German F-125 concept
Posted on 02/27/2016 4:38:40 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
It’s no real surprise that buying a fleet of new warships for Canada’s navy is an incredibly expensive, complicated and lengthy endeavour. With $26 billion earmarked for the vessels and construction expected into the 2030s, it’s the most substantial military procurement in the country’s history.
This week, the government announced it would try and streamline that process by seeking pre-existing warship design bids for its new Canadian surface combatants instead of designing its own unique class of ship, as well as combining the design and weapons system integrated into a single competition. The department of public works and procurement touts this option as a quicker, cheaper option that comes with far fewer risks.
Surface combatant is a broad term for warships that, as the name suggests, are designed for warfare on the surface of the water — this encompasses vessels like frigates, destroyers, cruisers and corvettes. Most seafaring nations have some version of a surface combatant in its naval fleet, so there are plenty of design options for Canada to choose from.
The department of public services and procurement has already selected 12 prequalified design companies from around the world that will likely put a bid in for competition: firms like BAE Systems, which designed the British Type 26 global combat ships; Odense Maritime Technology, which designed the Danish Iver Huitfeldt class; Thyssen-Krupp, which designed the German F125 frigates; and DCNS and Fincantieri which together designed the FREMM multipurpose frigates used by the French and Italian navies.
Dr. Eric Lerhe of the Centre of Foreign Policy Studies at Dalhousie said it’s difficult to point to any existing ship that would suit Canada’s naval needs, but there are a couple of key factors it will have to examine before settling on a design.
First and foremost, he said Canada will have to decide if a design meets its statement of requirements. The government has produced a draft list of requirements for a warship that can serve Canada over several decades — things like commonality with allies, modularity, and stealth — but Lehre said there’s already discussion of modifying that list.
Secondly, Lerhe said, Canada will have to take into account the number of hulls it can purchase for the allocated $26 billion. The contract allows for the delivery of 11-15 vessels, but some critics argue any number less than 15 would be to the detriment of operational effectiveness. And with widespread concern about the program significantly surpassing budget, cost will undoubtedly be a major factor.
Lerhe said the government will also have to select a design that will leverage the kind of industrial benefits it has outlined that it wants for Canada. Creating a national shipbuilding strategy is not just about equipping the navy, it’s also about creating jobs and supporting Canadian industry.
Colin Darlington, a retired navy commander and vice-president of the Royal United Services Institute of Nova Scotia, said many existing destroyers and frigates have very similar features that could, for the most part, suit Canada’s needs. He said the final decision will likely in part rest on some of the less obvious factors.
“The point I choose to emphasize when talking ship design is whatever we get we need to have something that services the way that the Canadians operate, which is we tend to operate globally at great distance,” he said.
A ship that fares well over long distances that can hold up in both the warm waters of the Mediterranean and the frigid North Atlantic are a must, Darlington said, but it must also incorporate the systems required to keep the crew comfortable in those conditions.
Darlington said because Canada’s navy routinely operates in alliances and coalitions, interoperability in telecommunications and weapons will also be key.
According to Ken Hansen, former navy officer and Maritime security analyst with the Dalhousie Centre for Foreign Policy Studies, one factor that should be strongly considered in selecting a design is flexibility.
The German F125 frigates and Danish Iver Huitfeldt class incorporate modules into their design, something that Hansen said can extend the life of a ship as well as cut down on repair time and costs.
“When Canada built the Halifax-class frigates, we used a completely integrated system. What that does is ties together the equipment in a very tightly knit and integrated way, The problem is, it’s inflexible,” he said. “If you want to upgrade anything you have to deal with the entire system.”
If repairs or upgrades are needed on the German or Danish frigates, work can often be completed on the module alone instead of bringing the entire vessel into the shipyard for months at a time, Hansen said. It also cuts down on up-front costs because extra features can be left out of the initial build and added at a later date.
Hansen said the German and Danish designs also offer more flexibility in the standards of components. Instead of requiring ultra specific and expensive military-standard equipment, the designs open up the possibility of using something called “best commercial standards.”
“(The Danish and the Germans) have found a really smart and reasonable way of getting around issues of reliability and redundancy.”
German F-125 concept
Danish Iver Huitfeldt frigate
“Flexibility the prime need for Canada’s naval fleet”
Having a couple of ships would be useful too.
“Having a couple of ships would be useful too.”
My guess that Canadians are not very worried about their national security. They sleep well at night knowing that their southern big brother has their back.
Probably the most bang for the buck would be the US Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). These are smaller ships for coastal water operations with lethal capabilities.
Most of the on-board maintenance is pushed ashore, using a rotation of three vessels, one of which is rotated into port, with two out on patrol, one at forward, one on reserve/succession in the rotation. The actual crew aboard ship are the operations and weapons management systems people, with corrective maintenance being brought to the ship by a fly-away crew, by helicopter.
Each ship is out for 20 days, with a ten-day period for regular maintenance each month, and a comprehensive corrective maintenance every four months. Three crews are rotated between the two ships actually out on patrol, which is a more efficient application of manpower on board than older fully-crewed ships.
The US Navy has a much more detailed explanation of this system at their website:
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=4200&tid=1650&ct=4
Yea, I’m having some fun with them...they’ve been good allies, which is all that I care about.
Canada needs a navy before it determines what kind of navy it needs.
Just a question from someone with no experience in naval warfare. What would be the greatest threat these ships would face, submarines, missiles, aircraft, attack by a swarm of drones?
Yeah, the Little Crappy Ships will be really useful to us in the Med, or on interdiction patrol in the Arabian Gulf.
I’ll bet they would be stellar performers on Arctic Patrol, too.
Thanks but no thanks.
Yep, if it were not Canada, I’d express concern about the waste of money. Modern Canadians are incapable of self defense. These ships will never fire a shot in anger. Likely they will never be completed to fire a shot of any kind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.