Canadian Ship Building Deal Reached

jdobbin · July 29, 2009

Even then the Liberals might cancel them, like they did the helicopter contract.

At least they didn't sell the heavy lift helicopters like the Tories did.

jdobbin · July 29, 2009

This government has made a big step towards redeeming themselves in my eyes.

I wonder how influential this was in getting the Irving family to apologize.

M.Dancer · July 29, 2009

I'm not really sure that they are making a mistake. We don't have a terrible amount of money to put into a design project for just 3 destroyers. If the ships can share a single hull, and simply be outfitted for different roles, it should work. Maybe the 15 ships will all be frigates, who knows?

Noty enough real estate on a small frigate. They will be under armed and quite possible under armoured. They would be next to useless as a anti aoircraft destouer simply because they won't have enough missiles to counter a concerted effort

They may be fine for escort duty...

Shady · July 29, 2009

CBC News
This government has made a big step towards redeeming themselves in my eyes.

You're right. This is a great step. I'm hoping we can finally protect our eastern and western waters from foreign over-fishers, as well as protect our legitimate rights up north.

Smallc · July 30, 2009

Noty enough real estate on a small frigate. They will be under armed and quite possible under armored. They would be next to useless as a anti aoircraft destouer simply because they won't have enough missiles to counter a concerted effort
They may be fine for escort duty...

The destroyers we have now are the same size as the frigates that we have now and they are anti aircraft. They have a vertical launch system on their bow.

Wild Bill · July 30, 2009

Noty enough real estate on a small frigate. They will be under armed and quite possible under armoured. They would be next to useless as a anti aoircraft destouer simply because they won't have enough missiles to counter a concerted effort
They may be fine for escort duty...

When I was a small boy my father used to take my brother and I on board his ship, the aircraft carrier Bonaventure. I was maybe 8 tops and my brother was 2 years younger. When he took us for a walk on the flight deck we were in utter awe. It was the biggest thing we had ever seen!

Then one day the Yanks had come in with a fleet to Halifax harbour. They had made the weekend a holiday, opening up their ships to the general public for tours.

I still remember the USS Trumpetfish, a submarine. The sailors were especially kind to us small kids.

Then we were taken on the USS Essex, a FULL SIZE AIRCRAFT CARRIER! You could have picked up the Bonnie, plunked her on the Essex' flight deck and still been able to have a few planes take off and land beside it! Our little minds were totally blown!

Some of the talk in this thread about what makes a ship 'large' and if our definition of a destroyer is the same as that of most other countries made me remember that day.

Smallc · July 30, 2009

Our destroyers aren't all that much smaller than the ones used by anyone else. The old navy website had a size comparison between American, Canadian, French and British ships. Our destroyer was a bit smaller than the rest, but not a great deal. The US ships are some of the biggest I believe, at about 25M longer.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Smallc

M.Dancer · July 30, 2009

Our destroyers aren't all that much smaller than the ones used by anyone else.

And we wein the Oldest Ships afloat prize too....the destroyers were getting long in the tooth in the 80s...

M.Dancer · July 30, 2009

Compare

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMCS_Algonquin_(DDG_283)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arleigh_Burke_class_destroyer

Smallc · July 30, 2009

Yes, it's bigger, and newer, and better armed. Doesn't mean that a new ship class slightly larger than any of our correct combat fleet won't be able to do a good job. This is the navy's idea, and I don't think it's my place to play armchair admiral.

M.Dancer · July 30, 2009

The destroyers we have now are the same size as the frigates that we have now and they are anti aircraft. They have a vertical launch system on their bow.

.

Don't be ridiculous. The frigates are shorter and have a dispacement that is 1000 tons less. They are 1/2 the ship a destroyer is.

The have 16 anti aircraft missiles compared to the 32 on a CND destroyer and the 90 on a modern US destroyer.

M.Dancer · July 30, 2009

Yes, it's bigger, and newer, and better armed. Doesn't mean that a new ship class slightly larger than any of our correct combat fleet won't be able to do a good job. This is the navy's idea, and I don't think it's my place to play armchair admiral.

AS long as the job isn't modern sea warfare they should be okay.

Smallc · July 30, 2009

The frigates are shorter and have a dispacement that is 1000 tons less.

No, they aren't shorter. The Halifax class is 5M longer than the Iroquois class.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Smallc

Shady · July 30, 2009

Using the so-called logic of some of the posters in this thread. A large 1980's cell phone must be significantly better then the puny 2 year old cell phone I'm currently using. :rolleyes:

Smallc · July 30, 2009

AS long as the job isn't modern sea warfare they should be okay.

Sure, whatever you say.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2009

The destroyers we have now are the same size as the frigates that we have now and they are anti aircraft. They have a vertical launch system on their bow.

Right, but the Iroquois Class has more AAW punch. If Canada can top the excellent design breakthroughs of the Iroquois, then all will be well. Dancer is right to recommend avoiding patrol frigates having to fight above their weight.

We see this design "conundrum" often....some nations even try to build "stretch" long hull versions like they do with jetliners! A patrol frigate is not a DDG or DDH.

I would be surprised to see drastic design departures unless Maritime Command's mission has also changed drastically.

Smallc · July 30, 2009

The Halifax is a multi roll frigate. The final 6 were originally to be delivered with a stretched hull also, so there you go. Both of you are simply extrapolating and guessing that Canada will build a frigate and try to bolt a destroyer on top. I don't think that's the case at all. They are going to build a hybrid design, and equip it with different weapon suites determined by it's role. There will be 12 of one kind and 3 of another.

Or, to put it another way, a slightly stretched Halifax class (as was to be originally delivered) equipped with a VLS and a larger cannon would outgun an Iroquois.

Edited July 30, 2009 by Smallc

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2009

The Halifax is a multi roll frigate. The final 6 were originally to be delivered with a stretched hull also, so there you go. Both of you are simply extrapolating and guessing that Canada will build a frigate and try to bolt a destroyer on top. I don't think that's the case at all. They are going to build a hybrid design, and equip it with different weapon suites determined by it's role. There will be 12 of one kind and 3 of another.

I applaud the effort, and hope it works out well enough so you're not beating the crap out of a undersized, underpowered patrol frigate (again). If the mission is coastal / littoral, the frigates will be fine. If they need to hump across the world's oceans and join American / NATO task forces, different ballgame entirely.

You are right that the role (mission) should drive design.

How's about a big fat CRUISER !? :lol:

M.Dancer · July 30, 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sing...rface_Combatant

Sounds like a truly canadian option. We don't budget enough money for what we need so we bodge together a plan that will do mainy jobs poorly.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2009

....Or, to put it another way, a slightly stretched Halifax class (as was to be originally delivered) equipped with a VLS and a larger cannon would outgun an Iroquois.

Not so fast....(pun intended). CODOG vs. COGOG was worth something too. Remember, the Iroquois was so good that the damn Americans stole some ideas for their Spruance. It's dated now, but cheap is the enemy of excellent.

M.Dancer · July 30, 2009

History will note that Canada in the begining of the century developed the Pocket Destroyer...

Smallc · July 30, 2009

I applaud the effort, and hope it works out well enough so you're not beating the crap out of a undersized, underpowered patrol frigate (again). If the mission is coastal / littoral, the frigates will be fine. If they need to hump across the world's oceans and join American / NATO task forces, different ballgame entirely.

What are you talking about. The Halifax can go faster and farther with less resource expense. I have barely ever heard a complaint about our frigates.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Sing...rface_Combatant
Sounds like a truly canadian option. We don't budget enough money for what we need so we bodge together a plan that will do mainy jobs poorly.

OK, so how did you ever get Iroquois? Just four hulls? Bring back the Soviets dammit.

bush_cheney2004 · July 30, 2009

What are you talking about. The Halifax can go faster and farther with less resource expense. I have barely ever heard a complaint about our frigates.

Iroquois has boost turbines IIRC.

Smallc · July 30, 2009

So does Halifax. The Iruois can do 29knts, and the Halifax can do 29+.

You two are making no sense. The proposal is to build 15 ships which are larger than the Halifax class and are more capable. The Halifax is already larger than the current destroyer. i think you both deserve one of these: :blink: