By Dr. Ann Griffiths, 20 January 2023
It’s always interesting to read about Australia and its navy. (And indeed, for this reason, CNR will publish a joint issue with Australian Naval Review in spring 2023!) Australia shares many similarities with Canada – eg., historic ties to the UK and big countries with relatively small populations. But the comparison does not work well when we look at the Royal Australian Navy. For example, Australia is well into a project to convert decommissioned patrol vessels into uncrewed, autonomous patrol boats, the first of which will be trialled in October. Both Canada and Australia selected the Type 26 frigates to replace aging frigates, but Australia’s frigates – the future Hunter-class – are scheduled to be built this decade. Canada’s version – the Canadian Surface Combatants (CSCs) – will appear at some date in the distant mists of the 2040s. Until then, the 12 aging frigates, plus 4 aging submarines will have to hold the fort should conflict break out. And, with no firm plan as yet to replace the submarines, Canada appears to be placing all its future warfighting eggs in the CSC basket. Is Australia? An interesting article, “General purpose frigates as a means of beefing up Australia’s maritime capabilities,” by Stephen Kuper asks if Australia needs to consider some warships in addition to the large Hunter-class frigates. Kuper asks “can a fleet of ocean-going corvettes ease the operational burden on high-end warfighting platforms and expand the range and power of the Navy?” And he wonders if it might be useful to “field a less-specialised, general purpose vessel that is capable of independent long-range deployments, while also bringing a degree of high-end warfighting capability to broader task groups.” The Type 31 is mentioned as a possibility. Should the Royal Canadian Navy also perhaps consider getting a second basket in which to put its eggs? See https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/11244-general-purpose-frigates-as-a-means-of-beefing-out-australia-s-maritime-capabilities
33 thoughts on “Moving RCN Eggs to More Than One Basket”
The U.K. Arrowhead 140 class (Type 31) Frigate would certainly be a step up from the Halifax class we have now, however, there are other classes that may be more suitable. The German MEKO A-300 Frigate is another class worth taking a good look at along with the Turkish ADA Class Corvette (although this is a corvette, it certainly can be classified as a “Light Frigate”). The Japanese Maragamo class Frigate would also be a contender. These are only, of course, “stop-gap” measures to help replace the Halifax class in the near future before the CSC “Frigate” comes on line which I believe will be operational well before your 2040s time line. The Lockheed Martin CSC Frigate Preliminary Design Review (PDR), I believe, has now been completed by Lockheed Martin and is now awaiting government review (or keeping secret) before releasing the document. If Canada were to replace its Kingston class MCDVs, they could do no better than the Turkish ADA class corvette. The “plan” however is to replace all Halifax class Frigates with 15 LM/BAE Type 26 CSC Frigates ASAP. In my humble opinion.
I think the GOC has been very clear that no other class including the type 31 will be entertained. Even if by some miracle that was decided to go that route with a mixed fleet it would many years until we see a hull and I sure as heck would not decide on the anemic type 31. As for comments on the Kingston Class replacement made by David Dunlop, the statement of requirements are being worked on currently and don’t get your hopes up for a heavily armed corvette, it will be more towards a lightly armed river class OPV as an example. Procurement in Canada as everyone knows proceeds at a glacial pace so we set our course and the time is now to see it through.
Hello Ted. Agree completely with your first two comments. As for Kingston Class replacements, the UK River Batch ii class would be a good option however it is not the only “fish-in-the-ocean”. Other OPVs should also be considered including:
US VARD 7 095 OPV; India’s Vikram Class OPV; Korea’s Cham Suri II OPVs; Germanys MEKO A-100 Corvette/Light Frigate OPV; Spain’s BAM Class OPV and Turkeys Hizar class OPVs. There are others of course but of all of these, I believe the US VARD Class OPV; Germanys MEKO A-100 Class OPV and UK’s River Batch II Class OPVs would be the “front runners” for the Kingston Class replacements. There is also another option of course. Canada could “set its course” as you say and build its own armed OPV from scratch but we all know how costly that would be.
The Iver Huiteld might have been a very good ship to base the fleet on but I do not think it had the dedicated anti submarine capabilities required. The type 31 is a very pale immitation
Type 31 FFG is an all rounder General Purpose design not solely focused on ASW. Its chief role is to replace the 5 type 23 FFGs that function as GP frigates while the 8 type 26 FFGs are the prime ASW platform replacing the 8 type 23 prime ASW frigates (those fitted with VDS and 2080 SONAR). Type 32 will be the multi role frigate and are additional units on top of replacing the type 23.
Note The RN currently has only 11 type 23s operational as 2 were decommissioned recently. There was at the start 16 but the UK sold 3 to Chile in the early 2000s due to budget cuts.
Hello Wayne. With respect to the Iver Huitfeldt class, it is too late to go back and re-think our choices for a CSC “Frigate”. We have “made our bed” and will have to live with the choice that we made. What Ted & I were discussing is the Replacement of the Kingston class MCDV OPVs. The US VARD Class OPV; Germanys MEKO A-100 Class Light Frigte OPV and UK’s River Batch II Class OPVs seem to be the “front runners” for the Kingston Class replacements in my opinion, unless you can think of other options out there?
Right now the requirements for the Kingston Class replacement is 20 plus knot speed, ability to take modular payloads, a small caliber naval gun, .50 Cals, ability to operate drones among other things. They will not be heavily armed.
Hi David. I agree with you about the CSC: Canada has made its choice and any attempt to change course now would just mean a multi-year delay and an increase in costs. The coastal defense vessel replacement is the next decision, and it may be critically important because it looks like a major conflict between the west and China is on the horizon. If it comes soon, the CSCs will be of no use because they take too long to build.
In World War II, Canada’s ability to rapidly produce a large number of small warships was crucial. We should choose a design that could (in an emergency) be rapidly produced at a number of Canadian shipyards and become the backbone of the fleet in the event the frigates are lost. Do any of the options you mention fit that bill?
Hello,
Note that Eurasian (China and Russia, Iran, and others) efforts have been aimed at pushing “the west” out of the dominant position we have enjoined the last few centuries on account of our economic and technological superiority. For those nations, keeping us away from their borders and shores is one thing; attacking North America directly would be suicidal as it would push the US to nuclear retaliation and our collective annihilation.
I wholeheartedly agree that we should build a good-sized fleet of small vessels of several types for coastal protection. Re-build an industrial and manufacturing capability comparable to what we gave up, then consider larger and more complex platforms, along with the technology and systems to go along with them. At the same time, we should come to peace with the fact of a multi-polar world, and that “our” former hegemony is at an end. We may not like it, but the west will no longer be able to dictate terms or rules to others.
Regards.
Thanks, Curious Civilian. I largely agree with you. There is no chance of China (still less, Russia) actually invading. And the end of western hegemony doesn’t have to be a bad thing – it might stop us from making stupid, tyranical decisions – Iraq, anyone? The trouble is I don’t think the successor to western hegemony is balance, or a “rules based order” (in Mr. Trudeau’s phrase). I think the next bully in line becomes the hegemon. What happens to our friends, relatives, and trading partners when China blockades Taiwan (or Korea, Japan, the Philippines, pick your favorite country) to enforce their will? What happens to global trade if the US navy (with about 200 deployable ships if memory serves) fights the Chinese navy (with about 300) and loses? Will we like the world order the Chinese impose on us?
Hello Michael. In my opinion Yes, I believe there are 3 options out there that could “fit that bill as soon as they are built”. The UK Arrowhead 140 (Type 31e) River Class Batch II OPV; Germanys MEKO A-100 Class Light Frigate OPV and the US Vard 7 Class OPV. These are smaller less capable ships than a CSC Frigate but will suffice our basic needs for the near term until the CSC Frigates become a reality. The only problem is….they are not built yet. If we had any one of these designs, we could rapidly produce them right here in Canada like we did with our corvettes during WWII. https://www.arrowhead140.com/; https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/products-services/surface-vessels/light-frigates; https://vardmarine.com/vessels/vard-7-series-patrol-vessels/ . Any one of these vessels would suffice with the right speed, size, armament and numbers to give Canada that “stop-gap” measure we so desperately need.
Offer a 5 Million tax-free bonus to the CEO of the shipyard who can produce a ship in 18 months. I promise the ship would be built in 12 months. Is the fact that longer procurement drags on more money the company makes. That gives them the incentive to be slow.
There is one other class that might also “fit the bill”. The South African Valour class MEKO 200 SAN built for them from Germany. Just a thought. Cheers! https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/meko-a-class-combat-ship/.
Thanks, David. It’s good to hear there is something suitable. As you say, the chief problem is just getting on with it – making a choice of design and builder, and then somehow managing the rate of production – which has to be fast if needed, but slow otherwise; or we’ll end up with too many, have to stop, and lose the skill set.
I should clarify I’m not from a military background, and don’t have any sense of what works and doesn’t work technically.
I was a federal employee until recently – so I suspect I have a fair sense of certain kinds of problems. We had them too.
Hello Michael. WRT your last question, although the UK River class Batch II OPV would be a good option for replacement of the Kingston class, it does have one major and one minor problem. It can land a CH 148 Cyclone helo, but cannot house it as it does not have a hangar and both the Fincanteri and German OPVs are both slightly faster MEKO-28 kts/VARD 7-26 kks. Both the Fincanteri VARD 7 095/100 OPVs and MEKO A-100 OPVs have hangars capable of housing the CH 148 Cyclone Helo. the German A-100 MEKO Light Frigate or Corvette also can accommodate a Cyclone as well. In my opinion, it would be a toss-up between the Fincanteri VARD 7 095/100 OPV or the German MEKO A-100 Frigate/Corvette and I would rule out the UK River class OPV. The choice of the VARD vs the MEKO A-100 would be close, however in my opinion the MEKO A-100 would be the best option to replace the Kingston class. I have ruled out the VARD 7 095/100 only because of slightly less max speed as well as the UK River class Batch II (25 kts). If the UK River Class Batch II could house a Cyclone CH 148 however, I would choose that OPV (speed be damned!).
Hi David. The Kingstons are likely to be replaced with something comparable to the River class or Arafura as you say. Something a little bigger and a little faster but still quite cheap to operate. The German Braunshweig or Argentine Gowind?
After carefully reading both Dr. A. Griffiths’ text and S. Kuper’s article and considering this is a place for debate, where we can share different perspectives regardless the Government’s plans, I will reply to the question posed by Dr. Ann Griffiths in the entry. In my opinion the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) should start considering a second warfighting platform to join the future fleet along with the Canadian Surface Combatant. Beyond being a interim, “stop-gap” measure until the CSC becomes operational, it would bring to the table some other benefits.
First of all it might reduce the costs of the future fleet, both the building costs and operational costs, specially since reduced manning make big savings. That is precisely what the US Navy and Royal Navy (RN) are searching for with their Constellation and Inspiration class vessels. The estimated unit cost of the future US frigates (just below 1 billion USD) is about half of the cost of an Arleigh Burke flight III destroyer (1.9 billion USD), the backbone of their surface fleet; crew requirements are 200 (estimate) vs 300-320. For the RN the figures are 400 million GBP per Inspiration/Type 31 frigate (less than 500 million USD) vs 1,300 million GBP each for the first batch of three Type 26 frigates, that means less than one third the unit cost!; complement 80-100 vs 160 in gross numbers.
I agree that this Government will not change course on the procurement of the 15 CSCs, nor will probably do the next one. But on a mid-term, maybe five to ten years ahead, I would not be surprised if a future Gov. decided to cut the program at some point and add instead general purpose frigates (GPFs). For instance, build twelve CSCs and devote the cost of the last three to build six GPFs at halved unit cost. Even if there were no savings in building, there would be future savings on operational costs, both on maintenance (less sophisticated vessels, lower costs) and crew salaries.
Secondly, there is the benefit of “easing the burden on high-end platforms” (see the article) while still being capable, warfighting vessels. UK is planning for a surface fleet of AAW destroyers (Daring class), ASW frigates (City class) and GPFs (Inspiration class), Australia will also have AAW destroyers (Hobarts), ASW frigates (Hunter class) and they seem to be considering a third surface combatant platform. Similarly other navies have or are targeting to have in a future three types of combat ships (France, Italy, Spain, etc.). With the highly-capable CSCs performing the AAW and ASW roles and constituting the cornerstone of the future RCN fleet, why not add numbers to it with General Purpose Frigates? They would be great assets for regular deployments, training exercises, to show presence and fulfill commitments overseas.
Finally, it might allow to re-think the NSS (National Shipbuilding Strategy) in order to entitle a second shipyard to build combat ships. This would broaden the total shipbuilding capacity of the country and would reduce risks related to have all combatants built in a single shipyard. Should a war outbreak in the Pacific, for instance, Canada could react faster to “rapidly produce a large number of warships” as suggested by M. Peirson.
Once described the benefits, I would dare to mention two platforms which have not been mentioned yet, for sure because none of them have been built. First, the European Patrol Corvette, 110m long, 3,000 tons, which is being developed by some NATO allies including Norway and Denmark, which recently joined the group (1). I am pretty sure they would welcome Canada joining the project as well. EPC could start construction by 2026 (2). On the other hand the 120m long Atlas 120 frigate, developed by Serco Canada Marine (3) would offer more value for the Canadian industry and would be at a better position to deal with the customization requirements of the RCN. Vard Series 7 OPVs (see 115 or even 125 NGOPV) would also be a good fit if they were designed to military standards instead of high quality commercial.
The replacement of the MCDVs is, from my point of view, a different issue. I would say they should be replaced by Patrol and/or mines countermeasures (MCM) vessels, preferably on a one-to-one basis.
(1) https://www.edrmagazine.eu/european-patrol-corvette-preliminary-consortium-agreement-signed
(2) https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2022/03/european-patrol-corvette-could-start-construction-in-four-years/
(3) https://www.naval-technology.com/news/lloyds-register-grants-aip-atlas-120-frigate-design/
Hello J. Cañadas M. I agree with most of what you have said. The European Patrol Corvettes (EPC) class design would be a great option for Canada. I also can see scaling back the CSC Type 26 Frigates to 12 replacing the Halifax class as each CSC Frigate comes on line, however, what I would do would be to construct at least 3 Hobart class Destroyers (MOTS) for AAW roles specifically and keep the 12 CSC Frigates as is for both ASW with AAW roles. The EPC corvettes would have to be altered to Canadian specs to include Mine Countermeasures and then retire the MCDVs as each new EPC class comes on-line as well. The Victoria class SSK replacements must also be considered. In my opinion, I would replace the Victoria class with the latest Japanese Soryu class (6-8) MOTS boats.
My potential Canadian RCN fleet would look like this:
12 CSC Type 26 class Frigates for ASW/AAW roles-6 East/6 West
12 EPC class GPFs to include Mine Countermeasures roles-6 East/6West
3 Hobart class Destroyers for strictly AAW roles-2 East/1 West
6-8 Soryu class LIB Technology Submarines- 3-4 East/3-4 West
What say you?
Sorry J. Cañadas M. I forgot to add in the 6 AOPS Ships into that fleet Mix:
12 CSC Type 26 class Frigates for ASW/AAW roles-6 East/6 West
12 EPC class GPFs to include Mine Coutermeasures roles-6 East/6West
3 Hobart class Destroyers for strickly AAW roles-2 East/1 West
6-8 Soryu class LIB Technology Submarines- 3-4 East/3-4 West
6 AOPS Vessels-3 West/3 East
What say you now? Not a bad fleet eh? The only problem is, we can’t put enough sailors on them now. More recruiting needed!
My problem with your list is that in the CSC it’s proposed to have Aegis which is a prime AAW, ASuW system with an integrated ASW suite so simply obtaining Hobart DDG for pure AAW would be a waste of time, effort and money not to mention the maintenance differences between the classes which means you need a more diverse supply chain re more cost in the longer term.
The other issue is with the Soryu, while it is a fantastic platform and it is really capable it isn’t a dedicated AIP submarine and this is critical, they still need to snort periodically to top up. What this means is the Arctic region is totally out of bounds for it, the Soryu while is a large submarine and great for long endurance trans Pacific patrols it wouldn’t be able to operate under the ice.
The type 212CD on the other hand being a pure AIP submarine gives a much longer submerged endurance. The type 212As that I have been on are smaller than the CD version and the CD is slightly smaller than the Soryu but the biggest thing here is the submerged endurance is measured in weeks not days. That overall now gives the RCN with a type 212CD the capability to conduct limited under ice operations, that surely has to be a complete win for the RCN in terms of mission enhancement.
With regards to the logistics side of things I personally would argue for the MV Asterix to be permanently retained and based on the east coast while the two Protector class remain on the west coast. The reason behind this split is Canada has more allies to the east with Europe than it does to the west, thus a more numerical presence for the fleet and a rotation ability would be essential if operational tempos increase significantly.
It’s also not just about recruitment, but retainment moral in the RCN overall is low. I even tried applying to the RCN however when they said oh your UK Degree isn’t recognized so you would have to enlist as an AB instead of an officer I turned them down flat. Yet in the RAN or RN I would commission easily into a LT or above role due to industry experience plus qualifications the RCN doesn’t account for the experience part. There is something fundamentally wrong with the approach given to recruitment and the new PR applications exacerbate this issue. To be honest, it’s a right put off.
Hello again Blair. The the new Japanese Taigei 29SS class is a much improved class to replace the Soryu class and may be a better option for Canada. I disagree that the 2 Protecteur class should remain on the West coast. One per coast would be a minimum. I have long argued that another “Asterix class” type AOR should be acquired (again one per coast). The problem with having both Protecteur class AORs on the West coast is that you could not man both of them anyway. You would have to “scrounge” the crew from the East coast which we cannot spare out here from the RCN and I believe the cost of doing business that way would be cost prohibitive and not viable morale wise. We cannot afford to keep paying for fuel/ammo services from our allies much longer. I am sorry for your experience with the RCN Blair. We sometimes do not do things the right way with retaining experienced personnel.
The Soryu is impressive. I have been on one (not to sea) and got a broad over view of what they can do but I do fear they simply couldn’t handle transiting under ice for extended periods, whereas the type 212CD has a much greater underwater endurance.
I have been fortunate enough to go to sea on the preceding type 212A a few times and knowing they can stay submerged for over 3 weeks gives me the confidence to say the CD with an extension of that endurance put under ice transit and patrol more in the realm of the RCN.
The upshot to that is we wouldn’t be buying a “unique” submarine to coin Timothy Choi phraseology there (Think it was him, he may correct me). The SS29 would be unique with only Japan operating a similar class if indeed they would still be around by the time the decision is taken that is. The type 212CD comes from a strong stable, TKMS has vast experience at exporting successful submarines and the type 212 family is widely used globally and incredibly reliable and proven the CD version is a next generation of an already proven successful design. Also proven is the technology. Theoretically you could sell this to the government as a commercial off the shelf acquisition adapted for Canadian use.
As of right now the Navy is about to enter a tough arena for funding and any over the top exotic plan is going to be squashed. If the RCN plays it right you could end up with 6 submarines instead of 4 with the government and civil service making the RCN a role model which in turn helps recruitment. (who doesn’t love the new ship smell) The reason behind that statement is in principle you could run a small competition and make a selection so you don’t have the substantial R&D costs of a full program, only a fractional cost, and with units being built already the submarines could in theory be ready by the early / mid 2030’s.
The type 212CD currently has confirmed orders (Norway & Germany) and are starting building this year 2023. What’s more we also have the Dutch & Italians looking at it (the Dutch typically build their own boats), and we know other navies have also shown interest in the platform.
One of the big issues the RCN had with the Victoria class is they were unique and parts etc were hard to come by or had to be custom made and this will be the same for the SS29. The type 212CD will not be unique but widely operated by at least 2 navies giving us the ability to negotiate on price and also have a ready supply of parts not to mention some commonality with at least 2 other NATO Navies.
Moving on to the auxiliaries with regards to fuel and Ammo costs are expensive I forget how much a bulk load of F73 is these days but it’s not cheap!
I agree there is manning issues though for certain and yes I agree there’s merits to having 1 on each coast re JSS, but we should also retain Asterix giving us more mobility with logistics for the Navy. But here’s the crux — while as you note you couldn’t man 2 on one coast you wouldn’t really need to, you can do what the Royal Navy does and keep one back as “ready reserve” this extends the lives of both platforms substantially. We did this with RFA Fort Rosalie and RFA Fort Grange both ships are 40+ years old and are in very good condition so much so Egypt bought them recently and with a major overhaul to both ships, they are good for another 20 years!
We currently do the same for HMS Albion & Bulwark LPD and RFA Wave Knight & RFA Wave Ruler. This means we simply run only one (or in the case of the waves none) then when that ship comes up for major overhaul you switch out which keeps continuity in the fleet, but also still enables you a vital asset if it is required to be put back into service. We can get Bulwark back to sea in 48 hours and both waves back to sea in 72 hours at a push using reserve crew from the Royal Navy Reserve.
With regards to my experience with the RCN the shortcomings in recruitment are young and need adjusting, especially if you’re asking permanent residents to sign up and then not recognizing their qualifications.
IRCC gave them the green light to practice in their field with their overseas qualifications and they are verified that they were indeed genuine and met or exceeded Canadian education standards for the job they do. So if a civilian employer is willing to take on these PRs with foreign qualifications and pay them high grade wages the RCN should look at doing the same.
In a nut shell I turned the RCN down flat based purely on the money for me personally to go from my current position down to an AB id have to take an $80,000 pay cut and quite frankly that’s never going to happen.
Heaven forbid! I also forgot the Protecteur Class JSS Ships + the Astrix. Here is an “updated RCN fleet:
12 CSC Type 26 class Frigates for ASW/AAW roles-6 East/6 West
12 EPC class GPFs to include Mine Countermeasures roles-6 East/6West
3 Hobart class Destroyers for strickly AAW roles-2 East/1 West
6-8 Soryu class LIB Technology Submarines- 3-4 East/3-4 West
6 AOPS Vessels-3 West/3 East
2 JSS tankers + 1 MV Astrix
What say you now…..again? Not a bad fleet eh? The only problem is, we can’t put enough sailors on them now. More recruiting needed!
Hello David, glad to get such a positive reaction to my comment.
Regarding the Hobarts, I don’t see a significant increase on AAW capabilities beyond those of the Type 26 CSCs. Just the number of Mk41 cells (48 vs 24), but the difference is reduced if we look at the 6x EXLS cells for close-in air defense. Maybe if the last batch (three to six) CSCs included nine or twelve such EXLS cells or additional Mk41 VLS, would be sufficient.
Therefore, as you ask for it, let me post my “reasonable” future fleet. I also have my ideal fleet list, and a “Santa Claus” list with so many wishes as many of us may have. In any case this is an amateur’s list, no more:
– 12x CSCs (Type 26) 1st class combatants (nearly 9,000 tons)
– 6x GPFs general purpose frigates (3,000-4,000 tons). Maybe like Atlas 120.
– 6x AOPs
– 12x MCDVs replacements (of about 2,000 tons), either all of the same type or perhaps 6-8 OPVs plus 6-4 MCMs, mothership vessels with unmanned vehicles, in line with the new Belgian-Dutch MCM concept .
– Replenishment: 2x JSS + Asterix + Obelix
– 7 long range AIP submarines (3,600-5,000 tons), 3 per coast +1 under long-term maintenance. Would probably join the Netherlands and their new (not yet announced) Walrus submarine replacement.
– 3x LPA, Landing platform Arctic, 12,000-16,000 tons, LPD type (just 2 helicopter spots, stern).
Cheers!
Sorry, I forgot to mention: it is not only recruiting, it is also about retention, offering more and better opportunities for development and managing to offer enough time for a family life.
Hello J. Cañadas M. I still believe that 12 x EPC GPFs would be the way to go to replace our MCDVs and if not 3 x Hobart class AAW ships, then perhaps 3 x Arleigh Burke Flt IIIs would be more appropriate. The EPCs would have a Mine Warfare capability and perhaps also a drone mothership capability as well. The 2 JSS+Astrix+Obelix could work well. I would however keep the 7-8 Soryu Class Submarines or perhaps the German Type 216 Submarines (4 per coast with one on each coast in deep maintenance and one in either work-up/work-down mode, leaving 2 operational boats per coast. An LPA/LPD Arctic ship has not yet been built yet however if the Juan Carlos/Canberra Class LHDs could have douoble hulls with Polar class 4-3 specs, I would certainly go with 3 of those LHDs.
In my experience less sophisticated ships doesn’t always mean less cost re maintenance, we found this out with type 22 and type 23 cost comparison where the more sophisticated type 23 cost less overall than the 22.
I would agree that with your statement “a second warfighting platform to join the future fleet” I have been a proponent of cutting the CSC to 13 vessels and using the last 2 slots for a variation of the Danish Absalon class. This class of vessel can act as a front line frigate, give limited amphibious and logistical capability but critically can be integrated into a battle line for normal taskings as a stand alone platform. Absalon is a tried and test ship it is capable in ASW, AAW, ASuW and with a crew of around 100, the savings are there.
I agree with this statement: ‘Finally, it might allow to re-think the NSS (National Shipbuilding Strategy) in order to entitle a second shipyard to build combat ships. This would broaden the total shipbuilding capacity of the country and would reduce risks related to have all combatants built in a single shipyard. Should a war break out in the Pacific, for instance, Canada could react faster to “rapidly produce a large number of warships” as suggested by M. Peirson.” Adding another ship yard not only would give the gov flexibility but also show investment into areas not often traversed by Canada.
Other than the Great Lakes how many large ocean going civilian cargo ships fly the Canadian flag? Not many. This could be an opening with a new yard offering not only warships but civilian commercial contracts (some of BC ferries for example are built in Germany). Another offset with a new yard is refitting capability. Not only could you refit Canada’s own fleet but also foreign ships. (Just did this with a NZ ship.) What I am getting at is there is a lot of unexplored potential.
Hello Blair. I agree with most of what you have said, however, I don’t believe Canada can afford to lose even one of the 15 CSC Type 26 Frigates for its prime naval strength. 15 CSCs would be a bare minimum as a requirement for the RCN. Absalons would be an extra “capability” that we don’t have….yet as a destroyer class (to replace the capabilities of what we lost – IROQUOIS class). The Danish Absalon no doubt is a good vessel but it still does not even have the extra capabilities that the CSC Frigate has (or will have) now, even with the reduced MK 41 silos. If it were heavier and longer with better AAW/ASuW/ASW capability (say AB Flt III destroyer size/capability) I would say…maybe. Why not then just buy two ABs from the US then or 2 Type 45s from the UK? The only problem with that is, we could not man the ABs and would have to watch “gas” consumption but 2 UK Type 45s might be an option but with older technology though. No, I believe if we want to have 2 “Flag Ships” by decreasing the number of CSC frigates to 13, we would have to do a lot of “Canadianizing” with any ship we decided to replace for them. The only other extra capability the Absalon class has is its “sealift capability” which I believe we do need as a dedicated sealift and HA/DR capability (LPA/LHD) more than just replacing 2 CSC frigates with 2 Absalon class.
While I do agree the minimum number of surface ships needed is 15 but do we need 15 CSCs? after all we had 12 Halifax and 4 Iroquois up until fairly recently. The CSC is proposed to be an all rounder and if you split the 15 between the fleets your getting 7 in the Atlantic and 8 in the Pacific which rotationally is a good mix using the 1/3 rule. But if you knock off 2 CSC and supplement them with 2 Absalon type ships which we could build here in Canada using the Harry DeWolf as a hull basis. At that point you can basically do what you want with the design including putting in MK41 VLS a 3in mount and if so inclined aegis system.
My statements surrounding the absalon is we should closely look at this specific type of ship and work our own Canadianized version, this would still mean we get the 15 ships required and 2 multirole ships that can also operate as frigates in their own right. The absalon class is a brilliant platform for HA/DR as well as giving limited amphibious capability, it can also still hold its own in AAW ok it wouldn’t be as good as the CSC in this area but it is still armed with a decent amount of AAW ordinance plus a decent amount of ASuW weapons.
Chiefly the Absalon is a prime ASW platform they did wonders working with us in the UK during Perisher 2015 and also BALTOPS 2016, they even during that exercise switched roles from traditional frigate to sealift back to frigate. They require less crew than the CSC as well although their top speed is slightly less than the CSC the 2 ships can offer a massive boost while still retaining the ability to operate as a frigate.
On another note the Absalon alone is more heavily armed in AAW / ASuW than a Halifax (Twice as many ESSM 36 in total and 16 Harpoon AShM (possibly soon to be NSM)) but the design has the ability to take the MK41 VLS and could in theory sport the Aegis complex. As for the AB FLT III and Type 45 here’s a good one for you, the type 45 radar systems the Sampson and Smart S1850M can detect track and identify more targets at further range than a FLT III AB currently can (SPY 6A should rebalance that) also the T45 was from the outset ABM capable.
The big issue we had on the T45 program was the whole fitted for but not with (not we were meant to be fitted with 16cell MK41 VLS as well) so now we only have 48 cell A50 VLS for sea viper which is a mediumish range AAW missile, had we put the MK41 in we could deploy SM3 or SM6 missiles. Our other issue was here’s a AAW / ASuW unit with no real ASM capability (only 4 T45s got recycled harpoon launchers from out going Type 22 FFGs)
ABs are for sure fuel hungry beasts one of them I was on ran around for a couple of days full throttle having to come alongside to replenish due to fuel being low, they are also in my opinion slightly over manned.
The T45 is a problem child we have had no end of headaches with them since they have been built, originally 12 were planned cut to 8 then 6 because some politician and his civil servant thought you could split a ship in half and have it in two places at once (who knew right).
Another option in the embryonic stages though is Type 83 which is beginning R&D as we speak I think if you went down that route though it would be expensive.
But to circle back here on the CSC while they will be great ships I am sure I honestly think if you could sell the more for less to the political class and still retain 15 frigates in the fleet albeit 13 CSC and 2 Absalon clones it would ultimately be a small victory for the RCN. Why? well you still retain a ship capable of operating as a frigate, but you also cover the HA/DR missions because realistically I cannot for the life of me see Ottawa going for a LPA / LHD type vessel they will see that as a major cost a major man power assignment extremely ambitious and overall not in the public interest, I think you would get away with an absalon compromise here, and yes it would be a compromise I don’t disagree.
Hello Blair. First of all, the 15 CSC Frigate distribution will be 8 East/7West and not the other way round. The Halifax class distribution is 7 East/5 West with 2 Iroquois class per coast when we had that many. Using the Harry DeWolfe class as a template for the Absalon class does not make much sense as it is about 25-30 meters shorter than the Absalon. No, I would keep the 15 CSC Frigates as is an then acquire 4 Absalon class and “Canadianize” the design. I would base the re-designed Absalon on the CSC Frigate design. The first step I would take would be to lengthen the Absalon design to between 27-30 meters. The Leonardo 127mm gun would be moved slightly forward to accommodate a MK 41 32 cell VLS with another 32 cell MK 41 VLS midships. All cells would be extended length to accommodate TLAMs, ESSMs, SM3/SM6 missiles. The CSC mast would be utilized with the AESA SPY 7 (V3) LRDR and the target illumination AESA radar as well. By the way, the SPY 7 has been shown BY Lockheed Martin to out-perform the SPY 6 radar being fitted on the ABs Flt III as well. I would double the number of NSMs to 16 as is the case with the US Constellation class and also double the number of Sea Ceptors from 24 to 48 missiles. The Canadianized Absalon would have all the CSCs comms and sonar fit and have 2 x 30mm guns port/stb’d of the hanger. The ship would have more power in the form of 2 x MT 30 Gas Turbines and 2 x diesel electric engines with 4 x DGs in CODLOG configuration to help manage the extra weight which would be slightly more than the CSC Frigates at just over 10,000 tones full load with speeds of approx 27-30 kts. Crew manning would be more than the regular Absalon class but not by that much (possibly around 180-200 personnel) You would still have a significant HA/DR/Sealift capability. There would of course be 2 of these Canadianized Absalons on each coast. What say you! Cheers!
Hi David yes I got my numbers muddled there for the fleets.
While everything you write is all great and in all honesty I certainly would love to see 4 Absalon variants 2 on each coast with all the best gadgets and gizmos, it is unfortunately but a pipe dream for us all really, and let’s face it, even the proposed 2 I suggested quite frankly I would be lucky to find hen’s teeth.
The reality is government wants us to do more with less and I for one can look and say everything you want us to do, we can only do some of it and even then only half baked. If they want us to do the job give us the tools to do it.
What it boils down to is cost. Right now were looking at multiple army programs, F35 acquisition, the MPA aircraft need replacing soon and whatever is left has to fund the CSC, and we’re in need of getting new submarines too.
Unfortunately this is what happens when you keep continually kicking the can down the road. Eventually you come to the end of that road and you can’t kick it any further and we are rapidly reaching that point. We have frigates that are overdue for replacement, the destroyers left service with no replacement, the submarines need replacing and the MCDV need replacing shortly too.
Unfortunately it’s all come at once because of the mentality of the governments and instead of staggering projects like nearly all other countries do (even Russia and China do that who would have thought it!), they left it until everything at once needed replacing.
So this is why if I put my realism hat on for a moment — the navy is going to be in for a massive funding fight for a while. Te fact is we need several new platforms that are very expensive so any thought of increasing the fleet is basically a non starter.
This is why I would propose dropping 2 CSC frigates giving you a total of 13 and building 2 cheaper multi role Absalon frigate / LSL that I do think will get past the government and civil service, if you write the paper right they will see it as a “cut” yet the trade off is you sell the 2 ships as the “can do more with less” (gov loves that).
If you put in the proposal paper that the saved funds will go towards a submarine program so you’re basically funding 2 projects out of “saved” money, the civil servants will usually swallow it.
As for using the Harry deWolfe as a basis model theoretically you could lengthen that hull by 30 meters. Yes it would mean re doing the COG/COB calculations again but it is possible. Don’t forget many yards have done this in the past including with submarines.
The other side to that statement is again use the politics against the politicians and the bureaucracy against the civil servants. The Politicians will love spouting about how Canadian ship yards and Canadian workers will build this and how it means future jobs and investment etc. and that its a “budget program” saving the tax payer X amount of dollars, and the civil servants will usually back it.
Unfortunately it comes down to corkscrew mindsets these days but the above is to some degree how we got the type 31 past the post with the UK Gov & Civil service.
In response to David’s proposal.
That is a whole new design, it will be cheaper to start from zero than tinker with the Danish design.
Also, we need more shipyard and shipyard workers to build those vessels in Canada. And that would never happen if our education system can not produce enough skilled workers to build them. Immigrants don’t come here to work in a shipyard.
I want more ships, but I also know that we should stop dreaming til Davie gets their contract.