• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
I think it's been proven enough in this thread that the replacement for an MCDV, shouldn't be anything smaller than an MCDV, for multiple reasons. Ideally, the replacement would be bigger, faster, have some capacity to land a helo, maybe even a hangar (for uav's more likely). Is there any sense in looking at a Flight 2 KINGSTON? Slightly more hydrodynamic hull form, lengthened to 240-260 ft, but retaining Z drives and adding a bow thruster with a dynamic station keeping system? The extra length could be used for a pair of those AOPS rhibs on quick release davits (a la ARMIDALE, for ex), a landing pad (maybe a retractable hangar for UAV) and still have space for containerized cargo. I'm no engineer, but I understand the extra length could help increase speed potential as well. It seems to me it's either that or just buy a RIVER or ARAFURA full package, with no extensive changes for Canadianization. As close to "off the shelf" as you could make it.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,070
Points
1,040
Why do we still have torpedo launch tubes in the design of the CSC (If I recall correctly?

For the tanker wankers, do you think we'll continue the Battle Tanker close in ASW training once we get the JSS?
It provides a minimum standoff for a submarine to get past you to the High-Value Unit (they can't just sail under you, they have to pick a different route), also it's essentially suppression fire to make the submarine have to think about a torp in the water, and finally (my supposition here) it's future-proofing for the eventual Anti-Torpedo Torpedo system that will probably replace the SVTTs.

SVTT's are essentially defensive, not offensive.

I think it's been proven enough in this thread that the replacement for an MCDV, shouldn't be anything smaller than an MCDV, for multiple reasons. Ideally, the replacement would be bigger, faster, have some capacity to land a helo, maybe even a hangar (for uav's more likely). Is there any sense in looking at a Flight 2 KINGSTON? Slightly more hydrodynamic hull form, lengthened to 240-260 ft, but retaining Z drives and adding a bow thruster with a dynamic station keeping system? The extra length could be used for a pair of those AOPS rhibs on quick release davits (a la ARMIDALE, for ex), a landing pad (maybe a retractable hangar for UAV) and still have space for containerized cargo. I'm no engineer, but I understand the extra length could help increase speed potential as well. It seems to me it's either that or just buy a RIVER or ARAFURA full package, with no extensive changes for Canadianization. As close to "off the shelf" as you could make it.

If you scroll back a bit @Stoker posted the general requirements. 25kts speed, larger (1200-2000 ton ish), no flight deck but a work deck for modular payloads, same gun as on the AOPS, boarding RHIB and zodiac integral. It's going to do MCM and OPV duties, and perhaps ASW detection work with the TRAPS.

The SOR is still being developed, but those are the basics. I like the River class with the flight deck changed to a work deck. Note that a work deck will allow for UAS as well, MCDV's have trialed every single UAS the RCN has used to this point.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
It provides a minimum standoff for a submarine to get past you to the High-Value Unit (they can't just sail under you, they have to pick a different route), also it's essentially suppression fire to make the submarine have to think about a torp in the water, and finally (my supposition here) it's future-proofing for the eventual Anti-Torpedo Torpedo system that will probably replace the SVTTs.

SVTT's are essentially defensive, not offensive.



If you scroll back a bit @Stoker posted the general requirements. 25kts speed, larger (1200-2000 ton ish), no flight deck but a work deck for modular payloads, same gun as on the AOPS, boarding RHIB and zodiac integral. It's going to do MCM and OPV duties, and perhaps ASW detection work with the TRAPS.

The SOR is still being developed, but those are the basics. I like the River class with the flight deck changed to a work deck. Note that a work deck will allow for UAS as well, MCDV's have trialed every single UAS the RCN has used to this point.
I do remember that from earlier. I guess I was just musing on whether that was supposed to be a clean sheet or a variant of the KINGSTON as it exists now.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,901
Points
1,160
Torpedoes aside that's an interesting picture. If this model is to be believed, that 37mm was an Army M3 anti-tank gun with the wheels off and strapped onto the deck and timbers with ropes.

ufi1ax08p0gx.jpg


Who'd have thunk it?

🍻
That is correct, the gun had been "liberated" from the Marines/Army.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,901
Points
1,160
I foresee AUV's operating from a small coastal ship make life hard for subs in littoral waters, so perhaps in a decade a MCDV or similar can provide coastal ASW protection for areas such as the entrance of the Strait Juan de Fuca. The AUV's can hunt the sub independently either broadcasting it's position to other assets or even having a small warhead itself to attack with. That would free up the CSC/Halifax's for convoy escorts or deep water searches.
I am also a proponent of building up the Naval Reserves to provide harbour protection with their own dedicated lightly armed patrol boats in the 50-75' range that can work with other agencies and also do mine hunting of the harbour approaches with modern multi-beam sonar and ROV's.
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
362
Points
730
That is correct, the gun had been "liberated" from the Marines/Army.
It was utterly amazing as to how firepower some of late war PT boats carried.
I still remember one for her loadout . Starting forward with one 37 mm M4 auto cannon belt fed , four 5" spin stabilised rockets and two twin 20 mms. Midships .50 calibre x 2 in electrical driven turrets and aft a 40 mm before and more spin stabilised rockets.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,544
Points
1,090
If youre interested in MGB/MTB history have a read of this book:


Absolutely incredible read of a little known part of our Naval history.
Those guys were real pirates! What a time to be alive, romping about the Adriatic raising hell and getting paid by the Queen.
 

Dana381

Full Member
Reaction score
286
Points
730
the whole reason behind the pre-select was allowing the yards to expand and modernize. That is lost the second it goes out to competition. Efficiencies gained through development are expensive. Why not rather go with a guarantee that it is yours until you start giving us the run-around.

I understand what the preselected was designed to do and it seemed like a good idea at the time, maybe it still is. Right now it looks like the yards are using it to get away with astronomical price hikes. There was an article recently where Irving announced the AOPS for the CG will be double the price.
Oversite? If you want to create a Nationalized Shipbuilding Industry then go ahead. But short of that the yard does what the yard needs to do. The project approves and inspects. More oversight risks us telling them what the solutions to problems are instead of us approving their proposed solution. We don't tell, we approve based on the requirements. If we have to tell them then we need way more staff. Because at that point we are doing the engineering work for them.

I'm dead set against this as the RCN needs the shakeup and to learn how to do things differently. New tech and new ways of getting the same performance standard from systems are needed.

And then at some point we cross the line to a shadow yard and that's not good for anyones efficiency.

Maybe oversite was the wrong word, accountability is more what I was meaning. Many on here have complained about poor workmanship and deficiencies that the RCN ends up paying to fix. If there are problems that are the shipyards fault they should be held accountable. The compliance should be tracked and be used as a metric in future contracts. Screw up and you pay to fix. Screw up too many times and we don't buy ships from you anymore. Quality would improve quickly.
 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,577
Points
1,110
I understand what the preselected was designed to do and it seemed like a good idea at the time, maybe it still is. Right now it looks like the yards are using it to get away with astronomical price hikes. There was an article recently where Irving announced the AOPS for the CG will be double the price.


Maybe oversite was the wrong word, accountability is more what I was meaning. Many on here have complained about poor workmanship and deficiencies that the RCN ends up paying to fix. If there are problems that are the shipyards fault they should be held accountable. The compliance should be tracked and be used as a metric in future contracts. Screw up and you pay to fix. Screw up too many times and we don't buy ships from you anymore. Quality would improve quickly. and several phone calls to the PMO would dampen any criticism/complaints.
FTFY.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
501
Points
960
I understand what the preselected was designed to do and it seemed like a good idea at the time, maybe it still is. Right now it looks like the yards are using it to get away with astronomical price hikes. There was an article recently where Irving announced the AOPS for the CG will be double the price.


Maybe oversite was the wrong word, accountability is more what I was meaning. Many on here have complained about poor workmanship and deficiencies that the RCN ends up paying to fix. If there are problems that are the shipyards fault they should be held accountable. The compliance should be tracked and be used as a metric in future contracts. Screw up and you pay to fix. Screw up too many times and we don't buy ships from you anymore. Quality would improve quickly.
that is what I was trying to say, thanks
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
325
Points
930
Since you are clearly unaware of how a Mk48 torpedo works (if you did have even a basic understanding of the weapon, you would realize just how ridiculous your proposal is), there is little point in arguing with you.

I was joking when I said "not with that attitude."

Yes, I am now aware of how and why a Mk 48 could not be launched from a surface vessel. I'm an infanteer. So I don't have an intimate knowledge of torpedoes beyond "go in water, hit ship, go boom." So sue me.
Not only that, but we have these things called missiles now... Hence why torpedo boats are not a thing but missile boats are.

@Maxman1 there is a reason ships don't carry heavyweight torpedos even redesigned ones that could "roll off". Because that way of dealing with submarines is essentially trading your ship for their sub, and they have all the advantages. Airpower trumps subs almost every time. You want to create an overmatch situation, not a shootout at high noon.

PT boats were never meant for ASW, nor did I suggest they be an ASW vessel, they were meant to target surface vessels. Use their high speed to get close to an enemy ship, launch a torpedo and run. And most had torpedo tubes, the roll-off "claw" type launcher was for the most part only used on early war models.

The idea being that you could sink multi-million or billion dollar warships with relatively cheap boats.

Theoretically, a software package could be developed to allow the Mk 54 lightweight torpedo to target surface vessels instead of subs, using a single barrel version of the Mk 32 launcher. Or use Harpoons in a single tube version of the Mk 141 launcher, which could be quickly and easily removed for use as a gunboat or motor launch.
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
325
Points
930
Torpedoes aside that's an interesting picture. If this model is to be believed, that 37mm was an Army M3 anti-tank gun with the wheels off and strapped onto the deck and timbers with ropes.

ufi1ax08p0gx.jpg


Who'd have thunk it?

🍻

That is correct, the gun had been "liberated" from the Marines/Army.

It was utterly amazing as to how firepower some of late war PT boats carried.
I still remember one for her loadout . Starting forward with one 37 mm M4 auto cannon belt fed , four 5" spin stabilised rockets and two twin 20 mms. Midships .50 calibre x 2 in electrical driven turrets and aft a 40 mm before and more spin stabilised rockets.

The PT-59 had a Bofors 40mm fore and aft.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,070
Points
1,040
I was joking when I said "not with that attitude."

Yes, I am now aware of how and why a Mk 48 could not be launched from a surface vessel. I'm an infanteer. So I don't have an intimate knowledge of torpedoes beyond "go in water, hit ship, go boom." So sue me.


PT boats were never meant for ASW, nor did I suggest they be an ASW vessel, they were meant to target surface vessels. Use their high speed to get close to an enemy ship, launch a torpedo and run. And most had torpedo tubes, the roll-off "claw" type launcher was for the most part only used on early war models.

The idea being that you could sink multi-million or billion dollar warships with relatively cheap boats.

Theoretically, a software package could be developed to allow the Mk 54 lightweight torpedo to target surface vessels instead of subs, using a single barrel version of the Mk 32 launcher. Or use Harpoons in a single tube version of the Mk 141 launcher, which could be quickly and easily removed for use as a gunboat or motor launch.
Might need a hardware change as well. The sonar on the Mk54 is optimized to find underwater targets, not surface targets. Surface targets are hard to find with active sonar. Also a Mk 54 torp on a surface ship would do damage but it wouldn't be enough to take the ship out of the fight generally (barring hitting something important that you couldn't fix quickly). Not enough explosive power.

This is where missile boats come in. They hit harder, faster and have better targeting from further away. Mk54 has a very short range compared to even small ASM. Probably the best missile boat out there is the Chinese Type 22. Very scary piece of kit particularly as it can use aircraft to target for it.
 

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
325
Points
930
Might need a hardware change as well. The sonar on the Mk54 is optimized to find underwater targets, not surface targets. Surface targets are hard to find with active sonar. Also a Mk 54 torp on a surface ship would do damage but it wouldn't be enough to take the ship out of the fight generally (barring hitting something important that you couldn't fix quickly). Not enough explosive power.

This is where missile boats come in. They hit harder, faster and have better targeting from further away. Mk54 has a very short range compared to even small ASM. Probably the best missile boat out there is the Chinese Type 22. Very scary piece of kit particularly as it can use aircraft to target for it.

I had a feeling it wouldn't be that simple. And it makes sense given the Mk 54 is meant to rupture a pressure hull. Torpedoes do seem to be nonviable for surface combatants in anti-surface warfare.

Another missile boat design is the Finnish Hamina class, which is about the size of the Orca class training boats, but faster and armed and built of aluminum and carbon fiber for stealth. With the original Bofors 57mm (and equipped with Canadian missiles and sensors), it would have the punch of a Halifax frigate at a fraction of the size and cost.

An all-steel Elco 80 as a motor gunboat with a 40mm fore and aft, the two twin .50 turrets, plus whatever else (like extra machine guns, 20mm autocannon, mortar, rockets) would be a very versatile boat. Add a version of the Mk 141 Harpoon launcher that can be installed in place of the aft 40mm, angled so the blast is directed entirely over the side, and it would pack a serious punch.
dd6f566e5d79894afa949c7440f82e3b.jpg
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,036
Points
1,040
Unless we get a mothership to deliver a missile boat to an overseas littoral, what would be the role for a missile boat in the RCN? What surface fleet is going to come close enough to our coast to be in range of such a craft?
 
Top