Replacing the Subs

[Underway]

Way out of my lane here, but based on this and looking a MOTS options, could something stealthy like the Visby work?
Be capable of going active when needed but also be able to be out patrolling in passive mode, take steers from MPA's, AEW's, and CSC's without giving up its position. Almost sub-like in using the uncertainty of its presence as a force multiplier since we can't be everywhere.

Visby is designed for a very specific task. To hide in the baltic and ambush russians. It would last about 30 seconds in the North Atlantic before it was heavily damaged by the sea. Its a specialist warship. We need old school expeditionary ships with good sea keeping and decent ranges.

 

[IKnowNothing]

Visby is designed for a very specific task. To hide in the baltic and ambush russians. It would last about 30 seconds in the North Atlantic before it was heavily damaged by the sea. Its a specialist warship. We need old school expeditionary ships with good sea keeping and decent ranges.

Thanks- like I said way out of my lane.

Am I close on the concept -just wrong ship, or completely out to lunch

 

[MacNav63]

So ships are supposed to be named by their role not their tonnage. It the Canadian tradition Destroyers do area air warfare and command and control functions, frigates are General purpose. There is a lot of overlap in naming with regards to tonnage and different countries use different naming conventions. The Germans and French for example use frigate for any blue water escort vessel. Germans go further with AAW frigate, ASW frigate etc... The new german frigate is 10'000 tons. But it doesn't have any anti sub capability, and self defence air capability only. Its a "destroyer" tonnage but a frigates capability.

There is some discussion that a modern definition should be regarding the ships total capability. Destroyers can perform in all areas of naval warfare and have the sensors to do so. Frigates can perform well in most areas of naval warfare usually lacking in one area (area air defence for example), Corvettes are good in one or two areas of naval warfare with only self defence capability in others.

In Canada's case these corvettes will likely have a self defense gun (57-76mm), a decent sensor package, one fire control radar, some electronic warfare defence, a single sonar (towed or hull mounted), strike length vertical launch systems. Their job is to be a sensor package and missile truck for continental defence. In a continental defence role they are to plug into other assets to teamwork defend Canada. Sonar to work with MPA's, radar to connect with NORAD, large missile capability for BMD capability or other things. So frigate or corvette, call them what you will, that's the job they are supposed to do.

At the risk of going off topic, how does this square with the St. Laurents and the follow on classes up to the 280s? Weren't they all, at least until the 280s, primarily ASW assets? And how does your definition of a destroyer mesh with the classic definition of a cruiser, which when it comes to tonnage is closer to what we're building with the River Class? Is it a generational issue? By which I mean were there definitions that suited the warships of the 30s and 40s, those that suited the Cold War and those that suit todays warship?

 

[Underway]

At the risk of going off topic, how does this square with the St. Laurents and the follow on classes up to the 280s? Weren't they all, at least until the 280s, primarily ASW assets? And how does your definition of a destroyer mesh with the classic definition of a cruiser, which when it comes to tonnage is closer to what we're building with the River Class? Is it a generational issue? By which I mean were there definitions that suited the warships of the 30s and 40s, those that suited the Cold War and those that suit todays warship?

The St. Laurents were Destroyer Escorts, which when the US/NATO did their reorganization of ship types in (insert date that I can't remember here), destroyer escorts got rolled into the frigate class. So St. Laurents if they were still sailing today would be reclassified as ASW frigates based on the technology of the day.

Classic definition of a cruiser is a ship with very long range, good average speed (cruise range and cruising speed) that can do independent operations far from home. Its job was to find and destroy merchant ships and harrass supply lines. As submarines started displacing the cruisers in their role (with a few notable exceptions in the South Atlantic aka Graf Spee), cruisers became first screens for the battle line and then evolved into AAW ships in WWII (Japanese had different roles for their cruisers). But definitions change, and cruiser by and large is a dead classification today, aside from a few hangers on, as they have been replaced by destroyers (just as destroyers used to be torpedo boat destroyers, then screens/scouts for the battlefleet, then torpedo launchers themselves and then evolved into AAW command ships).

And going forward we are probably going to see new classifications. Drone Carrier, Littoral combat ship, Arsenal Ship etc... which will as per normal be classified by their job, not what their tonnages are. Carriers were the same tonnage as battleships and cruisers but were still called carriers. Because their job was different!

 

[MacNav63]

The St. Laurents were Destroyer Escorts, which when the US/NATO did their reorganization of ship types in (insert date that I can't remember here), destroyer escorts got rolled into the frigate class. So St. Laurents if they were still sailing today would be reclassified as ASW frigates based on the technology of the day.

Classic definition of a cruiser is a ship with very long range, good average speed (cruise range and cruising speed) that can do independent operations far from home. Its job was to find and destroy merchant ships and harrass supply lines. As submarines started displacing the cruisers in their role (with a few notable exceptions in the South Atlantic aka Graf Spee), cruisers became first screens for the battle line and then evolved into AAW ships in WWII (Japanese had different roles for their cruisers). But definitions change, and cruiser by and large is a dead classification today, aside from a few hangers on, as they have been replaced by destroyers (just as destroyers used to be torpedo boat destroyers, then screens/scouts for the battlefleet, then torpedo launchers themselves and then evolved into AAW command ships).

And going forward we are probably going to see new classifications. Drone Carrier, Littoral combat ship, Arsenal Ship etc... which will as per normal be classified by their job, not what their tonnages are. Carriers were the same tonnage as battleships and cruisers but were still called carriers. Because their job was different!

Thanks!

 

[quadrapiper]

The St. Laurents were Destroyer Escorts, which when the US/NATO did their reorganization of ship types in (insert date that I can't remember here), destroyer escorts got rolled into the frigate class. So St. Laurents if they were still sailing today would be reclassified as ASW frigates based on the technology of the day.

Classic definition of a cruiser is a ship with very long range, good average speed (cruise range and cruising speed) that can do independent operations far from home. Its job was to find and destroy merchant ships and harrass supply lines. As submarines started displacing the cruisers in their role (with a few notable exceptions in the South Atlantic aka Graf Spee), cruisers became first screens for the battle line and then evolved into AAW ships in WWII (Japanese had different roles for their cruisers). But definitions change, and cruiser by and large is a dead classification today, aside from a few hangers on, as they have been replaced by destroyers (just as destroyers used to be torpedo boat destroyers, then screens/scouts for the battlefleet, then torpedo launchers themselves and then evolved into AAW command ships).

And going forward we are probably going to see new classifications. Drone Carrier, Littoral combat ship, Arsenal Ship etc... which will as per normal be classified by their job, not what their tonnages are. Carriers were the same tonnage as battleships and cruisers but were still called carriers. Because their job was different!

For extra historical fun, I get the impression that, further back, "cruiser" was used as something of a catch-all description for naval vessels engaged in commerce disruption, though the vessels could be anything from 74-gun ships down to sloops.

 

[Sub Standard]

If we take the subs on sole source, and are looking for a speedy delivery, does that suggest we take them "as is" complete with the Korean weapons suite?

That was the plan with the project already, take them with the weapons and sensors that the build country is already using, the only canadianization would be the crypto suite.

 

[Kirkhill]

That was the plan with the project already, take them with the weapons and sensors that the build country is already using, the only canadianization would be the crypto suite.

To me, given our current situation, that makes the Korean offer even more attractive.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Noah has an interesting email out that speculates that a decision on the CPSP may be coming quicker than we think. Apparently a new amendment (see attached) to the original RFI came out yesterday stating that has Canada completed its review and has cancelled any one-on-one meetings that were planned.

Noah is speculating that the cancelling of the meetings may indicate a decision may be coming sometime this year, a lot earlier than planned.

We shall wait and see.

Unfortunately, I was unable to re-produce the whole email in its entirety.

Finally found a link to Noah's substack that talks about the CPSP:

Let's talk about CPSP

So, Noah made some controversy yesterday.

noahscornerofrandomstuff.substack.com

 

[Rainbow1910]

Finally found a link to Noah's substack that talks about the CPSP:

Let's talk about CPSP

So, Noah made some controversy yesterday.

noahscornerofrandomstuff.substack.com

Noah seems to be right from what I can gather, the CPSP is looking like it will end up being a repeat of the P-8 Poseidon procurement. If Germany is so flush with current customers and future customers are seemingly lining up down the street, I do not see much point in trying to elbow our way into a crowded room and trying to get our voice heard.

We would be seemingly the largest and second client for the South Koreans, our order is even going to dwarf their own domestic counterpart. I like German submarines but given how they seem to be treating this program, I don't think they are fundamentally as serious about this as the Koreans. We are making a gigantic purchase here and deserve to be treated with some degree of respect, we aren't some lackey from SEA or the Middle East looking for a handful of small submarines.

 

[Furniture]

We are making a gigantic purchase here and deserve to be treated with some degree of respect, we aren't some lackey from SEA or the Middle East looking for a handful of small submarines.

In fairness to Germany, they have seen us be unserious about defence spending long enough to question whether we will follow through on the plan. Why waste effort of a flake of a customer that might back out at any time?

 

[Rainbow1910]

In fairness to Germany, they have seen us be unserious about defence spending long enough to question whether we will follow through on the plan. Why waste effort of a flake of a customer that might back out at any time?

There has been nothing to indicate publicly that Canada is unserious about this program, especially given the multi-year windup that has been ongoing around it. When somebody comes to you asking for a once in a decade deal and you scoff at them, don't be surprised when they walk away. This is doubly so when the Koreans are seemingly eating into German defence markets across the world, potentially giving them an in to Canada might be a mistake they end up regretting for a long time.

 

[Furniture]

There has been nothing to indicate publicly that Canada is unserious about this program, especially given the multi-year windup that has been ongoing around it. When somebody comes to you asking for a once in a decade deal and you scoff at them, don't be surprised when they walk away. This is doubly so when the Koreans are seemingly eating into German defence markets across the world, potentially giving them an in to Canada might be a mistake they end up regretting for a long time.

I'm not saying the Germans are making the smart choice, simply pointing out a reason they may not have taken us too seriously. Could also be that we are notoriously hard to work with.

I'm definitely pro-South Korea if looking for new partners to work with. They developed their own defence industry for exactly the reasons we should be developing our own, they knew the US was preventing them from getting the best kit possible. They went out and made kit to suit their needs, and seem willing to sell it to others.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

In fairness to Germany, they have seen us be unserious about defence spending long enough to question whether we will follow through on the plan. Why waste effort of a flake of a customer that might back out at any time?

That would be the pot calling the kettle black

 

[Czech_pivo]

Noah seems to be right from what I can gather, the CPSP is looking like it will end up being a repeat of the P-8 Poseidon procurement. If Germany is so flush with current customers and future customers are seemingly lining up down the street, I do not see much point in trying to elbow our way into a crowded room and trying to get our voice heard.

We would be seemingly the largest and second client for the South Koreans, our order is even going to dwarf their own domestic counterpart. I like German submarines but given how they seem to be treating this program, I don't think they are fundamentally as serious about this as the Koreans. We are making a gigantic purchase here and deserve to be treated with some degree of respect, we aren't some lackey from SEA or the Middle East looking for a handful of small submarines.

I get the feeling that if we commit a dozen subs with SK and it goes well - it will be a stepping stone to further projects with them and potentially a new solid Ally. They are not the type to treat this sort of stuff lightly. They will be a solidifying of our relationship with them.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

I get the feeling that if we commit a dozen subs with SK and it goes well - it will be a stepping stone to further projects with them and potentially a new solid Ally. They are not the type to treat this sort of stuff lightly. They will be a solidifying of our relationship with them.

Plus, the South Koreans have already partnered with several Canadian companies which would indicate that they are very serious about this program.

Babcock and Hanwha Ocean Sign a Technical Cooperation Agreement for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project - Naval News

Babcock has signed a Technical Cooperation Agreement with Hanwha Ocean to collaborate on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).

www.navalnews.com

Hanwha Ocean signed MOU with four Canadian Firms for Patrol Submarine project - Naval News

Hanwha Ocean signed a MoU with four Canadian technology companies at the Deep Blue Forum 2023 in Ottawa, the company announced on November 3.

www.navalnews.com

Canadian Patrol Submarine Project: Hanwha Ocean Inks Partnerships with Three Local Companies - Naval News

Hanwha Ocean inked three partnerships with Canadian companies as the South Korean shipbuilder is looking to increase its chances in the upcoming Canadian Patrol Submarine Project competition.

www.navalnews.com

 

[MilEME09]

Plus, the South Koreans have already partnered with several Canadian companies which would indicate that they are very serious about this program.

Babcock and Hanwha Ocean Sign a Technical Cooperation Agreement for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project - Naval News

Babcock has signed a Technical Cooperation Agreement with Hanwha Ocean to collaborate on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).

www.navalnews.com

Hanwha Ocean signed MOU with four Canadian Firms for Patrol Submarine project - Naval News

Hanwha Ocean signed a MoU with four Canadian technology companies at the Deep Blue Forum 2023 in Ottawa, the company announced on November 3.

www.navalnews.com

Canadian Patrol Submarine Project: Hanwha Ocean Inks Partnerships with Three Local Companies - Naval News

Hanwha Ocean inked three partnerships with Canadian companies as the South Korean shipbuilder is looking to increase its chances in the upcoming Canadian Patrol Submarine Project competition.

www.navalnews.com

As well South Korea's two largest ship builders have joined forces for foreign contracts, meaning both yards would be available to build for us. Delivering even faster

 

[Kirkhill]

Plus, the South Koreans have already partnered with several Canadian companies which would indicate that they are very serious about this program.

Babcock and Hanwha Ocean Sign a Technical Cooperation Agreement for the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project - Naval News

Babcock has signed a Technical Cooperation Agreement with Hanwha Ocean to collaborate on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP).

www.navalnews.com

Hanwha Ocean signed MOU with four Canadian Firms for Patrol Submarine project - Naval News

Hanwha Ocean signed a MoU with four Canadian technology companies at the Deep Blue Forum 2023 in Ottawa, the company announced on November 3.

www.navalnews.com

Canadian Patrol Submarine Project: Hanwha Ocean Inks Partnerships with Three Local Companies - Naval News

Hanwha Ocean inked three partnerships with Canadian companies as the South Korean shipbuilder is looking to increase its chances in the upcoming Canadian Patrol Submarine Project competition.

www.navalnews.com

And don't forget this

Seaspan, Korean firm, join forces to ready Vancouver Shipyards for huge contract | Globalnews.ca

North Vancouver-based Seaspan Marine Corporation is teaming up with a Korean firm to get its operations ship-shape after being awarded an $8-billion federal contract.

globalnews.ca

Seaspan signs shipyard improvement contract with STX

Seaspan Marine Corp. announced Monday it has entered into a technology support agreement with STX Offshore and Shipbuilding Company Ltd. to optimize the shipbuilder’s planned facilities upgrades.

www.biv.com

Which also happens to be related to this (tying together Finnish icebreaking design and Korean construction).

Yamalmax - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org