Shipbuilding contracts

[Guest Derek L]

12 USN ships face the axe

Not really interested in the nine Tico cruisers (But one caveat that I’ll return to), but two of the three LSDs (Landing ship dock) that are probably going. Now first, before the crying over purchasing used ships and the effect on our program to purchase new ships under the National Shipbuilding strategy start……Here’s my idea, purchase the two youngest of the three LSDs going (USS Fort McHenry & USS Tortuga) and give one to each coasts shipyards to “cut their teeth” on “Canadianization” on the hopes of getting 10-15 years service out of them. Now with the addition of these two LSDs we’ll fulfill the prior requirement for the “Big Honking Ship” as laid out by former CDS…….Also, the large transport capacity of each of these ships would allow us to simplify the requirements of the JSS to a simple (off the shelf) replenishment ships……These ships would be retired and replaced in the late 2020s or early 2030s by two new ships, built in the yards that are nearing completion of the current program of shipbuilding.

Now back to the Aegis cruisers…….If it was decided that our future surface combatants were to be equipped with a later mark of Aegis, I’d suggest leasing 3 of the youngest cruisers (USS Cape St George, USS Vicksburg & USS Anzio) and performing a “hot transfer” with the immediate retirement of our three remaining 280s and moving their crews to two of the three cruisers……..Why only two active you might ask? Well the crewing requirements of the cruisers are larger than our 280s, so it would require the three current ships crewing levels…….then why three cruisers? Keep one is reserve, and transfer the crew to it from when one of these ships is undergoing deep maintenance, likely in a US yard as part of the leasing agreement and to keep our cruisers aligned with the USN upgrade program for theirs.

The advantages? Aside from gaining earlier experience with the Aegis system, we’d retire three ships commissioned in the early 70s with three ships commissioned in the early 90s…..these natural savings might be obvious……Also, unlike the three unique 280s, the Tico cruisers and our current 330 frigates both share a very similar power plant (GE LM2500) and the savings of reducing the type of power plants in the fleet, though small, will be present, as will the savings of retiring the 280s unique sensors/electronics.

As the new surface combatants enter service later this decade, we return the Tico’s back to the Americans, with each of the ships being modernized along the same standards with their cruisers, and the ships would still have 5-10 years of service life left on them………

Edited October 26, 2011 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

Finally some movement.....

ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) a leading European systems house providing submarines and naval surface ships and Canada's procurement agency, PWGSC, have signed a contract in Hamburg for a multiphase design study for the Canadian Navy's next generation Joint Support Ship (JSS).

As part of a major fleet renewal program, Canada plans to replace its two Auxiliary Oil Replenishment (AOR) vessels with two or three Joint Support Ships. One possible design for the new JSS is a version of the German Navy's latest Berlin Class Task Group Supply Vessel (EGV) specifically modified to meet Canadian requirements*. The agreement between PWGSC and TKMSC includes the provisions for a licensing agreement for the use of the EGV design for the construction in and deployment of the ships by Canada should the EGV design be selected.

The modified design, to be developed by ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems Canada (TKMSC) in close cooperation with Blohm + Voss Naval (BVN), a strongly positioned professional naval systems engineering house, will be considered alongside an in-house design, being developed by the Department of National Defence (DND), the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), and BMT Fleet Technology in Canada.

Should the TKMS modified Berlin Class EGV design be chosen, the award of a contract for the functional design is planned, which would be used for the construction of the ships by a Canadian shipyard.

Quick backgrounder on the Berlin Class

Looking at these numbers:

Builder: Flensburger Schiffbau-Gesellschaft, Flensburg, Germany

Power Plant: 2 × MAN Diesel 12V 32/40 diesel-engines, 5,340 kW each; 2 reduction gears, 2 controllable pitch four-bladed propellers, 1 bow thruster

Length: 173.7 m (569 ft 11 in)

Beam: 24 m (78 ft 9 in)

Displacement: 20,240 tonnes

Capacity: 9330 tonnes of fuel oil, aviation fuel and fresh water

Cargo space: 550 tonnes mixed cargo

Speed: 20 kn (37 km/h)

Aircraft: 2 × Sea King or MH90 helicopters

Armament: 4 × MLG 27 mm autocannons, Stinger surface to air missile (MANPADS),

Crew: 139 (+ 94), plus hospital capacity of 43 patients

With the Berlin Class, we'll see a reduction in terms of replenishment capacity (And one less Helicopter) when contrasted with the current Protecteur Class

Length: 171.9 m

Beam: 23.2 m

Displacement: 8,380 tons light; 24,700 tons full load

Aircraft: 3 x CH-124 Sea King helicopters

Complement: 365 (27 of whom are officers) - this includes 45 aircrew

Cargo Capacity:

14,590 tons fuel

400 tons aviation fuel

1,048 tons dry cargo

1,250 tons ammunition

Armament:

2 x Phalanx CIWS

6 x .50 calibre machine guns

The one major benefit, would be the drastic reduction in crewing levels, in part due to automation and change of propulsion plants (Steam to diesel).

*meet Canadian requirements = more money

*I also know one Measurement is in metric and one imperial, I've done the conversion.

My question, is if this is a harbinger of things to come……….That reduction in fuel & stores could translate into a future were a Canadian naval task group has one less Destroyer/Frigate to support……Another “stealth cut”

[Smallc]

We'll see, but a smaller task group doesn't mean a smaller combatant navy. We send out frigates and destroyers all of the time without AORs. Also, from what I'm hearing, DND has decided to keep the MCDVs, meaning our Navy is about to grow by 6 ships. Oh, and STX, the same company that designed the offshore oceanographic science vessel ans the arctic offshre patrol ship, was selected to design the polar icebreaker a few days ago as well.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Smallc

[Smallc]

Also, choosing the Berlin could mean that we get 3 ships if the modifications are not too intense.

[Guest Derek L]

We'll see, but a smaller task group doesn't mean a smaller combatant navy. We send out frigates and destroyers all of the time without AORs. Also, from what I'm hearing, DND has decided to keep the MCDVs, meaning our Navy is about to grow by 6 ships. Oh, and BMT, the same company that designed the offshore oceanographic science vessel ans the arctic offshre patrol ship, was selected to design the polar icebreaker a few days ago as well.

I understand how the Navy operates, but thanks

When I got out in ‘94 we had three replenishment vessels, all capable of supporting a task group of 3-4 ships (depending on length of deployment) independently……….Today we have two AORs capable of supporting a task group of ~3-4 ships independently……..With two Berlin Class, we’ll have two AOR’s capable of supporting a 2-3 ship task group……….Even if we got the third Berlin Class (Which I doubt), in total we’d have 3 AOR’s capable of supporting 6-9 vessels independently or basically what we have now………Hence a cut in capability to operate independently.

Now if we’re keeping the Kingston’s (Or some of them) that we have a hard enough time keeping manned, that signals that the AOPS (6-8 ships) will be crewed by the reg force………Where do you get the personal? That’s easy, the three 280s that are near clapped out and anybody left over from the AORs……..That leaves the 330 crews for the future surface combatants……like for like.

Now to further compound the “problem” look at the reduced numbers of CH-148s we’re purchasing (28)………Now to count for maintenance, training, deployments and a small attrition reserve, divide that number of aircraft by 4.…..that allows ~7 helicopters available for deployment……figure at a minimum 2 CH-148s aboard an AOPS on each coast……Now we have 5 left……Figure 1 aboard a combatant on either a NATO or independent operation…….that’s 4 left…….Two aboard the AOR and one on each surface combatant it’s supporting………0

Between manning requirements, the future costing of the program, the reduction in both helicopters and replenishment capabilities, I doubt we’ll get 15 surface combatants……My (educated) guess will be 12 combatants, 8 AOPS and the two AOR/JSS………..An increase in hulls, but a decrease in capability.

I hate to sound like a pessimistic wet blanket, but this has been the downward trend since the 60’s and is a trend currently being played out in all Western Navies.

Edited February 9, 2012 by Derek L

[Smallc]

Just a correction, we currently have only 27 Sea Kings. We had more, but, 28 CH-148s is actually an increas. Not all frigates sail with helicopters, either.

I will be very surprised if we don't get 15 CSC, but, who knows?

[Smallc]

Has the RCN ever had land attack capability before? Since the Harpoon Block II is being installed on the Halifax class, we will now.

[Sa'adoni]

Has the RCN ever had land attack capability before? Since the Harpoon Block II is being installed on the Halifax class, we will now.

Yeah they are called cannons.

[Smallc]

Earlier, I said BMT was designing the ice breaker. I meant STX.

[Guest Derek L]

Just a correction, we currently have only 27 Sea Kings. We had more, but, 28 CH-148s is actually an increas. Not all frigates sail with helicopters, either.

I will be very surprised if we don't get 15 CSC, but, who knows?

We originally had 40+ Sea Kings…….And Yes, we only have 27 now and yes, not all deployments have a Sea Thing, that’s a reflection on the serviceability of the Sea King though (I don‘t think the 280s even deploy with two now)…….We currently have 17 helicopter capable ships…….With the shipbuilding strategy that number would jump to 23-25.……..It’s a numbers game........The 280s Capability will likely be replaced with the future surface combatants, but not the hull numbers…….The 280s are currently place holders for AOPS.

[Guest Derek L]

Has the RCN ever had land attack capability before? Since the Harpoon Block II is being installed on the Halifax class, we will now.

Yes, one with the ability for sustained, accurate fire and combat tested & proven.

[Smallc]

The AOPS will apparently often deploy with CCG helicopters in the arctic.

[Guest Derek L]

The AOPS will apparently often deploy with CCG helicopters in the arctic.

Perhaps, but the CCG’s rotary winged inventory is in an even sadder state than the RCAF…..And they still have their own deployments/commitments………Even if that became the case, that would gain you an extra two aircraft available for deployments.......

[Smallc]

There should, IIRC, soon be an upcoming replacement of at least part of the CCG rotary fleet.

[Guest Derek L]

There should, IIRC, soon be an upcoming replacement of at least part of the CCG rotary fleet.

Perhaps, I never heard of such a program, but if they were replacing some of their fleet, it would likely be the older shore based 212s and 206s…..Still the conditions that a pilot for Transport Canada versus the RCAF will fly in are stark.

[Smallc]

Oh I know, I just tend to be optimistic.

[Guest Derek L]

Oh I know, I just tend to be optimistic.

And I’m pessimistic based on years of precedent.

[Smallc]

And I’m pessimistic based on years of precedent.

I think things are different now.

[Guest Derek L]

I think things are different now.

Based on what? Look at all major environments, numbers have been cut across the board for decades….fighters, tanks, ships everything…….

[Smallc]

The umbrella agreements for both yards were officially signed yesterday. Now the real work begins:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Seaspan+Ottawa+sign+historic+shipbuilding+deal/6162835/story.html

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/63220-ottawa-irving-kick-start-shipbuilding-deal

BTW Derek, you seem to be right about other navies losing ships. Germany is about to replace 8 ships with 4. Let's hope that the same thing doesn't happen here.

[Guest Derek L]

The umbrella agreements for both yards were officially signed yesterday. Now the real work begins:

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Seaspan+Ottawa+sign+historic+shipbuilding+deal/6162835/story.html

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/63220-ottawa-irving-kick-start-shipbuilding-deal

BTW Derek, you seem to be right about other navies losing ships. Germany is about to replace 8 ships with 4. Let's hope that the same thing doesn't happen here.

Of course I’m right

Joking aside, it’s simply looking at other nations militaries trends and intentions, followed by budgets…….Russia, the Dutch, Royal Navy, the French, Italians, Australians and the US etc…….Are all scaling back……..My prediction, as I outlined earlier, will be cost overruns, followed by a reduction to 6 (8 if the economy is healthy) AOPS and 12 surface combatants, and two AORs………If one looks at how we use our current fleet (280s/330s), many of the domestic tasks and training could be accomplished with the AOPS as opposed to combat capable surface combatants……….And with a surface fleet such as this, though less capable in terms combatant numbers, we will return closer to early 90’s ship numbers……

[Guest Derek L]

I doubt the government will reverse it now, what I was referring to was a future government(s)………Granted, the frigate/destroyer replacement, depending on the next few elections could be binned or reduced……..even that, I doubt though……….I’ve yet to see the same associated uproar over the cost, as was the case with JSF, from the peanut gallery though

And so it begins:

The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy – $35 Billion Or Will The Parliamentary Budget Officer Find Out It Will Cost Even More?

NDP spokesman Marc-Andre Viau said PBO officials also notified his party they were looking at the ship-building strategy.

Given the government’s record on defence purchases and the scope of the national shipbuilding strategy, Viau said, it is important to get an independent assessment of the project’s implications and long-term costs.

This isn’t the first time the PBO has looked into a multibillion-dollar military purchase.

Expect the new figure, including through life costs, to reach over the hundred billion mark to operate a navy for 40 years………..I wonder if the NDP will still support the deal……….Since the shipyards and the workers building them generally live in NDP ridings……

[Signals.Cpl]

And so it begins:

The National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy – $35 Billion Or Will The Parliamentary Budget Officer Find Out It Will Cost Even More?

Expect the new figure, including through life costs, to reach over the hundred billion mark to operate a navy for 40 years………..I wonder if the NDP will still support the deal……….Since the shipyards and the workers building them generally live in NDP ridings……

What are they going to do? Cancel the ships?

Edited August 5, 2012 by Signals.Cpl

[Guest Derek L]

What are they going to do? Cancel the ships?

No, reduce the scope/capabilities/numbers of the fleet once they realize that a GP Frigate will cost 2 billion per copy, built in Canada……..The Opposition, who once supported the deal, will about face with cries of being further “misled” about the cost of the program……………The JSS/AOR replacement alone started with a requirement for four ships, reduced to three, then two with an option on a third, down to two……The Navy will be lucky to get 12 hulls to replace 16 (Remember Huron went early) and will be saddled with the political driven AOPS that they don’t want.

[Signals.Cpl]

No, reduce the scope/capabilities/numbers of the fleet once they realize that a GP Frigate will cost 2 billion per copy, built in Canada……..The Opposition, who once supported the deal, will about face with cries of being further “misled” about the cost of the program……………The JSS/AOR replacement alone started with a requirement for four ships, reduced to three, then two with an option on a third, down to two……The Navy will be lucky to get 12 hulls to replace 16 (Remember Huron went early) and will be saddled with the political driven AOPS that they don’t want.

Like you said, many of those ships will be build in NDP ridings so would the NDP fight the government on this one? And at point I would think common sense would prevail when you see that we have such a long coastline, with a potential requirement for navy presence in the arctic increasing dramatically over the next decade or two cutting the already insufficient numbers would be completely against logic. I don't think even the NDP is obtuse to such a degree as to argue that we can cut the numbers at the same time the RCN's AO will be increasing over the next decade or two. Honestly, if the program is reviewed they might grasp on some straws or minor problems to score some political points against the big bad Conservatives, but if the Government and the CF put out the numbers just like they were required to do for the F-35's the NDP will suddenly fight those numbers as they would be counter productive to their interests.