12 CSC's will probably best case scenario take us to the early 2040's, lots of time to decide what we want to spend or need or can do.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Bear in mind - the military is a tool of the Government. We use what tools we are given.

The Government is run by people who are not, for the most part, military.

The people who vote for the Government are not generally military - nor are many Canadians well versed in what a 'warship' actually is.

From the public perspective, a warship is a gray boat with some weapons on it, some RADARs and a Canadian Flag.

The Government will - someday - change, and some folks with fiscal responsibility may take over. At that point, they will realize that the fancy warships that have long been promised are really really expensive...and military projects are very often the first, most visible, form of cutting that's done as a cost saving measure.

What happens if the GOC turns around and says "RCN, you're not getting CSC, you're getting more AOPS - deal with it."

The answer is, much weeping and gnashing of teeth, and then the RCN has to figure out what we can do with a fleet of AOPS instead of actual warships.

But, from the public perspective, our sailors will get new ships, money will be saved, the shipyards will stay open building things, jobs will be sustained, and everyone, except for the military, will be happy.

NS

The US and our NATO allies won’t be happy.
This in turn could be the final straw that breaks and results in Canada being removed from the G7 or the G7 evolving to something that excludes Canada. It could also result in our further being sidelined in a new version of Five Eyes.
We are rarely taken seriously anymore on the world stage, this path will result in further economic decline as the US further pushes us to the side. The decision to curb our oil/gas industry and kneecap our mining sector makes us less and less needed by the US. We are going down the path of becoming the Argentina of North America - a country that had it all but squandered it all away and now is a bitter old woman remembering her former beauty and appeal.

 

[Halifax Tar]

At the end of the day if Canada cuts the CSC program down below 12, the GoC is going to get hauled over the coals by Allies.

You are already a bunch of free loaders when it comes to defense. The idea that you can cut anything out of the CAF budget at this point is laughable.

The GoC should look inside itself and slash the bloat, but DND isn’t the place to do it.

Agreed, the problem is no one cares what you think about us defense wise.

Until we get sent off the adults table and start getting treated appropriately internationally all the bluster from NATO and the US is wasted words.

 

[suffolkowner]

I think technically we are 9th in GDP now and our fall or the rise of other nations is inevitable. We could do more. Immigration will offset this a fair bit I think. We will see if PP and the CPC follow through on anything positive or substantial for Canadas economic or military security

 

[Kirkhill]

Canada has made the commitment to spend 2% of GDP on defence. Keeping the CSC build is one of the best ways to work toward achieving that while at the same time supporting Canadian jobs/industry.

Canada has the fiscal capacity to spend as much (temporarily) as 4% of GDP on defence IF, but only if, there is the political will.

I am 99.9% certain that political will does NOT exist.

Both the Liberals and their Conservatives poll assiduously for their own, private, internal purposes. They both hear exactly the same things from almost all Canadians:

There is NO serious military threat to Canada - thus there is no need to beef up our defences;​

IF a threat suddenly, unexpectedly materializes then the USA will protect us - we have a deal, don't we?​

The economy, the climate, health care and crime are all high on Canadians' agendas - defence is not.​

​

There are reasons why Pierre Poilievre is not banging the defence spending drum; not even one seat, anywhere in Canada, will turn on that issue.

With these thoughts in mind, auditor-general reports indicating that the cost of existing projects is rising can be seen as a feature and not a bug

It suggests that the government's programme, as it stands, will tend towards 2% of GDP in any event. It also suggests that all of that rise in expenditure will happen in the domestic economy, acting as a make-work project that keeps people employed and splashes money around to various Canadian companies.

And better yet, it is all in the never-never land of a future government.

 

[KevinB]

Agreed, the problem is no one cares what you think about us defense wise.

Until we get sent off the adults table and start getting treated appropriately internationally all the bluster from NATO and the US is wasted words.

I have seen a few polls recently that suggest Canadians think that they really do need to boost Defence spending, and the CAF is woefully equipped.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable for Canada to be expected to do at least 2%.
Frankly I agree with @Edward Campbell that Canada could afford to go to 4% for a short time, and frankly I think that it at least should go for 3% for a period to simply manage recapitalizations on missing and rusting equipment.

Personally as a Canadian too (I’m a dual citizen), I’d like to see the RCN with 24 CSC, 6 Amphibious ships (2 each for East and West Cost, and 2 spares for refit etc) 12 SSN, 12 ‘Corvettes’ and 6 AOR plus the AOPS
But that’s just me, and only taxes down here not up there (thank god).