By Roderick Steckhahn, 14 January 2022
A Mistral-class ship would assert the RCN’s capability to perform amphibious assaults, withdrawals, demonstrations and raids. This would allow it to further integrate into the doctrinal frameworks described by NATO’s Allied Tactical Publication 8B (ATP8) and the European Amphibious Initiative. While air capabilities are a priority, it also recommended an increase in the number of vehicles and personnel that could be transported and deployed; Canada’s fixed aim is to project a force comprising four combat companies (1,400 people, 280 vehicles, and 30 helicopters) for ten days, in a 100 kilometre-deep sector. This force should be able to intervene either anywhere within 5000 kilometres of Canada’s capital, or in support of Canada’s oversea territories or allies. As well as joint operations with NATO and EU forces, any proposed ship has to be capable of inter-service operations with Canada’s armoured forces through Canada’s peacekeeping actions.
Specifications
Displacement: 21300 tons (full load) / 16500 tons (empty)
Length: 199 meters (653 feet)
Beam: 32 meters (105 ft)
Draft: 6,3 meters (21 ft)
Speed: 18.8 knots (35 km/h), max.
Range: 5800 NM (10800 km) at 18 knots (33 km/h) / 10700 NM (19800 km) at 15 knots
Complement: 160
Propulsion: 3 x Wärtsilä diesel alternators 16V32 (6,2 MW) 1 x Wärtsilä Vaasa auxiliary diesel alternator 18V200 (3 MW) 2 x Rolls-Royce Mermaid azimuth thrusters (2 x 7 MW) - 2 five-bladed propellers
Canadian shipyards could be expected to oppose such a purchase. There would be little for them (except maybe in-service support) in such an acquisition and they could argue that such a purchase would undermine the National Shipbuilding Strategy. But who is running the country? The shipyards that are proposing that it will take 7.5 years to construct one Type 26 Frigate? I mean really? The average cost per ship for the nine FFG(X) is $1,284 billion in Canadian dollars. In contrast, the average production cost for the 15 CSC is estimated at $3,546 billion per copy in Canadian dollars - 2.76 times more expensive. Can Canada afford not to purchase offshore-built ships?
20 thoughts on “Mistral-class Assault, Helicopter Carriers”
Hello Roderick. Many others have lobbied for a Canadian Strategic Sealift Capability for some years now. Canada certainly could have entered the Amphibious Sealift Capability game within NATO had we originally acquired the two Mistral class LHDs from France several years ago, as DND wanted. However the government declined and the ships eventually were sold to Egypt. I believe a better option for Canada would be the Juan Carlos class LHDs from Spain for about $2.1B CAD per copy. They are heavier, longer and can carry more equipment and A/C for Humanitarian Assistance/Disaster Relief (HA/DR) operations which the Canadian people have an expressed appetite for. They can also carry 144+ large containers along with Battalion sized forces with housing for up to 46 tanks with a 12 degree sky jump for VSTOL A/C with complete medical hospitals for up to 100+ patients and have more speed compared to the Mistral class. No matter what class were decided upon, we would have to buy the rights to build them here in Canada. Canada would have to build at least 3 ships (one unit would always be in refit) and then one per coast operational at any given time. Yes the price tag of the CSC Frigates is shocking however, a “necessary evil” at this point.
I am in agreement with this Juan Carlos Class LHDs. For Canada humanitarian aid is a top priority therefore these LHDs units should be on the list of let’s build. As far as our Military forces being low on Recruitment, that comes down to the fact that our Politicians have allowed our Military Equipment to deteriorate to the point where people say I am risking my life in that? Plus the wages are really really low.
Thanks
Roderick
Where to begin. Canada has already had its chance to acquire two new Mistral Class ships at bargain basement prices and we didn’t. While a new exciting capability for some, Canada doesn’t have the doctrine for such operations and an amphibious capability is nowhere in LEADMARK 2050. There are also all kinds of practical considerations such as crew to run it as the RCN is short over a 1000 sailors, where would we berth it, where would we dock it for maintenance and where exactly are we getting 30 helicopters from? The maintenance alone for such a ship would eat up scarce maintenance dollars that we need to keep the Halifax Class going.
Let’s instead concentrate on keeping the Halifax going, finish the AOPV project, get the CSC’s and JSS and acquire new submarines. And, at some point in 10 to 15 years acquire a replacement for the Kingston Class.
You are questioning the 7.5 years for the first CSC — but building warships takes time. The steel was cut for the first type 26 in 2017 and they are probably several years away from being operational and that’s a shipyard that builds warships frequently. So 7.5 years for a shipyard like Irving for such a large complicated ship is about right although they are leveraging lessons learned to reduce that amount of time.
The RCN should acquire 2 more JSS before even thinking about any other large displacement vessels. There doesn’t appear to be any sound reasoning or planning behind the current force structure of the RCN, if you can’t be self sufficient in logistics and refuelling you aren’t a serious Navy. It would even be worthwhile to cut 3 CSC’s in order to purchase two more JSS, and use the extra funds (obviously insufficient, but savings are savings) towards purchasing 12 lightly armed long range corvettes/light frigates to replace the Kingston-class.
Well there is. The plan is is to replace what we currently have or had. The most AORs Canada has had at the same time was 3. With the JSS and with Asterix if we retain the ship post JSS build we’ll have 3. Of course more would be preferred but we only have so much resources and crew to go around. The Kingston Class needs to be replaced with what they have now, only with a higher speed. In short we need a work truck not a warship.
What about the Serco Canada A120 Light Frigate design as a replacement for the Kingston class? Certainly a viable option.
Totally unsuitable for what the RCN requires. The concept art I saw is a ship slightly longer, with a 25mm and 26 knot speed. It may be a new design by Canada. The use of the replacement will be the same capabilities of the Kingston Class with the ability to take modular payloads built with civilian standards and same crew complement. We need a truck not a Porsche.
What are suitable or unsuitable requirements for the RCNs Kingston class replacement is totally up to the navy planners. Just “spit-balling” here but maybe we should be re-assessing what the Kingston class replacement requirements should be doing. The speeds you mention would be suitable and the Serco A120 could certainly fulfill the MCDV roll with modular payloads. A 57mm gun forward could also be used (perhaps use the 57mm’s off the Halifax class as they retire to save $$) along with a TAS & VDS. Possibly a CAAM system as well? Any replacement for the Kingston class should at least have some sort of self defence system and be interoperable with the CSC Frigates so CCMS 330 would be a good thing if they are to work with future Canadian TGs. Having the SKELDAR V200 drone system would be a great advantage for any Kingston class replacement.
Hi, everyone. I believe that A120 is too much. I would see something with a much smaller crew like a Vard 080. I would use the same two RHIBS as the AOPV, same MK38 gun or the CSC’s 30mm gun. Stern section would be fitted for container payload like the MCDV and a retractable thruster for station keeping along a beefed-up electrical system and degaussing. But first, I totally agree with Retired RCN. “Let’s instead concentrate on keeping the Halifax going, finish the AOPV project, get the CSC’s and JSS and acquire new submarines. And, at some point in 10 to 15 years acquire a replacement for the Kingston Class.” (And tackle the Navy crewing issues.)
There is unofficial talk already about a KINGSTON Class replacement along with a initial design. Small gun 25mm or less, no hanger, ability to operate drones, full size Rhib, a little longer, ability to embark mine warfare and other payloads, 26 knot speed, ice class, built to civilian standards. I can’t get into everything else but it won’t be a Serco S120 or anything close to that including missiles, CAMM, 57mm. ASW or anything like that. Think Kingston Class original requirements with some improvements.
Talk is cheap, unofficial or not. More government ‘secrecy”. The Kingston replacement should be built to RCN future standards and not “civilian” as you say.
Building the Kingston Class replacement as a civilian standard ship certainly worked out for the Kingston Class in longevity and economically. Why mess with a good thing? The project for the Kingston Class replacement will more than likely stand up in 10 years or so.
There are designs out there now that would be excellent replacements for the Kingston class patrol ships. Perhaps not the Serco A120, but other designs that would work for our sailors and be built here in Canada. We certainly don’t have to wait 10 years to start this project. Another CSC Frigate fiasco? In my opinion….I THINK NOT!!
I fully agree with Retired RCN. Focus should be placed on the CPFs, AOPS, CSC, JSS and future submarines. Full stop.
That being said, for the sake of a minimum debate on amphibious capabilities, it is of interest to note one part of the above statement “This force should be able to intervene either anywhere within 5,000 km of Canada’s capital (…)”. Since Mistral-class LHDs are not designed for iced waters, how could the CAF deploy at least half that force, 700 people, to the Arctic archipelago or maybe to Greenland or Alaska? Counting on two or three LHDs would be a great asset for the RCN, nevertheless a few smaller but ice-capable LPDs, built on the experience of AOPS, could cover the niche for amphibious Arctic operations. They could be designed for instance to project a smaller force of about 200-400 soldiers, and their equipment, per ship, and could also provide significant services and HA/DR support in warmer seas. Finally, this approach has the benefit of slowly growing the amphibious capabilities in terms of training and manning, but also in terms of the learning curve for shipbuilding major amphibious vessels.
Interesting comment but I can see the DeWolfe class evolving into a small but capable amphibious transport in the future. The DeWolfes have extra berthing for 20 “passengers” and I imagine an enhanced Platoon of forty could occupy that space. Experiment with replacing the orange lifeboats with landing craft and perhaps a CH 146 Griffin for over watch and support. The AOPS I think are going to be doing NAVAL jobs no one has even thought of yet. Deep diving support, Route survey, Submarine replenishment, Northern Hospital ship. The AOPS just might turn into that Ford 650 Work truck Canadians did not know they needed.
Actually in that crewing space, 40 wouldn’t be able to be berthed in there although in an emergency 20 more spots in other parts of the ship could accommodate cots for a short period of time. The 20 person crewing space is for Sea Training, boarding party, MTOG, RCMP etc., as well they have a dedicated equipment storage space and briefing room. The orange lifeboats have to stay because it’s a SOLAS requirement for that class of ship. The other things they more than likely can do in a limited basis.
What surprises me in this discussion is notion that we can’t afford this. However, Australia has 2 of these types of ships. They spend 2% of GDP on defense whereas we spend 1.5%. Anyways, I wonder if we could do what the Germans who leased the Dutch amphibious transport ship HNLMS Rotterdam. Maybe leasing one of these ships is the way to go, and then maybe later we actually purchase such ships.
Hello Justin. Yes we can certainly afford a Strategic Sealift Capability as the Australians already have. They are above their 2% of GDP now. Canada could do the same right now as requested by NATO. Your notion of “lease to buy” is interesting and has merit but we would have to lease at least 2 Juan Carlos class from Spain (one per coast) with an option to buy them and construct a third here in Canada once we reached the 2% goal. Cheers!
Do we need Kingston class ships anymore? Would they replace them with less ships than 12? Would a fast missile boat with lightweight torpedoes be enough to protect the East Coast and West Coast waters? Visby Class Corvettes perhaps? Buy all 5 from Sweden put 3 West Coast, 2 East Coast. Thats 5 plus 6 AOPV’s … 11 bigger better ships. Sell the Kingstons sooner to fund these. Sell the subs as well.
(First time posting.. bear with me.. ;)
Just wondering if these things couldn’t have doubled as oilers as well to some extent.. Maybe dropout 2-4 type 26’s and integrate something like these instead (?).. A lot of stuff going on these days, best to strike while the iron is hot
Cheers