Shipbuilding contracts

[Smallc]

The 330s with the lengthened hull would have been able to have a similar AAD system to the 280s. We never would have needed TRUMP.

I'd rather have 12 very capable ships than 15 semi capable ones.

[Derek 2.0]

The 330s with the lengthened hull would have been able to have a similar AAD system to the 280s. We never would have needed TRUMP.

I'd rather have 12 very capable ships than 15 semi capable ones.

That's just it........they would have got something along the lines of TRUMPed 280/Halifax radars and combat system and we'd have 6 ships that would be hard pressed to contend with 70s era Soviet subsonic cruise missiles........and four obsolete destroyers.

[Derek 2.0]

An interesting opinion piece:

While France desperately wants to complete the two amphibious warships — and get paid for them — NATO and Canada need the capabilities these ships can provide.

For Canada, an LPH would help buttress logistic support for the upcoming Canadian Joint Support Ship (JSS). The replacement to Canada’s fleet oilers originally required a level of expeditionary capabilities which were ultimately not included in the final ship design.

Though these two ships have the added benefit of an ice strengthened hull, my main concern would be to what extent these ships have been built to not only Russian, but French standards and in turn, how difficult it would be to “Canadianize” them.

Aside from ensuring Western electronics, power generation and propulsion systems could be installed (and not at great cost), we’d also require new radars, weaponry, communications and combat management & control systems……and these would be expensive.

Of course, in an attempt to find some savings, we could purchase and install the identical suite found on the FELEX Halifax class, in addition to purchasing new air traffic control radars, recycle both the 76mm, CIWS and decoys from our soon to be retired destroyers and AORs….After that, and in my view would be key, would be to install refuel at sea (RAS) gear, in addition to the required plumbing and partitioning of the fuel tanks.

Doing this would facilitate the ships being able to partially replace the loss of our supply ships, in addition, the command & control capabilities that we’ll lose in the retiring of our destroyers, until their replacements are delivered. In addition, it would introduce numerous new capabilities to our armed forces……An interesting idea, but of course would be predicated on cost and how much of these potential issues could be reversed/altered (and how much work could be done in Canadian yards!!!)

[Army Guy]

I think someone should really question do we need AOP's to start with....There are rumors that the navy are'nt really excitied about this new class of boats, i've talked to a few SNR NCO's in Halifax , they had nothing good to say about the AOP's ,they would much rather have a covette take over the minual tasks....i tend to agree if your going to add to the number of hulls in the fleet might as well be something with some teeth....

Destroyer replacement was left off the ship building program, maybe it's time to add it on...lots of good designs out there....

[Smallc]

The destroyer replacement is part of the CSC and will start in the 2020s. The AOPS is a better more capable Kingston replacement.

[Army Guy]

you mean as a mine sweeper, or artic patrol ves.

[Smallc]

As a general 3 ocean patrol vessel. We don't have all that much need for a minesweeper.

[Derek 2.0]

I think someone should really question do we need AOP's to start with....There are rumors that the navy are'nt really excitied about this new class of boats, i've talked to a few SNR NCO's in Halifax , they had nothing good to say about the AOP's ,they would much rather have a covette take over the minual tasks....i tend to agree if your going to add to the number of hulls in the fleet might as well be something with some teeth....

There certainly is some back and forth on the AOPS requirement, but with the understanding that it’s not intended to be a surface combatant, the value of it in tasks less demanding will certainly make it useful……..Though I personally would have favored funding an additional Arctic icebreaker and additional Hero-class OPVs for the CCG, then replacing 1/3^rd -1/2 of the Kingston MCDVs with something along the lines as the littoral combat ship………this of course would cost substantially more, and would only offer a slight increase in capability over the mundane tasks the AOPS will fulfill.

Destroyer replacement was left off the ship building program, maybe it's time to add it on...lots of good designs out there....

As mentioned by Smallc, it has not........with that said, based on the generational gap between our Destroyers and Frigates, it probably should have been a standalone program.

[Derek 2.0]

As a general 3 ocean patrol vessel. We don't have all that much need for a minesweeper.

That's true to an extant.......with advancements in mine warfare, going forward, stand alone types won't be required, with new methods including UUVs, airborne systems and new sonar in both ships and subs.

[Army Guy]

There certainly is some back and forth on the AOPS requirement, but with the understanding that it’s not intended to be a surface combatant, the value of it in tasks less demanding will certainly make it useful……..Though I personally would have favored funding an additional Arctic icebreaker and additional Hero-class OPVs for the CCG, then replacing 1/3^rd -1/2 of the Kingston MCDVs with something along the lines as the littoral combat ship………this of course would cost substantially more, and would only offer a slight increase in capability over the mundane tasks the AOPS will fulfill.

As mentioned by Smallc, it has not........with that said, based on the generational gap between our Destroyers and Frigates, it probably should have been a standalone program.

And i think that is why it is not well liked in the Navy, like getting assigned to a tug or something lacks the adventure and all that goes with being a combat ves....which is why i think they would perfer a corvette of some sort, small, agile, still has teeth, i think it would offer so much more than a slow round AOP..... not sure Littoral ships come in that size do they?

Given the recent anoucements about the retirements of most of the destroyers one would think they would be pushing to fast track it.....if they did what design would you predict....

[Derek 2.0]

And i think that is why it is not well liked in the Navy, like getting assigned to a tug or something lacks the adventure and all that goes with being a combat ves....which is why i think they would perfer a corvette of some sort, small, agile, still has teeth, i think it would offer so much more than a slow round AOP..... not sure Littoral ships come in that size do they?

That probably does factor somewhat in personal opinions of some......The LCS is a corvette in all but name, the problem, they cost nearly as much as a Frigate and are far less capable..

Given the recent anoucements about the retirements of most of the destroyers one would think they would be pushing to fast track it.....if they did what design would you predict....

Warts and all, the 280s were expected to last a few years longer, but their material state worsened with the increased tempo with Operation Apollo, then the run of accidents over the last two years were the final nails in their coffins.

As to final design of the replacements, based on the already signed industrial agreements between Irving and various Defense giants, a presentation earlier this year in Ottawa, rumblings of Canada potentially reopening talks on missile defense, I would be very surprised if the final selection isn’t a hybrid of the Danish Iver Huitfeldt frigates, with LM2500 gas turbines and the AEGIS combat system and SPY-1F with a newer AESA upgrade.

[Smallc]

They won't fast track it, as the would derail the entire point of the program. We simply have to wait and live with 12 very improved frigates, 4 with C&C capability.

Edited September 22, 2014 by Smallc

[Army Guy]

Lots of new designs out there new British and french destroyers look very capable, also what of the US Arliegh burke class...also the Israelis have come out with a new mini covette, the SAAR 7 looks like it would have more teeth than a AOP. not sure if it would hold up to north atlantic weather....

Edited September 23, 2014 by Army Guy

[Army Guy]

They won't fast track it, as the would derail the entire point of the program. We simply have to wait and live with 12 very improved frigates, 4 with C&C capability.

Yes i get the whole idea behind the program, but like what has already been said they were counting on our current fleet of destroyers life span to be much longer...that and the fact oppositon has been chirping that something has to be done, NDP leader had a nice piece on it....not that one speach is going to change anything, but it may have them take a second look.

[Smallc]

There's really nothing that they can do to make it faster.

[Derek 2.0]

Lots of new designs out there new British and french destroyers look very capable, also what of the US Arliegh burke class...also the Israelis have come out with a new mini covette, the SAAR 7 looks like it would have more teeth than a AOP. not sure if it would hold up to north atlantic weather....

The problem with both the British (Type 45) and French (Horizon) destroyers is that they reliant upon British and French electronics, radars, propulsion, weapons etc……..Our navy’s preference is to share similar systems with the Americans, so as to realize greater savings from a larger production and support system (often with a large impact on Canadian divisions of larger American companies), synergies and interoperability with our largest ally and strategic security, in that during a large scale conflict, replacements are just a railhead away.

A flight III Burke would be the ideal replacement for our destroyers, but too costly (in both procurement and operation) to replace the entire fleet with. Why this is a problem, is that the navy wants a common root design to replace the destroyer and frigates to simplify training and the supply chain…..Along the lines as how the Burke class is the USN’s mainstay of their surface fleet, of course as already mentioned, Canada following a similar meme would be too costly.

Hence why the next best thing, would be a “baby Burke” grafted onto an affordable root design.

[Derek 2.0]

Yes i get the whole idea behind the program, but like what has already been said they were counting on our current fleet of destroyers life span to be much longer...that and the fact oppositon has been chirping that something has to be done, NDP leader had a nice piece on it....not that one speach is going to change anything, but it may have them take a second look.

As mentioned prior, the navy has been working on replacements for both the Destroyers and AORs since the 90s.......But as planned technology matured, the root design of the destroyer replacements (the Halifax class) proved to be unsuitable……….Likewise, the initial direction of the AORs, which were to a combined supply ship, amphibious assault vessel, strategic sealift, hospital ship and command ship………It’s better the initial concept of the JSS was stillborn, for what I feel our obvious reasons.

I haven’t seen the latest NDP proposal, but I wouldn’t hold my breath, but as mentioned by the higher ups, interim options are being looked at………

[Smallc]

Yeah, an AOR with a capable hospital facility is far better when you leave out the sealift (or most of it) and most definitely the amphibious assault.

As to a baby burke, that's exactly what I would expect we'll procure, given the relationship that Irving has formed with LM.

[Derek 2.0]

Yeah, an AOR with a capable hospital facility is far better when you leave out the sealift (or most of it) and most definitely the amphibious assault.

As to a baby burke, that's exactly what I would expect we'll procure, given the relationship that Irving has formed with LM.

Exactly, we need AORs for the navy……buy AORs…….We have a requirement for strategic sealift? Buy or lease a sealift vessel……We need the ability conduct amphibious warfare. Purchase a gator freighter……….the combining of all three roles into a single platform is the reason why the initial program folded under its own weight.

As I said, I’d be very surprised if we don’t procure some form of a “baby Burke”….

[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...

And this from CBC:

Canadian navy officers have turned to the U.S. navy to fill the gap, sources told CBC News.

The U.S. navy has two supply ships heading toward early retirement: the USNS Bridge and the USNS Rainier. The U.S. navy is retiring these two ships, built in the 1990s, to cut costs, it announced this summer.

Leasing the Rainier or Bridge would be a good idea, naval expert Ken Hansen said, because it would provide more capability at a lesser cost.

To add, just one of these two Supply Class AORs has nearly the combined displacement of both of our retired AORs……The intended purpose of the Supply Class was to replenish an entire Carrier Battlegroup, typically made up of a Super Carrier, cruiser and several destroyers and/or frigates……..if the deal goes through, it would be the largest ship ever commissioned into the RCN, dwarfing our previous aircraft carriers and cruisers.

[Smallc]

Would that mean possibly building the polar icebreaker first, then? Or possibly even the whole complement of so far slated CCG ships (the OFSV X 3, OOSV X 1, OPV X 5, and MMV X 5)?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Smallc

[bush_cheney2004]

…..if the deal goes through, it would be the largest ship ever commissioned into the RCN, dwarfing our previous aircraft carriers and cruisers.

No doubt...these T-AOEs are very large vessels with nearly half the displacement of a Nimitz Class carrier when fully loaded.

[Derek 2.0]

Would that mean possibly building the polar icebreaker first, then? Or possibly even the whole complement of so far slated CCG ships (the OFSV X 3, OOSV X 1, OPV X 5, and MMV X 5)?

The smaller CCG ships can be built concurrently on VanShips other slipways……..I doubt the icebreaker will be built first, for no other reason than the Queenstons are further along in the design process and need.......I could see the navy hanging onto the third AOR (well AOE) in an attempt to show the requirement for a third (or fourth) AOR.

[Derek 2.0]

No doubt...these T-AOEs are very large vessels with nearly half the displacement of a Nimitz Class carrier when fully loaded.

No doubt.......I performed VERTREPs on their (slightly smaller) predecessors in the 80s and 90s……….These beasts share the same engines as our current Halifax frigates, times two…….

[bush_cheney2004]

No doubt.......I performed VERTREPs on their (slightly smaller) predecessors in the 80s and 90s……….These beasts share the same engines as our current Halifax frigates, times two…….

That's how you get them to go fast.....four LM2500 gas turbines.

The first two of the previous Sacramento Class used leftover steam propulsion plants from WW2 era battleships to make that 25+ knots. These ships served for nearly 45 years, and were considered to be BIG FAT TARGETS.