New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Kirkhill]

I wouldn't be so quick to lump praise of Maersk for being so competent and skilled that they managed to keep costs down through their expertise alone, there was serious cost saving measures put into place that most people seem to forget.

Like the fact that the Iver Huitfeldt class was not solely built in Denmark but rather was constructed in blocks in Estonia and Lithuania before transported to Denmark for assembly and fit out of the modules. Employing the StanFlex system allows for the use of modular systems which further separates the cost of components from the overall cost estimates of the ship. As was mentioned above also making use of older weapons and systems from other ships. All of this shouldn't be disregarded as its major cost savings which skews the realistic cost of these vessels if you wanted to build them anywhere else and in a normal manner. They also worked in the use of civilian building standards wherever possible which is another way to slice costs off a program.

They also obfuscated costs by from what I understand as accepting the ships in an incomplete condition, adding weapons systems later using the STANFLEX system. If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing reports saying that the Danish Navy saved up into the hundreds of millions by reusing components through STANFLEX from other vessels while some of these systems weren't even certified for operations initially. HDMS Niels Juel participated in Exercise Bold Alligator in 2014 (she commissioned in 2011) in a seemingly rather incomplete state. As mentioned above, her 76mm guns, torpedo tubes, alongside the launchers for ESSM and Harpoon were refurbished fittings from decommissioned ships. Mark 41 VLS was empty and awaiting operational certification, requiring additional components and their missiles to be fitted/procured. Their 35mm Oerlikon gun aft was actually a dummy fitted to maintain the flight decks wind characteristics as it was still undergoing certification. Their original crew requirements were found to not be working and they needed to bring aboard additional personnel largely focused in their engineering departments. They said that they were in the process of improving the damage control fittings aboard by adding some internal features while they didn't have a secondary steering control installation aboard and required additional navigational equipment.

Aboard Danish Frigate, Clean Lines and Room To Grow

ABOARD HDMS NILS JUEL IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY – It is striking how the now-familiar smooth, angled architecture of tod...

www.defensenews.com

I am not trying to say that these vessels won't be effective combatants eventually but its clear to see how heavily that cost cutting measures were integrated into the design. These kinds of costs obfuscate the realistic sticker price of these vessels and makes fair comparison elsewhere difficult. I have no doubts Maersk's experience did help somewhat but as I hope I've shown, it doesn't seem to be the driving factor on cost savings here.

Accepted that it wasn't the difference in price between the 300,000,000 USD hull and the 1-2 BUSD cost of a fully equipped modern vessel.

However it was the design that made the hull flexible enough to be adapted to existing and future weapons as well as a very broad range of tasks. And yes modules were built out of country - Odense Shipyards were struggling to find new business models to stay in business. Ultimately it was found cheapest to have Danish designs for container ships built in Korea.

I give OMT//Maersk credit for generating a design, and implementing it. That design put useful, upgradeable hulls in the water, quickly, at a price the Danish Navy could afford. That design has since been found adequate for some RN needs and the needs of the Polish Navy. and is also in the running with the Greeks.

I note also that the RN has contracted with the Royal Danish Navy to transfer their operational experience with these ships.

Danish and British navies collaborate for Type 31 frigates

Navies of Denmark and the UK have signed an agreement to support the UK Royal Navy’s (RN) next-generation Inspiration-class Type 31 frigates.

www.naval-technology.com

Fleet commonalities within JEF. That would make for 11 Type 31s (5 UK, 3 Danish, 3 Polish) in the Baltic region.

They also obfuscated costs by from what I understand as accepting the ships in an incomplete condition, adding weapons systems later using the STANFLEX system. If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing reports saying that the Danish Navy saved up into the hundreds of millions by reusing components through STANFLEX from other vessels while some of these systems weren't even certified for operations initially.

You say that like it is a bad thing. I consider that to be canny use of taxpayer's dollars/krone. The weaponry could be seen as not being part of the ship but loaned to the ship by the Logistics Organization as GFE. If the mission requirement changes then the weapons fit changes.

It is unfortunate that the Americans couldn't figure out how to make that stratagem work in their LCS class.

And, for the record, what do we intend to do with the guns and missiles from the Halifaxes when they come out of service?

12x 57mm
12x 20mm CIWS
12x 16 ESSM
12x Torpedo launch systems.

 

[Stoker]

Accepted that it wasn't the difference in price between the 300,000,000 USD hull and the 1-2 BUSD cost of a fully equipped modern vessel.

However it was the design that made the hull flexible enough to be adapted to existing and future weapons as well as a very broad range of tasks. And yes modules were built out of country - Odense Shipyards were struggling to find new business models to stay in business. Ultimately it was found cheapest to have Danish designs for container ships built in Korea.

I give OMT//Maersk credit for generating a design, and implementing it. That design put useful, upgradeable hulls in the water, quickly, at a price the Danish Navy could afford. That design has since been found adequate for some RN needs and the needs of the Polish Navy. and is also in the running with the Greeks.

I note also that the RN has contracted with the Royal Danish Navy to transfer their operational experience with these ships.

Danish and British navies collaborate for Type 31 frigates

Navies of Denmark and the UK have signed an agreement to support the UK Royal Navy’s (RN) next-generation Inspiration-class Type 31 frigates.

www.naval-technology.com

Fleet commonalities within JEF. That would make for 11 Type 31s (5 UK, 3 Danish, 3 Polish) in the Baltic region.




You say that like it is a bad thing. I consider that to be canny use of taxpayer's dollars/krone. The weaponry could be seen as not being part of the ship but loaned to the ship by the Logistics Organization as GFE. If the mission requirement changes then the weapons fit changes.

It is unfortunate that the Americans couldn't figure out how to make that stratagem work in their LCS class.

And, for the record, what do we intend to do with the guns and missiles from the Halifaxes when they come out of service?

12x 57mm
12x 20mm CIWS
12x 16 ESSM
12x Torpedo launch systems.

I would imagine like the 280's 76mm they will be returned to the manufacture for credit on future purchases or paid outright. Some of the CWIS will probably be retained for the tankers.

 

[Rainbow1910]

You say that like it is a bad thing. I consider that to be canny use of taxpayer's dollars/krone. The weaponry could be seen as not being part of the ship but loaned to the ship by the Logistics Organization as GFE. If the mission requirement changes then the weapons fit changes.

I think it can be seen as a bad thing to a point when as the article I shared pointed out, years after the fact they were still wrestling with certifying various systems for all of their vessels and getting them put on in a timely manner. As much as STANFLEX can be a useful way to reuse assets, you can alternately end up with ships that have low readiness rates if the navy in question isn't willing to keep up with certification, manning and simply getting these systems aboard the ships that require them in a worthwhile timespan. Ships with a permanent armament have the advantage where these issues can not apply as there is no switching period, what is aboard the ship is aboard it. As Stoker said above as well, it can arguably be more useful to put this old equipment out of service and use the resources gained from such a move to put towards modern and capable systems.

I think its a bit unfair to continue to lampoon the LCS and its module system when the always praised STANFLEX system seemed/seems to have its own share of issues that are conveniently not brought up very often.

 

[Kirkhill]

The key element of the Stanflex system is that all weapons are fitted inside a standard black box with standard utilities designed for plug in.

Very similar to the seacan/connex/iso system.

We've got them. Why not retain them, and mount them in containers for easy deployment?

You're only going to get 25 cents on the dollar from the OEM, who will then refit them and sell them for 75 cents on the dollar.

Port and base defences. Deployable defences for cargo ships...

 

[Kirkhill]

I think it can be seen as a bad thing to a point when as the article I shared pointed out, years after the fact they were still wrestling with certifying various systems for all of their vessels and getting them put on in a timely manner. As much as STANFLEX can be a useful way to reuse assets, you can alternately end up with ships that have low readiness rates if the navy in question isn't willing to keep up with certification, manning and simply getting these systems aboard the ships that require them in a worthwhile timespan. Ships with a permanent armament have the advantage where these issues can not apply as there is no switching period, what is aboard the ship is aboard it. As Stoker said above as well, it can arguably be more useful to put this old equipment out of service and use the resources gained from such a move to put towards modern and capable systems.

I think its a bit unfair to continue to lampoon the LCS and its module system when the always praised STANFLEX system seemed/seems to have its own share of issues that are conveniently not brought up very often.

"if the navy in question isn't willing to keep up with certification, manning and simply getting these systems aboard"

Those issues apply in spades to navies with permanently installed systems that only deal with them every decade or so.

The pods don't need to be swapped out day by day. But if mission demands change, year over year, then the pods can change.

If a system becomes obsolete then an upgraded system can be dropped in at wharfside.

If a non mission critical pod is decertified then it can be removed without disrupting the sailing schedule.

Also pods ashore do not have to be maintained by sailors at sea.

The pods may create different admin and log problems while solving technical problems.

 

[Kirkhill]

For the record @Rainbow1910

Thank you for engaging. Informative.

 

[Maxman1]

I wouldn't be so quick to lump praise of Maersk for being so competent and skilled that they managed to keep costs down through their expertise alone, there was serious cost saving measures put into place that most people seem to forget.

Like the fact that the Iver Huitfeldt class was not solely built in Denmark but rather was constructed in blocks in Estonia and Lithuania before transported to Denmark for assembly and fit out of the modules. Employing the StanFlex system allows for the use of modular systems which further separates the cost of components from the overall cost estimates of the ship. As was mentioned above also making use of older weapons and systems from other ships. All of this shouldn't be disregarded as its major cost savings which skews the realistic cost of these vessels if you wanted to build them anywhere else and in a normal manner. They also worked in the use of civilian building standards wherever possible which is another way to slice costs off a program.

They also obfuscated costs by from what I understand as accepting the ships in an incomplete condition, adding weapons systems later using the STANFLEX system. If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing reports saying that the Danish Navy saved up into the hundreds of millions by reusing components through STANFLEX from other vessels while some of these systems weren't even certified for operations initially. HDMS Niels Juel participated in Exercise Bold Alligator in 2014 (she commissioned in 2011) in a seemingly rather incomplete state. As mentioned above, her 76mm guns, torpedo tubes, alongside the launchers for ESSM and Harpoon were refurbished fittings from decommissioned ships. Mark 41 VLS was empty and awaiting operational certification, requiring additional components and their missiles to be fitted/procured. Their 35mm Oerlikon gun aft was actually a dummy fitted to maintain the flight decks wind characteristics as it was still undergoing certification. Their original crew requirements were found to not be working and they needed to bring aboard additional personnel largely focused in their engineering departments. They said that they were in the process of improving the damage control fittings aboard by adding some internal features while they didn't have a secondary steering control installation aboard and required additional navigational equipment.

Aboard Danish Frigate, Clean Lines and Room To Grow

ABOARD HDMS NILS JUEL IN THE CHESAPEAKE BAY – It is striking how the now-familiar smooth, angled architecture of tod...

www.defensenews.com

I am not trying to say that these vessels won't be effective combatants eventually but its clear to see how heavily that cost cutting measures were integrated into the design. These kinds of costs obfuscate the realistic sticker price of these vessels and makes fair comparison elsewhere difficult. I have no doubts Maersk's experience did help somewhat but as I hope I've shown, it doesn't seem to be the driving factor on cost savings here.

 

[Prairie canuck]

Accepted that it wasn't the difference in price between the 300,000,000 USD hull and the 1-2 BUSD cost of a fully equipped modern vessel.

However it was the design that made the hull flexible enough to be adapted to existing and future weapons as well as a very broad range of tasks. And yes modules were built out of country - Odense Shipyards were struggling to find new business models to stay in business. Ultimately it was found cheapest to have Danish designs for container ships built in Korea.

I give OMT//Maersk credit for generating a design, and implementing it. That design put useful, upgradeable hulls in the water, quickly, at a price the Danish Navy could afford. That design has since been found adequate for some RN needs and the needs of the Polish Navy. and is also in the running with the Greeks.

I note also that the RN has contracted with the Royal Danish Navy to transfer their operational experience with these ships.

Danish and British navies collaborate for Type 31 frigates

Navies of Denmark and the UK have signed an agreement to support the UK Royal Navy’s (RN) next-generation Inspiration-class Type 31 frigates.

www.naval-technology.com

Fleet commonalities within JEF. That would make for 11 Type 31s (5 UK, 3 Danish, 3 Polish) in the Baltic region.




You say that like it is a bad thing. I consider that to be canny use of taxpayer's dollars/krone. The weaponry could be seen as not being part of the ship but loaned to the ship by the Logistics Organization as GFE. If the mission requirement changes then the weapons fit changes.

It is unfortunate that the Americans couldn't figure out how to make that stratagem work in their LCS class.

And, for the record, what do we intend to do with the guns and missiles from the Halifaxes when they come out of service?

12x 57mm
12x 20mm CIWS
12x 16 ESSM
12x Torpedo launch systems.

When are the AOPS due for a refit?

 

[NavyShooter]

I think that our fleet used to see ships try and do a 60 month docking cycle.

Not sure if that will be the case for the AOPS or not.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think that our fleet used to see ships try and do a 60 month docking cycle.

Not sure if that will be the case for the AOPS or not.

With the heavier scantlings and generally all round heavier build of the AOP's, plus the fact that you don't get the same speed through heavy seas issues. I think once the various issues are fixed, that the refits will not take as long and the ships will be in general better condition. You get a lot less flexing and strains with their design.

 

[Kirkhill]

With the heavier scantlings and generally all round heavier build of the AOP's, plus the fact that you don't get the same speed through heavy seas issues. I think once the various issues are fixed, that the refits will not take as long and the ships will be in general better condition. You get a lot less flexing and strains with their design.

I don't think they have as many electronics jammed into them as, perhaps, a Halifax?

 

[Prairie canuck]

I think that our fleet used to see ships try and do a 60 month docking cycle.

Not sure if that will be the case for the AOPS or not.

So, assuming there's a change in the GoC, if the AOPs refit coincides with a "Halifax" retirement could some or all of the armament and radars be installed on the AOPS? (Sorry but someone had to ask)

 

[Colin Parkinson]

So, assuming there's a change in the GoC, if the AOPs refit coincides with a "Halifax" retirement could some or all of the armament and radars be installed on the AOPS? (Sorry but someone had to ask)

It would be a major job to fit the wiring, supports and integration. It's certainly is worth looking at. It depends on how much "surplus" stability they have, apparently the biggest limiter they have is that the radar and optical units are not good enough to ensure the safety template of the current gun. Here is the outfitting of the Halifax class, not sure if the AOP's can take the radars on them?


Sensors and
processing systems
Air/surface search: Saab Sea Giraffe HC 150 (G band)
Surveillance radar: Thales SMART-S Mk 2 3D
Fire control: SAAB CEROS-200 Fire control radar
Active sonar: AN/SQS-510 Hull-mounted sonar
Passive sonar: AN/SQR-501 CANTASS Passive towed array (variable depth)
Electronic warfare
& decoys TKWA/MASS (Multi Ammunition Softkill System)
Armament
8 × MK 141 Harpoon SSM
16 × Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile SAM/SSM
1 × Bofors 57 mm Mk 3 gun
1 × Phalanx CIWS (Mk 15 Mod 21 (Block 1B))
6 × .50 calibre machine guns (M2HB-QCB)
24 × Mk 46 torpedoes Mod 5

 

[dapaterson]

So, assuming there's a change in the GoC, if the AOPs refit coincides with a "Halifax" retirement could some or all of the armament and radars be installed on the AOPS? (Sorry but someone had to ask)

Short answer: Anything is possible.

Longer answer: the engineering effort would be massive, and the equipment to move across would be largely obsolete.

 

[Prairie canuck]

It would be a major job to fit the wiring, supports and integration. It's certainly is worth looking at. It depends on how much "surplus" stability they have, apparently the biggest limiter they have is that the radar and optical units are not good enough to ensure the safety template of the current gun. Here is the outfitting of the Halifax class, not sure if the AOP's can take the radars on them?


Sensors and
processing systems
Air/surface search: Saab Sea Giraffe HC 150 (G band)
Surveillance radar: Thales SMART-S Mk 2 3D
Fire control: SAAB CEROS-200 Fire control radar
Active sonar: AN/SQS-510 Hull-mounted sonar
Passive sonar: AN/SQR-501 CANTASS Passive towed array (variable depth)
Electronic warfare
& decoys TKWA/MASS (Multi Ammunition Softkill System)
Armament
8 × MK 141 Harpoon SSM
16 × Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile SAM/SSM
1 × Bofors 57 mm Mk 3 gun
1 × Phalanx CIWS (Mk 15 Mod 21 (Block 1B))
6 × .50 calibre machine guns (M2HB-QCB)
24 × Mk 46 torpedoes Mod 5

If at the very least a self defense capability could be squeezed in, decoys, sea sparrows, CIWS, Smart S, the 57, and sea Giraffe it would be a marked improvement. I can't find the information and if this was from an official Gov site or in here somewhere but I do remember reading during their design stage that there were accommodations made, raceways for wiring and strengthened deck and mast points, for the possible future installation of more armament.

 

[TacticalTea]

If at the very least a self defense capability could be squeezed in, decoys, sea sparrows, CIWS, Smart S, the 57, and sea Giraffe it would be a marked improvement. I can't find the information and if this was from an official Gov site or in here somewhere but I do remember reading during their design stage that there were accommodations made, raceways for wiring and strengthened deck and mast points, for the possible future installation of more armament.

It does have self-defence. M2s and the main gun. I don't see the point of further anti-air capability, it won't be in such a threat environment.

It has, however, demonstrated the application of towed sonar in the Arctic. In conjunction with its capacity for a CH-148, it could probably mount torpedo canisters somewhere, making it a deadly threat to submarines.

I'm no ASWC though, so don't quote me on that.

 

[Underway]

It does have self-defence. M2s and the main gun. I don't see the point of further anti-air capability, it won't be in such a threat environment.

It has, however, demonstrated the application of towed sonar in the Arctic. In conjunction with its capacity for a CH-148, it could probably mount torpedo canisters somewhere, making it a deadly threat to submarines.

I'm no ASWC though, so don't quote me on that.

The focus seems to be on getting the sensor and helicopter working properly, then you can use the helo as the main ASW weapon.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

The focus seems to be on getting the sensor and helicopter working properly, then you can use the helo as the main ASW weapon.

See! Somebody gets it!

 

[FSTO]

It does have self-defence. M2s and the main gun. I don't see the point of further anti-air capability, it won't be in such a threat environment.

It has, however, demonstrated the application of towed sonar in the Arctic. In conjunction with its capacity for a CH-148, it could probably mount torpedo canisters somewhere, making it a deadly threat to submarines.

I'm no ASWC though, so don't quote me on that.

If you have the solution to fire a torpedo from a ship to the submarine, do not be troubled, because you are in elysium and you’re already dead!

 

[TacticalTea]

If you have the solution to fire a torpedo from a ship to the submarine, do not be troubled, because you are in elysium and you’re already dead!

Let us hope our rules of engagement are more amenable than theirs.