Go Back   Defense Technology & Military Forum > Global Defense & Military > Navy & Maritime
Forgot Password? Join Us! Its's free!

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Miramar_14_MV-22_1621a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_1726a.JPG

Miramar_14_MV-22_0074a1.JPG

Miramar_14_FA-18C_0409a.JPG
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Recent Photos - DefenceTalk Military Gallery





Canadian Navy Spending Spree

This is a discussion on Canadian Navy Spending Spree within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; "Halifax's Irving Shipbuilding is getting the $25-billion contract to build 21 Canadian combat ships and Vancouver's Seaspan Marine has been ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old October 19th, 2011   #1
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Canadian Navy Spending Spree

"Halifax's Irving Shipbuilding is getting the $25-billion contract to build 21 Canadian combat ships and Vancouver's Seaspan Marine has been awarded an $8-billion contract for seven non-combat vessels, the federal government announced Wednesday afternoon."

Halifax, B.C. yards win shipbuilding work - Politics - CBC News

Any idea what the combat ships are going to comprise of? I understand the RCN decided not to get involved with the T26 programme and I doubt they will be building from scratch so they must be looking at partnering with an offshore design team.

At the end of WWII Canada had the worlds 4th largest Navy, looks like they plan to give the service a much needed boost.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #2
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
Posts: 1,666
Threads:
CBC News - Interactive: Shipbuilding

15 Frigates and Destroyers on a common hull. Budget $25 Billion. (Delivery 2021-)
6-8 Arctic patrol ships. Budget $3.1 Billion (Delivery 2015-2021)
2 JSS (plus one option). Budget $2.6 Billion (Delivery 2017-2018)
140m Icebreaker. Budget $720 Million (Delivery 2017)
3 Fisheries Vessels. Budget $244 Million (Delivery 2013-2016)
78.1m Hydrographic Vessel. Budget $120 Million (Delivery 2014)

Looks like all will be canadian built, though I don't think it mentions where the designs are coming from.

Quite an impressive build program. Now if AusGov could just place an order for an even dozen T26/CSC with construction at either Williamstown after the launch of the final AWD or ASC starting as soon as possible......
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 19th, 2011   #3
Defense Enthusiast
Chief Warrant Officer
SASWanabe's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 497
Threads:
Self Deleted. Stevo beat me to it
SASWanabe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #4
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevoJH View Post
CBC News - Interactive: Shipbuilding

15 Frigates and Destroyers on a common hull. Budget $25 Billion. (Delivery 2021-)
6-8 Arctic patrol ships. Budget $3.1 Billion (Delivery 2015-2021)
2 JSS (plus one option). Budget $2.6 Billion (Delivery 2017-2018)
140m Icebreaker. Budget $720 Million (Delivery 2017)
3 Fisheries Vessels. Budget $244 Million (Delivery 2013-2016)
78.1m Hydrographic Vessel. Budget $120 Million (Delivery 2014)

Looks like all will be canadian built, though I don't think it mentions where the designs are coming from.

Quite an impressive build program. Now if AusGov could just place an order for an even dozen T26/CSC with construction at either Williamstown after the launch of the final AWD or ASC starting as soon as possible......
The RN & RCN would be foolish not to cooperate on this order, there must be commonality between the two, particularly those slated as AsW platforms. Even if it meant the RN making changes to suit Canadian requirements. Havung a common hull of potentially 25+ ships to meet both T26 & the CSC requirement would save a load of cash.

With RN vessels expected to operate in the South Atlantic any additional hardening of the hulls required by the RCN would also fit the UK's requirement for a blue water go anywhere combatant.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #5
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
Posts: 1,666
Threads:
Add in the RAN and RNZN and you get a class size of ~38 ships, most of which will be in the Frigate configuration.

The RAN ships would be getting AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM rather then Artisan & CAMM though.
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #6
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevoJH View Post
Add in the RAN and RNZN and you get a class size of ~38 ships, most of which will be in the Frigate configuration.

The RAN ships would be getting AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM rather then Artisan & CAMM though.
I suspect Artisan + CAMM will work out cheaper than AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM, but then again I can't see the Canadians going for a European solution over SM-2/ESSM. This could end up a win, win situation for both the RAN & RNZN, both need to be able to operate in unforgiving Oceans like the Canadians so there has to be a degree of commonality.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #7
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
Posts: 1,666
Threads:
Yes, Artisan will probably work out cheaper then AUSPAR, from memory AUSPAR has been mentioned as a possible SPY-1 successor.....so its probably a lot more capable as well.

But if the RAN and Australian Government want AUSPAR, they'll probably get it.
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #8
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevoJH View Post
Yes, Artisan will probably work out cheaper then AUSPAR, from memory AUSPAR has been mentioned as a possible SPY-1 successor.....so its probably a lot more capable as well.

But if the RAN and Australian Government want AUSPAR, they'll probably get it.
FLAADS M on the plus side is relatively simple to install and can dovetail with a wide range of sensors. It might prove an attractive option for smaller combatants or as a retrofit should circumstances dictate a sudden upgrade (Ice breakers if the search for oil in the Arctic turns nasty). What ever sensor array the RCN chose they could dovetail in CAMM quad packs. That might provie attractive in a fitted for but not with vessel for self-defence to deal with the arrows, if not the bowmen.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #9
Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,398
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
FLAADS M on the plus side is relatively simple to install and can dovetail with a wide range of sensors. It might prove an attractive option for smaller combatants or as a retrofit should circumstances dictate a sudden upgrade (Ice breakers if the search for oil in the Arctic turns nasty). What ever sensor array the RCN chose they could dovetail in CAMM quad packs. That might provie attractive in a fitted for but not with vessel for self-defence to deal with the arrows, if not the bowmen.
CAMM is set to quad pack in either Mk41 or Sylver and it's very sensor agnostic so the choice of radar and silos doesn't have to be impacted. It'd be very easy to order something entirely hung around SM2 and ESSM and then integrate CAMM after the fact.

As long as there's some sort of a radar and a means to tap into the datalink for CAMM, it should work fine.

All the interviews with the Type 26 design team seem to indicate they'd paint the thing in pink and fitted with nerf darts if they think it'd meet customer spec so I'm utterly certain the RCN could get a design that'd work.

Canada did however, rule out an international partnership over Type 26 about a year ago. I'm not sure *what* they'd want to do then - not sure what the reasons were but it was a pretty public thing more or less the week that a UK minister was making encouraging noises.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #10
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 5,599
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by riksavage View Post
I suspect Artisan + CAMM will work out cheaper than AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM, but then again I can't see the Canadians going for a European solution over SM-2/ESSM.
Did the Canadians ever formally abandon the APAR programme? If there's still a Canadian stake in it, the APAR/SMART-L/SM-2/ESSM track might be attractive for the destroyers, with a cut-down ESSM-only version for frigates.

APAR will need updating by the time construction starts, but that should happen anyway, & work on it gives Canada a way back in as a major partner.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #11
New Member
Private
JTF-2's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 15
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevoJH View Post
Add in the RAN and RNZN and you get a class size of ~38 ships, most of which will be in the Frigate configuration.

The RAN ships would be getting AUSPAR and SM-2/ESSM rather then Artisan & CAMM though.
Are those 2 navies ready for an upgrade to there fleet?
JTF-2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #12
Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,398
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTF-2 View Post
Are those 2 navies ready for an upgrade to there fleet?
Both navies need replacement for their Anzac frigates, which are Meko designs adapted locally - they're still viable but out of of growth margin and will need replacing in the timeframe for Type 26. I suspect that the Australians will take a GP variant of the F100 design they selected for the Hobarts - and that by commutation, the NZ Navy will pick up whatever the Australian forces select.

I have to say, if Canada, Australia and New Zealand did go with the Type 26, I'd pay, like Hooooooj amounts for a print of four of the ships (including the RN one) in line abreast. I'm not unusually sentimental about the commonwealth but I do take pleasure in reading about any of the ones I've just listed doing well, as I have relatives in all of them. So, please, make an old and not very bright man happy and buy the bloody ship..

Ian
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #13
Senior Member
Brigadier General
StevoJH's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW
Posts: 1,666
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JTF-2 View Post
Are those 2 navies ready for an upgrade to there fleet?
The ANZAC's will need replacing beginning in the early to mid 2020's.

But as Stobiewan has said, the current ASMD upgrade is completely using up whatever is left of their growth margins.

I should be noted that there is actually space for an extra 8 VLS cells on board, but not the weight margin to actually fit them.
StevoJH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #14
Defense Professional / Analyst
General
Abraham Gubler's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,238
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by StobieWan View Post
I have to say, if Canada, Australia and New Zealand did go with the Type 26, I'd pay, like Hooooooj amounts for a print of four of the ships (including the RN one) in line abreast. I'm not unusually sentimental about the commonwealth but I do take pleasure in reading about any of the ones I've just listed doing well, as I have relatives in all of them. So, please, make an old and not very bright man happy and buy the bloody ship..
And that and BAE's bottom line is the only strong argument for such a buy. I would much prefer to see the RAN getting the ship they really need that can be built and sustained in Australia rather than all this nonsense. I'm pretty sure the Canadians think the same.
Abraham Gubler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 20th, 2011   #15
Moderator
Major General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,398
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Abraham Gubler View Post
And that and BAE's bottom line is the only strong argument for such a buy. I would much prefer to see the RAN getting the ship they really need that can be built and sustained in Australia rather than all this nonsense. I'm pretty sure the Canadians think the same.

What do you think they need then? That's an honest question - from the perspective of self interest, as long as we get an approximately Type 23 replacement with bigger teeth, I'm happy.

From the perspective of Australia/NZ - am I on the nail in suggesting a GP Hobart is the most likely possibility?


On a Canadian perspective - I've no idea - they need some sort of ship - a box, of the right size with space for the right sensors and weapons - what do you think is most likely for the RCN?

Ian
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:58 AM.