Canadian Fantasy Fleet

Jonesy: (too) Huge!

BGNewF; Agree

Not different varieties. 32x A-70 Sylver VLS cells on the FREMMS loaded with 16x SCALP, 8x Aster-30, and 8x Aster-15 missiles. Of course this could be changed for different operational situations but this would be the standard fit. The GoWind 2500 would be armed with 8x A-43 Sylver VLS cells armed with Aster-15 missiles.

I like this French based naval force for Canada since it is totally different than the American/British equipment Canada has always used. It would also give the French Canadians a sense of pride in their navy!

J33 Nelson
Iroquois Class Replacement
4x FREMM Class Frigates (2 on each coast)
*One 57mm cannon, Eight NSM launchers, One 16-cell SCALP vertical launch system, One 8-cell Aster-15 vertical launch system, One 8-cell Aster-30 vertical launch system, One SeaRam launcher, Six 324mm torpedo launchers, One CH-148 helicopter

Why three different varieties of Sylver VLS on the FREMMs? Anything that can launch SCALP can launch Aster 30 & Aster 15.

Possibly so, but, I’d doubt it to be honest. I’ve not seen details of this version, but, proper ASW hulls are designed as such. Slapping in a bit of rafting under the diesels and a couple of electric motors does not suddenly make for a discrete hull. It seems that the efforts to make Huitfeld something different was not entirely enough to convince the Aussies.

The Canadians are more ASW focused than the Aussies. Unless that has changed recently a hull rejected by the Aussies is unlikely to appeal to the Canadians. T26 is hull-up ASW. In reality now, not as part of fantasy fleet, T26, with its mission bay and hull optimisation, is the better single-type fit.

Odense has proposed an ASW-centric Huitfeld design to australia. Probably that would be a fit for Canada too?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/navy-submarines-in-a-30bn-race-to-the-future/news-story/799f3bdeeba7d5f04372ec34885172eb

Alex,

Short answer there is ‘mission’. The Danish ship is an adaptation of the Absalon design. Its a good basic CODAD hull thats large enough to support a useful AAW suite, and lots more besides, and it shares many logistics requirements with the Absalon. Its not an ASW ship though. There would need to be a distinct ASW frigate type capable of oceanic operation.

The Canadians have been proud of their ASW skills for a very long time and with plenty of justification. ASW is seen as a core mission for them. Type 26 has been carefully designed in terms of hull and machinery to be acoustically discrete thus maximising ownship sensor performance and minimising the target submarines chances at counter detection. Its a tier 1 ASW warfighter effectively. Adapting a ‘2nd batch’ of 4 T26’s with an enhanced AAW suite in place of the Huitfelds would be a possible solution to maintain single type, but, it would have to be designed for Canada specially and, like the AAW FREMM, would result in a compromised AAW capability.

In my view the Absalons make more sense for Canada’s expeditionary needs than an LSD or LPD so the Huitfelds logistics train could be streamed in to that which would need to be built for Absalon anyway. With Huitfeld and T26 you end up with superior AAW and ASW capability with the minimum of separate logistics demands.

Jonesy,

Isn’t the iver huitfeld and the type 26 are of the same size? The type 26 is actually larger than the iver huitfeld. What is the reasoning of having 2 types of similarly sized frigate instead of just one?

Victoria Class Replacement
6x Scorpene Class Submarines (3 on each coast)
*Six 533mm torpedo tubes

Iroquois Class Replacement
4x FREMM Class Frigates (2 on each coast)
*One 57mm cannon, Eight NSM launchers, One 16-cell SCALP vertical launch system, One 8-cell Aster-15 vertical launch system, One 8-cell Aster-30 vertical launch system, One SeaRam launcher, Six 324mm torpedo launchers, One CH-148 helicopter

Halifax Class Replacement
8x GoWind 2500 Class Frigates (4 on each coast)
*One 57mm cannon, Eight NSM launchers, One SeaRam launcher, One 8-cell Aster-15 vertical launch system, Six 324mm torpedo launchers, One CH-148 helicopter

Kingston Class Replacement
8x GoWind 1000 Class Corvettes (4 on each coast)
*One 57mm cannon, Four NSM launchers, One SeaRam launcher, One MQ-8C unmanned helicopter

6x Harry DeWolf Class OPV
*One 57mm cannon, One CH-148 helicopter

2x Protecteur Class Replenishment Ship
*Four CH-148 helicopters

This is my take on the Canadian fantasy fleet, not too flashy and mainly like for like replacements of current capability

• Halifax replacements.
4x Absalons. As command ships, army support, MCM, HADR.
8x Iver Huitfeldts

• Kingston replacements
12x Fassmer OPV-80 with ice-strengthened hull. With deployable containerized MCM systems, containerised towed ASW sonars.

• Submarines
4-6x Shortfin Barracuda or the DolphinII

• Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship
6x Harry DeWolf class

• AOR
3x Protecteur class

Overseas fly the flag deployments could be economically done with the long ranged (8600NM) OPV-80s, instead of the Absalons or Huitfeldts. For those with multinational task forces the Absalons and Huitfeldts would be used.

The OPV-80 with its ice-strengthened hull would be ideal for patrols around canadian waters, compared to other designs.

Japan has little experience exporting in the defence sphere but does manage to export more than 4000 individual product lines to 200+ countries/territories worth $600mn+ a year. It is therefore not incapable of arranging export deals.

Yes Japan is very experienced at international trade but the defence arms of their major companies have been insulated from that. They have no experience managing major defence projects outside of Japan or dealing with a customer beyond their own Self Defence Force. I am keen to see Japan branch into the international export market when it comes to defence but Canada has to be realistic about its defence procurement. Japan makes some lovely ships but Canada needs to play it safe!

You are right that Europe doesn’t make an Oceanic SSK per say but they do make Submarines in the same class as the Victoria class SSK. Not particularly picking out the HDW option but they do make variants Dolphin II for example that are almost exactly the same size as the Victoria and they have decades of experience dealing with international customers.

I don’t see anything particularly wrong with Canadas current procurement plans, the midlife upgrade of the Halifax keeps them credible and the Canadian Surface Combatant Project is sensible. Canada is struggling to keep what they have going, logistically it will be far easier for them to run than a mixed fleet like you are suggesting.

My issue with Canadian defence procurement is the constant prevarication, political interference and unrealistic specification drawing.

The first point would be that they, the Canadians, dont have $2.5bn a year for the next 10yrs for a naval capital spend program anyway. So that probably puts the rest of the topic into its proper perspective.

The key to the story i’ve written though is what the mission parameters would be for the putative fantasy Canadian fleet. Not necessarily what would be sought in the real world. My definition of the objective ‘good’ Canadian force mix, based off current real-world manning levels, would be for at least a modest, all aspect, sea control capacity in both oceans as well as limited forward-deployed OOTW capability. This is against a background narrative in the thread of LPD’s and SSN’s.

Essentially, instead of those kinds of units, I would suggest that the optimal mission capability, for Canadian requirements, would be better served with 8 destroyers and 8 frigates (albeit caveating the fact that 4 destroyers are effectively light fleet carriers). The Danish designs share common heritage and would, likely, be built in Canada at this point anyway. The same would go for the BMT MCMW hulls. So its fanciful, but, there is a few crumbs of sense there also.

Japan has little experience exporting in the defence sphere but does manage to export more than 4000 individual product lines to 200+ countries/territories worth $600mn+ a year. It is therefore not incapable of arranging export deals.

More importantly it has platforms that are a bit different than the rest of the marketplace. Can you think of another fast fleet light through-deck?. As you note the oceanic capable SSK designs from Europe are currently vapourware. Given that Japans are actually in the water and well proven I’d, personally, have accorded higher credit to than the Aussies did. For me the chance to negotiate the package of DDH and SSK together, and thus incentivise the Japanese to make accommodations inline with the size of order, would bring greater benefit than there would be trouble in having to work up a formal and structured relationship with the Japanese.

If I was holding the purse strings in Canada I wouldn’t be shopping for ships and submarines in Japan, they have pretty much zero experience of exporting combat vessels and no knowledge of running international program offices to support what they have sold.

I know people love to fantasy fleet but Canada is in a dire situation when it comes to their current fleet, support infrastructure and manning. Going on a wild global shopping spree is not going to help them one iota!

Operating multiple frigate and destroyer classes from multiple international suppliers is crazy! They need to get the Halifax upgrade finished and the next generation frigate program going! They need to pick a design and then stick to it without prevarication and political interference. The nation/company that supplies the design and program support need experience supporting that kind of program especially when it comes to project management.

They need to get the Protecteur class finished and into service, retaining the interim IOR seems sensible to me.

Buying Soryu class from Japan?! NO NO NO! Brilliant submarine, one of the best SSK in the world but it failed to get what everybody assumed was a shoe in with Australia losing to a paper design! Not to Labour the point too much but Japan has no experience building and selling submarines to other nations. By all accounts the companies in Japan associated with building the Soryu were luke warm to building submarines for export and hostile to the idea of making any changes. If Canada decides to replace the Victoria class it needs to come from somebody who is used to exporting submarines and dealing with foreign navies when it comes to supporting them. HDW, DCNS, Navantia, SAAB and even Daewoo have more experience doing that and all have submarines available that are a far more realistic supportable proposition for Canada. (If you asked my personal opinion Canada should be running a contest then buy something off HDW, they are the most credible and successful submarine exporter in the world. A Type 214 variant is going to be significantly better than their current Victoria class and when you look at the spec sheet for the Dolphin 2 variant I would be biting their arm off!)

Swerve,

For UNREP I’d agree with the earlier comment that the planned mod Berlins look like a solid buy. I’d not interfere with that. Thats already in train and funded to the best of my knowledge so it can sit outside of this plan.

The Hyuga’s would stay as DDH’s albeit with significant modification to machinery, weapons and sensors (as the big ticket items) to bring in the commonality that you rightly note as a key efficiency driver.

Weapons possibly represent the easiest common factor to implement. Unsurprisingly these are almost exclusively American. Launchers would be restricted to 3 types across all hulls – Mk41 strike length, ExLS 3 cell and Topside Launcher configuration for SSM.

MCG would be the 5″ Mk45 mod4 again across all frigate and destroyer classes barring the DDH. ASCG/CIWS and primary minor combatant mount would be Thales Rapid Sea Guardian 40mm. Missiles would be the familiar SM series for the AAW hulls, ESSM blk2 for all fleet hulls, VL/Topside LRASM for dual role land attack/antiship for the T26 and DDGs and VLA for T26.

Sensors/combat systems would be spllt between Thales and Saab for maximum packaged cost savings and commonality benefits. Machinery would be streamed similar. Classes would look as follows:

Hyuga
Machinery: COGAG 4 x RR MT30
Sensors: TACTICOS. Thales Artemis, Thales SeaMaster400, Thales APAR blk2
Armament: 6 x 3-cell ExLS (60 ESSM blk2, 12 Nulka), 3 x Rapid Sea Guardian

Huitfeldt
Machinery: CODAD 4 MTU 8000
Sensors: TACTICOS, Thales Artemis, Thales SMART-L MM, Thales APAR blk2
Armament: 4 x Mk41 (32 SM-x), 4 x ExLS (48 ESSM blk2), 1 x Mk45 mod 4, 2 x Rapid Sea Guardian

Absalon
Machinery: CODAD 2 MTU 8000
Sensors: SAAB 9LV, Sea Giraffe 4A, Ceros 200, Sagem EOMS-NG
Armament: 1 x Mk45 mod 4, 2 x Rapid Sea Guardian. FFBNW 4 x ExLS. 2-4 x 4 Topside LRASM

T26
Machinery: CODLAG 1 MT30 + MTU diesel gensets
Sensors: SAAB 9LV, Sea Giraffe 4A, Ceros 200. Sagem EOMS-NG. CAPTAS-4
Armament: 4 x ExLS (48 ESSM blk2) 3 x Mk41 (24 VL LRASM/VL ASROC) 1 x Mk45 mod 4, 2 x Rapid Sea Guardian.

Minor war vessels get the Rapid gun as main mount. Saab 9LV, Giraffe1X, Ceros and the Sagem EOMS

Minimum systems numbers across the fleet to maximise logistics and training efficiency advantages. Pull through of existing experience with ESSM, Mk41, 9LV etc. Maximum use of dual-role systems and transferable offboard effectors.

What about supply ships?

Would you build the Hyugas as dedicated helicopter carriers or keep the on-board sensors & weapons of the originals?

What radars/sonars/guns/missiles would you fit? I presume you wouldn’t fit every ship with exactly the same as the originals, but seek commonality.

If I’m writing the cheques I go shopping mainly in Japan, Denmark and the UK

6 Soryu class SSK

4 Hyuga Mod DDH
4 Absalon DD
4 Iver Huitfeldt DDG
8 Type 26 Mod FFG
6 BMT Venari-85 MCMW

4 Ulstein Discovery ice patrol vessels
4 Impeccable class research ships

SSN’s I dont have the infrastructure to support and, for Canada, I need it spread over two very widely separated coasts. To deploy nuclear then I need to build the infrastructure twice and it cant mutually support very easily. Thats a huge cost element right there and I dont get enough from SSN’s for the spend. The money I save there goes in to providing persistent ASW sensor coverage in the form of the Impeccable class SURTASS boats instead of with SSN tails. For the submarine service I leverage the skilled SSK operators I already have and give them proven Japanese kit to work with.

I have the UW space surveilled as much as I can with SURTASS so my attention needs to shift to AW. Conventional sea control is out as I’ve no interest in buying into CATOBAR naval air and dont get any real benefit from going the slow/LPH/F-35B route as I’m not really planning a forced entry capability over anyones beaches. I want a fast, Fleet manoeuvre capable, through-deck hull that can support ASW/ASuW/AEW&ASAC choppers, tilt-rotors and emerging ESTOL UAV’s. Japans Hyuga class is one of the very few fast through-decks tried and tested in the market. Its the right size and offers some familiar systems. 2 per coast gives me some continuity of operation.

The Hyugas are my Fleet taskgroup centres and around these I build-in AAW off the Huitfeldt DDGs and ASW/land attack/force protection/MCMW with the T26’s and their mission bays.

For forward-deployment MSO, peacekeeping support, SAR, MCMW and disaster assistance type missions I have the Absalons, Venari’s and Ulsteins in a separate Patrol command. UxV’s and operator teams are pit-crewed and shared between Patrol and Fleet commands as necessary for the individual mission profile. Best bang for buck and maybe a way to give a varied and interesting career path for the kind of highly skilled people I need to attract and retain to support the high-end kit.

Optimistically about a $25bn spend so about $2.5bn per year over a 10yr cycle.

Edit: Maths error counting £s as $s

So yes I am British now living in France and yes I did mean Hobart. I would also look at the Horizon Class if it was fitted with a 5 inch gun but for me the thing with the Classes I like is that most have already been built under license

Holbert? Do you mean Hobart – the Australian variant of the Spanish F-105?

Would you be british?

For me I would go for something like
4 Destroyer’s (Holbert or Type 45) 2 on each coast
14 Type 31’s ( Arrowhead 120) 8 Pacific coast and 6 Atlantic coast
12 90m River class fitted with a 57mm main gun and off board multi mission units to allow patrol and mine hunting 6 on each coast
7 SSK’s 4 Pacific coast and 3 Atlantic coast
2 Juan Carlos assault ships 1 on each coast