Shipbuilding contracts

[Derek 2.0]

So the US navy's newest ship arrived in Canada the other day on its maiden voyage. I wonder how the USS Milwaukee compares to the new frigates Canada is contemplating. It seems to cost an awful lot less

It doesn't, and the intended role of the LCS class wouldn't meet the (current) requirements of the RCN. The LCS will eventually be a worthwhile vessel for a navy that is able to support it with other vessels able to cope with modern realities.

frigate version. Seems to me we could save a lot of time, money and aggravation by just putting in our order with them.

It could, but then the frigate version isn't fully developed, as such, would be difficult to determine the actual cost and if it would meet the requirements of our navy. With that said, if bought in combination with actual warships, it could be a viable choice bookended by the AOPS on the low end and a modern DDG on the higher end..........but I doubt any Government will procure vessels built outside of Canada.

[bush_cheney2004]

The LCS certainly doesn't meet what that Navy says we need - and what you agree we need.

Neither do Ford class aircraft carriers...hope you don't mine if the United States builds them anyway.

[Argus]

The LCS is overpriced for what it is. We'd be far better buying ships from France or Spain.

The LCS is cheaper than anything we are planning to build, probably by about half. And I suspect it has more capabilities. The larger 'frigate' version probably has even more. What French or Spanish warships would you think would be better?

[Smallc]

Neither do Ford class aircraft carriers...hope you don't mine if the United States builds them anyway.

That wasn't the line of discussion. It was whether or not the vessel was appropriate for Canada.

[Derek 2.0]

Neither do Ford class aircraft carriers...hope you don't mine if the United States builds them anyway.

Exactly, the LCS is a system of systems, designed to fill into a niche role of the USN.......and based on the approval being granted to develop and procure a larger version, to replace the OHP frigates, it should be noted that even the USN finds it wanting in some of the roles it had hoped it would fill.

[Smallc]

The LCS is cheaper than anything we are planning to build, probably by about half. And I suspect it has more capabilities. The larger 'frigate' version probably has even more. What French or Spanish warships would you think would be better?

Other than speed, they're far less capable than Halifax.

France:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FREMM_multipurpose_frigate

Spain:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fridtjof_Nansen-class_frigate

Note that the Norwegian frigate, built in Spain, is about the same price as the LCS. It will compete for Canada's program, as will the French frigate.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Smallc

[Argus]

It doesn't, and the intended role of the LCS class wouldn't meet the (current) requirements of the RCN. The LCS will eventually be a worthwhile vessel for a navy that is able to support it with other vessels able to cope with modern realities.

What can it not do that our proposed frigates can?

It could, but then the frigate version isn't fully developed, as such, would be difficult to determine the actual cost and if it would meet the requirements of our navy. With that said, if bought in combination with actual warships, it could be a viable choice bookended by the AOPS on the low end and a modern DDG on the higher end..........but I doubt any Government will procure vessels built outside of Canada.

Is there any real doubt it will wind up being cheaper than what we will build? And ours isn't fully developed either.

I agree that we probably will not get a government with the courage to use the defense budget for defense, as opposed to regional industrial incentives.

[Derek 2.0]

The LCS is cheaper than anything we are planning to build, probably by about half. And I suspect it has more capabilities.

It doesn't, as it lacks the ability to defend itself in an environment with modern anti-ship missiles........but then, in USN service, there would be a cruiser or destroyer providing said defenses.

[Smallc]

And then of course, there is this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt-class_frigate

And this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F125-class_frigate

All competing for Canada's program, along side something from one of the designers of the LCS and Arleigh Burke class.

If we bought any of these ships and had them built somewhere else, mainly off the shelf, we'd probably be fine with our budget.

[Smallc]

What can it not do that our proposed frigates can?

In its current configuration, it cannot do anti submarine, anti surface, or anti air warfare as well as the Halifax class.

[Smallc]

What can it not do that our proposed frigates can?

Halifax Class:

Armament:

8 × MK 141 Harpoon SSM - sea/land

16 × Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile SAM/SSM - air

1 × Bofors 57 mm Mk 2 gun - close in sea/air

1 × Phalanx CIWS (Mk 15 Mod 21 (Block 1B)) - too close in sea/air

6 × M2 Browning machine guns - close in sea/air

24 × Mk 46 torpedoes Mod 5 - sub sea

Freedom Class LCS:

Armament:

1 x BAE Systems Mk 110 57 mm gun, 400 rounds in turret and two ready service magazines with 240 rounds each.[8] - close in sea/air

4 x .50-cal machine guns - close in sea, air

2 x Mk44 Bushmaster II 30mm guns - close in

21 x RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile Surface-to-Air Missiles - air (far less capable air)

Other weapons as part of mission modules - these have yet to be developed

Edited December 6, 2015 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly, the LCS is a system of systems, designed to fill into a niche role of the USN.....

They were designed for flexible package, littoral missions and are faster than anything Canada (may) build. The U.S. already has 62 active Arleigh Burke class DDGs with more building after a program re-start. Canada should start by building one of...something.

Edited December 6, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[Smallc]

As a comparison to the Norwegian frigate:

Armament:
1 or 2 × 8-cell Mk 41 VLS w/ 32 × RIM-162 ESSM - Air
8 × Naval Strike Missile SSMs - land/sea
4 × torpedo tubes for Sting Ray torpedoes - sub sea
Depth charges - sub sea
1 × 76 mm OTO Melara Super Rapid gun bigger close in sea/air gun
4 × 12.7 mm Browning M2HB HMG Sea Protector - close in
2 × LRAD Long Range Acoustic Device - non lethal

Prepared for, but not equipped with:
1 × Otobreda 127 mm/54 gun to replace the 76 mm -
1 × spare 76mm OTO Melara Super Rapid gun
1 × spare CIWS gun w/ calibre 40 mm or less
1 × spare 8- cell Mk41 VLS launchers
Low cost ASW
ECM: Active Off-board Decoy
4 × Protector (RWS) ( Sea PROTECTOR )

[Derek 2.0]

What can it not do that our proposed frigates can?

Defend itself from modern surface, sub-surface and aerial threats, in addition operate in Northern Atlantic and Pacific storms/weather.

[Derek 2.0]

They were designed for flexible package, littoral missions and are faster than anything Canada (may) build.

Exactly, they could do (very well) some of the missions we require, but not most.

[bush_cheney2004]

Exactly, they could do (very well) some of the missions we require, but not most.

Maybe chasing Somali pirates, but Canada does not need littoral "corvettes" and certainly not before building more basic blue water platform capabilities.

[Smallc]

It's a shame they cancelled the midlife update to the Kingston class (though there are ongoing upgrades that would have otherwise been part of the program). With a new gun on that ship and the introduction of the AOPS, if we kept even half of the Kingstons, we'd have a capable littoral force. For the moment, the Halifax class can hold its own in most environments we operate in, and there will most certainly be some kind of replacement forthcoming.

[Derek 2.0]

Maybe chasing Somali pirates, but Canada does not need littoral "corvettes" and certainly not before building more basic blue water platform capabilities.

Exactly, though they aren't "cheap" (and I'm sure you're looking at ~25-50% price increase for the proposed frigate), they would represent a reduction in operational costs (compared to our current frigates) and could fill a role in conjunction with actual warships.......a low-medium-high mix of 6-8 AOPS, 6-8 LCS/FF and 4-6 DDG would be workable, and though it would still represent a considerable investment, would result in a reduction in through life costs..........

[Argus]

It doesn't, as it lacks the ability to defend itself in an environment with modern anti-ship missiles........but then, in USN service, there would be a cruiser or destroyer providing said defenses.

So stick a gatling gun and some anti-air missiles on the thing.

[bush_cheney2004]

... For the moment, the Halifax class can hold its own in most environments we operate in, and there will most certainly be some kind of replacement forthcoming.

Sure, but how many are available for deployment ? Right now, and for various reasons, Canada's entire "fleet" has an availability less than 50%.

"Harder, Darter, Trigger, Trout...always in and never out".

[Argus]

They were designed for flexible package, littoral missions and are faster than anything Canada (may) build. The U.S. already has 62 active Arleigh Burke class DDGs with more building after a program re-start. Canada should start by building one of...something.

And unless I'm mistaken, the costs now being bandied about for the new frigates are greater than the cost of those big ass destroyers of yours or even those weird looking new Zumwalt things.

Not that I'm suggesting we buy either unless the government is willing to commit to the greater costs of manning and operating something that big. Which they won't.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

So stick a gatling gun and some anti-air missiles on the thing.

It isn't that simple........

[Argus]

It isn't that simple........

I know. Still, while I like the idea of building something in Canada, doing so at double or triple the cost of buying it abroad so that we can't afford enough to do the job strikes me as idiocy. If they want to do that then some other department, Regional Economic Expansion or whatever they're calling it, ought to foot most of the cost.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

And unless I'm mistaken, the costs now being bandied about for the new frigates are greater than the cost of those big ass destroyers of yours or even those weird looking new Zumwalt things.

Not that I'm suggesting we buy either unless the government is willing to commit to the greater costs of manning and operating something that big. Which they won't.

Can't be that bad...Zumwalts are north of $4 billion each because of cancelled orders.

Canada's warship yards aren't even ready to start a major building program...they need to finish upgrades after being idle so long.

This is going to be a long, expensive slog.

[Derek 2.0]

I know. Still, while I like the idea of building something in Canada, doing so at double or triple the cost of buying it abroad so that we can't afford enough to do the job strikes me as idiocy. If they want to do that then some other department, Regional Economic Expansion or whatever they're calling it, ought to foot most of the cost.

Yeah but paying ~$ 500 million for a ship that has problems detecting low flying aircraft/UAVs (without tracking data from an AEGIS destroyer), let alone engaging said threats, has a limited ability to detect a torpedo or sea mine (let alone subs), has next to no survivability when compared to similar size vessels and its projected range/fuel economy was cut in half in reality, is not a good use of money......

The only thing the LCS can currently do well (and not much more with the improved frigate) is defend itself against swarm attacks by speed boats, launch and recover its RHIBs at speed and support a helicopter........and we have far more requirements than that.

Edit to add:

I do agree, some of the costs of the shipbuilding program should be looked at as National infrastructure spending though.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Derek 2.0