Shipbuilding contracts

[Derek 2.0]

Don't worry. In another three or four, or at most six or seven years, the government will sign a contract for the design of new ships and only a decade or so later we'll start getting them rolling off them new shipyards!

That's probably not far off.......meanwhile due to the sequestration cuts, the United States is likely retiring early, a handful of ships that would be more than suitable interim replacements for our three current destroyers and the two supply ships.......all five of the ships are of the same age of the bulk of our fleet (early ~1990s), and on average 20+ years younger then the ships they would replace...

[Derek 2.0]

Not a surprise:

Sources tell The Canadian Press that HMCS Algonquin, Athabaskan, Iroquois and Protecteur will be decommissioned, with an announcement expected later today.

I wouldn't be surprised if Preserver followed too.........Will save the RCN a ton of money retiring these tired ships, allowing over 1000 positions to flush out the rest of the fleet and act as place holders for the AOPS, which start production, next year.

Somewhat sad to see the 280s go, and I hope they share a similar fate as their sister Huron....

[Smallc]

There's conflicting reports over whether its Preserver or Athabaskan on the list.

[Smallc]

It's sad to lose the capability for now, but I think it's for the best.

[Derek 2.0]

There's conflicting reports over whether its Preserver or Athabaskan on the list.

I think Preserver will stay, but her sister is done after the fire.......I don't see an actual benefit to keeping any of the 280s......let them all go and save the money on operating a unique type.......

[Derek 2.0]

It's sad to lose the capability for now, but I think it's for the best.

Other than the Command and Control facilities aboard the 280s, the ships have been obsolete since the 90s, there is no real upside in keeping them, other than as place holders……Much like the Royal Navy giving up Carrier Strike for a few years until the QE’s enter service…………The loss of an AOR will hurt, but after the fire and the ensuing metal fatigue, the ship is no longer safe to operate.

[Derek 2.0]

And welcome the Harry DeWolf class

Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced the name of the first of the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS). Her Majesty’s Canadian Ship Harry DeWolf, named in honour of a wartime Canadian naval hero, will be the first of a fleet of AOPS designed to better enable the RCN to exercise sovereignty in Canadian waters, including in the Arctic. The Prime Minister made the announcement at His Majesty’s Canadian Ship Haida, formerly commanded by Vice-Admiral Harry DeWolf, which currently serves as a museum ship and is located on the waterfront of Hamilton, Ontario.

[Smallc]

As part of FELEX 4 Halifax class were fitted with C & C facilities I believe

[Smallc]

And welcome the Harry DeWolf class

Way better than naming them after cities IMO.

[Derek 2.0]

As part of FELEX 4 Halifax class were fitted with C & C facilities I believe

To an extent, but extra berthing is still an issue aboard the 330s, any flag staff will require the removal of a portion of the ships complement……..realistically, with the state of the tankers, it’s unlikely we’ll be deploying our own task groups anytime soon…….coupled with the realization that due to modern communications, a task group’s flag could be raised aboard a stone frigate for most deployments.

[Derek 2.0]

Way better than naming them after cities IMO.

I agree.

[Derek 2.0]

There's conflicting reports over whether its Preserver or Athabaskan on the list.

There you go, it's now official:

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/the-royal-canadian-navy-issues-details-on-retirements-of-ships

The ships are Her Majesty’s Canadian Ships (HMCS) Protecteur andPreserver; two Protecteur-class auxiliary oil replenishment (AOR) ships, and HMCS Iroquois and Algonquin, two Iroquois-class guided missile destroyers (DDG). The retirement of these vessels has been anticipated for some time, and is a step towards the introduction of new ships and capabilities set to be delivered through the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS), as well as recognition of the RCN’s commitment to the responsible use of public funds while maintaining Canada’s naval readiness.

I'm not surprised with Preserver's condition, and getting ride of the last two steamers in the fleet will save money In terms of training and sustainment……..somewhat surprised that they’re keeping the Athabaskan, but with that said, they could sustain and crew the remaining Tribal with the leftovers from her two sisters…..I still wouldn’t be surprised if she was decommissioned after she returns from her current deployment, or once the remaining frigates have completed the HCM/FELEX program……..end of an era for sure, having served or been aboard all of the girls (including Huron and Provider), feeling somewhat nostalgic but they are all very tired.

As I’ve said numerous times though, I would hope the feasibility of leasing interim replacements is being explored, if not one for one, at least replacing the AORs or making arrangements with the USN/MSC that is also looking at decommissioning several supply ships early.

[Argus]

Other than the Command and Control facilities aboard the 280s, the ships have been obsolete since the 90s, there is no real upside in keeping them, other than as place holders……Much like the Royal Navy giving up Carrier Strike for a few years until the QE’s enter service……

On the other hand I recall when the last ship replacement was done we were to get 6 + 6 + 6 frigates to replace those being retired. We never got the last 6 and instead the 4 destroyers were refitted. Now the 4 are gone and where are the replacements? None planned. Unless you regard those rinky dink 'artic patrol vessels' as a replacement for destroyers. Their top speed is 17 knots, I understand...

[Derek 2.0]

On the other hand I recall when the last ship replacement was done we were to get 6 + 6 + 6 frigates to replace those being retired. We never got the last 6 and instead the 4 destroyers were refitted.

Not quite, with détente, the last 6 of the 12 CPF were to have been lengthened ~30ft with a mk41 VLS installed forward of the gun, coupled with a more extensive air defense suite…….the TRUMP modifications to the 280s were twofold, first to modernise the vessels at their midlife point and second, to address the navies shortage in air defense, which prior to the Halifax class, was largely non-existent.

Now the 4 are gone and where are the replacements? None planned.

That's not accurate either........One of the 280s will remain, and replacement plans have been ongoing since the 90s. However, it was initially planned to replace the 280s with a design based upon the Halifax class, equipped with the APAR/Smart-L radars, developed by us, the Dutch and Germans. As the development of the radars matured, it was found to function as required, the APAR would have to be mounted so high, it would create severe instability with the root Halifax class hull-form……..so this forced a reboot in the 2000s.

And there certainly is a program to replace the 280s (and Halifax class) underway……….look no further then here:

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Halifax+Shipyard/@44.6679819,-63.5974678,250m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x16abc7bc145e7ec

The new building, where the AOPS, Destroyer and Frigate replacements will be built will dwarf the previous facilities that built our current Halifax class.

Though the final designs for both the AOPS and surface combatants have yet to be released publically, one can assume the direction of both programs by the contracts Irving Shipbuilding has signed (that are public) with Lockheed Martin (As electronic systems and surveillance (radar) integrator), GE Canada (propulsion) and Odense Maritime Technology (Naval architecture). Based on these companies products and mature (yet evolving) designs, the RCN will succeed in renewal in the years ahead………though I’m sure we will pay a premium for domestically produced vessels.

Unless you regard those rinky dink 'artic patrol vessels' as a replacement for destroyers. Their top speed is 17 knots, I understand...

There is nothing small about the AOPS, and they will dwarf the ships they replace (Kingston class)........and of course, the destroyers and frigates will be replaced by a common class..........built in a building nearly three times the size of the building where our current frigates were built, with a final displacement of that of a WW II cruiser or WW I battleship…..there will be nothing small about them.

Edited September 20, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Derek 2.0]

That's probably not far off.......meanwhile due to the sequestration cuts, the United States is likely retiring early, a handful of ships that would be more than suitable interim replacements for our three current destroyers and the two supply ships.......all five of the ships are of the same age of the bulk of our fleet (early ~1990s), and on average 20+ years younger then the ships they would replace...

Like they say about great minds:

The navy is looking at ways to replace the supply ships, which were used to refuel and resupply ships at sea. Replacements aren't due until 2019 at the earliest.

"Options include potential enhancements, or additions, to existing agreements with key allies, as well as some made-in-Canada solutions," Norman said. He wouldn't go into details, but said other navies needing a temporary fix to such a shortage have borrowed vessels or refitted civilian tankers.

As I said several months back, before the announcement, the United States might retire several of their large fast supply ships eary..........If a purchase or lease is not doable, perhaps an offer to pay a portion of the operating costs and contribute some of the manning might allow both Canada and the United States to Bridge (pun intended) the gap....

[Smallc]

According to what I've been reading, SEASPAN will begin work on the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels at the end of next month. Finally, some steel will get cut.

[Derek 2.0]

According to what I've been reading, SEASPAN will begin work on the Offshore Fisheries Science Vessels at the end of next month. Finally, some steel will get cut.

Wouldn't surprise me......they also installed the largest gantry crane in Canada several months back for the larger vessels.

edit to add....the change to the North Vancouver skyline and waterfront:

Edited September 21, 2014 by Derek 2.0

[Argus]

That's not accurate either........One of the 280s will remain, and replacement plans have been ongoing since the 90s.

Since the 90s...

Let me put myself out there and suggest they will NEVER be replaced.

There is nothing small about the AOPS, and they will dwarf the ships they replace (Kingston class)......

The Kingston class were nothing more than training boats, and spent most of their time at dock for lack of crews. They were slow, wallowing tubs. The new ships, half as many, are slow and heavy as befitting their role as slushbreakers, and unlikely to be very capable in the open sea.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

Since the 90s...

Let me put myself out there and suggest they will NEVER be replaced.

Yet the modern yard that will build them is near complete, and the builder has signed contracts with renowned industry giants in the field....

The Kingston class were nothing more than training boats, and spent most of their time at dock for lack of crews. They were slow, wallowing tubs.

Yet they continue to serve throughout the Western Hemisphere, as not only training vessels, but also conducting sovereignty patrols on all three of our oceans, coupled with deployments to the Caribbean, Hawaii and Europe…..

The new ships, half as many, are slow and heavy as befitting their role as slushbreakers, and unlikely to be very capable in the open sea.

And I thought you just stated they were rinky dink......Why do you feel they won't be capable in the "open sea"? The root design, already is in operation with the Danes, well having no problems reported with operation in the "open sea" of the North Atlantic or Arctic oceans.....

[Argus]

Yet the modern yard that will build them is near complete, and the builder has signed contracts with renowned industry giants in the field....

I'm not saying no ships will be built. I'm saying that when it's all over with the RCN will have fewer surface combatants than it had when Harper took over. From 18 ships down to a projected 15 (if they keep their word), which is a 1/6th fall. That's hardly what one would have expected from all those years of Tory bitching about how the Liberals have neglected the military.

The number of fighters ordered will also wind up giving us a drastic decline in the number. I believe the likely order is going to be half what it was last time around for the F-18s.

And I thought you just stated they were rinky dink......

A crew of 45 with a 'main armament' of a 25mm gun? Yes, I'd call that rinky dink. The Americans probably wouldn't even call it a combatant. They have coast guard cutters FAR more heavily armed (not to mention way faster) than these things.

Why do you feel they won't be capable in the "open sea"?

Define 'capable'. My concern with these ships is that the compromises in their design mean they're not going to be very good at pushing through even moderate ice and yet not going to be very good as open water patrol ships either. And if we're going to have them they ought to be coast guard vessels. There is at least less opposition to paying for the Coast Guard since they're presumed to be necessary for S&R, fisheries, and helping civilian ships through the ice.

Edited September 21, 2014 by Argus

[Derek 2.0]

I'm not saying no ships will be built. I'm saying that when it's all over with the RCN will have fewer surface combatants than it had when Harper took over. From 18 ships down to a projected 15 (if they keep their word), which is a 1/6th fall. That's hardly what one would have expected from all those years of Tory bitching about how the Liberals have neglected the military.

That's incorrect, when "Harper took over", the navy had 3 x destroyers and 12 x frigates....15 surface combatants and 6-8 AOPS will be bought, bringing our navy's hull numbers to that we had in the 80s, but far more capable.

The number of fighters ordered will also wind up giving us a drastic decline in the number. I believe the likely order is going to be half what it was last time around for the F-18s.

Operationally that is incorrect, we currently have two operational squadrons with 48 Hornets between the two........Once they're replaced, we'll have two operational squadrons of 48 F-35s.

A crew of 45 with a 'main armament' of a 25mm gun? Yes, I'd call that rinky dink. The Americans probably wouldn't even call it a combatant. They have coast guard cutters FAR more heavily armed (not to mention way faster) than these things.

The USCG doesn't have armed ice capable ships.........none the less, the AOPS doesn't require a large armament for its intended role, namely sovereignty/pollution/fisheries/SAR patrols along our three coastlines………roles that our old destroyer escorts performed, and roles we currently rely upon our frigates to fill in for………It’s doubtful we need a modern warships to monitor and engage drug smugglers, polluters, poachers and people smugglers.

Define 'capable'.

You are the one that suggested they wouldn’t be capable in the “open sea”….answer the question.

[Argus]

That's incorrect, when "Harper took over", the navy had 3 x destroyers and 12 x frigates....15 surface combatants and 6-8 AOPS will be bought, bringing our navy's hull numbers to that we had in the 80s, but far more capable.

Of course they're more capable. Every new ship is more capable of than the one which rusted out behind it!

It was Harper's party which said, on numerous occasions, that they supported another six ships in the Halifax program. It was Harper and his party who stated on numerous occasions that the armed forces were inadequately supplied and equipped. Replacing what's left of the existing surface combatants (I notice you'd rather not discuss the sub) is not acceptable.

Operationally that is incorrect, we currently have two operational squadrons with 48 Hornets between the two........Once they're replaced, we'll have two operational squadrons of 48 F-35s.

You are picking nits. The only reason we have only 48 operational aircraft is because of failures, rust-outs, crashes, and budget decisions to mothball the rest. And what will we have left of of these sixty odd ships in thirty years time? A dozen? Then someone will come along and say "Well, I guess we need to order 12 more fighters" or the equivalent since I doubt we'll be using fighters by then.

The USCG doesn't have armed ice capable ships....

The USCG icebreakers are icebreakers, and used only for that purpose.

.....none the less, the AOPS doesn't require a large armament for its intended role, namely sovereignty/pollution/fisheries/SAR patrols along our three coastlines………

Yes, you never need armament until you need armament. The Danish Knud-Rasmusson class is a lot more adaptable there.

It’s doubtful we need a modern warships to monitor and engage drug smugglers, polluters, poachers and people smugglers.

I don't disagree. In fact, I was modifying the post to which you are responding here while you were responding. These ships should be coast guard, not navy.

[Derek 2.0]

Of course they're more capable. Every new ship is more capable of than the one which rusted out behind it!

It was Harper's party which said, on numerous occasions, that they supported another six ships in the Halifax program. It was Harper and his party who stated on numerous occasions that the armed forces were inadequately supplied and equipped. Replacing what's left of the existing surface combatants (I notice you'd rather not discuss the sub) is not acceptable.

Once the Conservatives came to power, that Halifax program had been completed for nearly a decade, with the root design being from the early 80s........12 post FELEX frigates are more capable than 18 pre upgrade frigates....

Why would I include the subs? You stated "surface combatants"..............None the less, there is a thread on the Victoria class.....Ultimately, based on the financial investments made by the current Government, coupled with the reduced overseas tempo, the Victoria’s are finally operational within the fleet and will remain viable until the end of the 2020s to early 2030s.

You are picking nits. The only reason we have only 48 operational aircraft is because of failures, rust-outs, crashes, and budget decisions to mothball the rest. And what will we have left of of these sixty odd ships in thirty years time? A dozen? Then someone will come along and say "Well, I guess we need to order 12 more fighters" or the equivalent since I doubt we'll be using fighters by then.

48 operational aircraft is all that is needed to meet our current NORAD and NATO missions.......

As to attrition reserves for the fighter fleet, I've no doubt near the end of production for the F-35s (mid 2030s), we'll have within our initial contract the option to purchase additional replacement aircraft....based on losses from the Hornet fleet, 10-15 additional will likely need to be purchased at some point.

The USCG icebreakers are icebreakers, and used only for that purpose.

Like our current and future icebreakers.......again, the AOPS is not intended to be an icebreaker, but an ice capable patrol vessel.

Yes, you never need armament until you need armament. The Danish Knud-Rasmusson class is a lot more adaptable there.

What ship(s) do you think the AOPS will be based on?

I don't disagree. In fact, I was modifying the post to which you are responding here while you were responding. These ships should be coast guard, not navy.

I agree to an extent.....But understand the AOPS will fill a niche role for the remainder of the surface fleet, not only taking over more mundane tasks that a frigate is wasted on and as something when more than an unarmed CCG OPV is needed, but also increasing our ability to conduct military operations in the Arctic, well replacing the four Destroyer Escorts that formed the training squadron on the West Coast since the 70s (lost in the Cold War draw down)...

[Smallc]

You know, if the original Halifax order had been fulfilled (6 + 6 extended hulls) we wouldn't be having this problem with surface combatants.

[Derek 2.0]

You know, if the original Halifax order had been fulfilled (6 + 6 extended hulls) we wouldn't be having this problem with surface combatants.

Maybe, maybe not.......The added cost would likely have forced DND in the 90s to cancel TRUMP and/or retire the 280s...........More so, the Trudeau Government should have snapped up the offer for the Kidd class destroyers before they were swallowed up into Reagan's 600 ship navy......Then of course, we could have forgone TRUMP (which never met-up to expectations) and retired the 280s (or offered them for sale) in the 1990s...