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

Defense News
Land, Air & Naval Forces






Military Photos
Latest Military Pictures

Yuma_17_UH-1Y_4516-1.jpg

Yuma_17_F-35B_5220-1.jpg

Yuma_17_MV-22_1778-1.jpg

Yuma_17_PT-17_3864-1.jpg
Defense Reports
Aerospace & Defence







Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

This is a discussion on Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates within the Navy & Maritime forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; It appears that Canadian defence force is reinstating the Royal prefix for the Navy and Airforce, after 43 years in ...


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old August 15th, 2011   #61
Defense Aficionado
Major General
t68's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: NSW
Posts: 2,443
Threads:
It appears that Canadian defence force is reinstating the Royal prefix for the Navy and Airforce, after 43 years in the wilderness, I wonder how those in defence feel about this I cannot imagine that there would be too many people still serving pre 68, but it is nice to see a clear distinction from the service.

Navy, air force to get back old ‘royal’ names - thestar.com
t68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 16th, 2011   #62
Banned Member
Colonel
No Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Singapore
Posts: 1,452
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by t68 View Post
It appears that Canadian defence force is reinstating the Royal prefix for the Navy and Airforce, after 43 years in the wilderness, I wonder how those in defence feel about this I cannot imagine that there would be too many people still serving pre 68, but it is nice to see a clear distinction from the service.

Navy, air force to get back old ‘royal’ names - thestar.com
Reading the feedback in the Canadian media, the response appears positive. The only negative comments are coming from the usual suspects residing in Quebec.

The single service concept has never gone down well amongst many retired and serving personnel. Connection to past heroics and military heritage remains important (WWI, II, Korea).

I wonder if the rank badges will change back - crown for major for example? Other than for senior NCO's the crown was replaced by the maple leaf or bars similar to commonwealth airforces.
riksavage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 25th, 2011   #63
New Member
Private
JTF-2's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 15
Threads:
This is just a name change and nothing else appears to be changing.
JTF-2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2013   #64
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,752
Threads:
The design for the Canadian Joint Support Ship project has been selected, the Berlin class (Type 702) replenishment ship from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems to replace the current Protecteur class AOR.

Second attempt at Canadian JSS project moves ahead - News - Shephard

Quote:
The Canadian DND announced the decision in early June and new design images for the JSS were released by TKMS on 10 June.

The company said that it would ‘prepare the design package which Canada will provide to Vancouver Shipyards to review in preparation for actual production’.

Vancouver Shipyards was chosen by the DND in 2010 to build the two JSS as part of its National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy that will ensure Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) ships are built in Canada. There is an option for a third ship.

Once the designs have been reviewed, the DND will acquire the licensing for the 702 design to allow the shipyard and DND to use the ship-design and build, operate, and maintain the JSS. A production contract is expected in 2015-16 with initial operating capability due in 2019. The JSS project was started in 2010 and valued at CAD$2.6bn ($2.5bn).
The Berlin class beat the design from the Aegir family from BMT Defence & the Cantabria class from Navantia.

Some basic specs for the Berlin class AOR.
  • 20,000t+
  • 173.7m long
  • 24m beam
  • Cargo capacity
    • 7850t of fuel
    • 1330t of water
    • 280t of cargo
    • 220t ammunition
    • 150t of lubricants
  • Capacity for 2 Sea King sized helicopters

I'd be quite interested to know what Canada plans on doing for its plan to replace their Halifax + Iroquois class warships as the Type 26 isn't an option.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2013   #65
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,826
Threads:
Ditto - I'm baffled as to why Canada bailed so early in the T26/GCS program when they could have inserted any requirements easily.Their icebreaking/hull strength requirements are relatively unique, as is their requirement to be operable on two oceans for a relatively regional power.

I'm sure there's a MOTS design that might tick some of the boxes however,

Ian
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2013   #66
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,752
Threads:
AFAIK one of the things counted against it was that there wasn't a dedicated AAW variant being produced, it does seem a bit weird considering that by then there'd only been some some concept art produced and a couple of vague numbers about displacement.

I'd be surprised if - come 2015 and the final design is published - that they don't at least look back at the design. It's only recently we've seen BAE be keen to demonstrate things like the mast can handle active phased array radar systems.

I still reckon they need to expand the main missile silo to make it more exportable.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 14th, 2013   #67
Super Moderator
Brigadier General
AegisFC's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Virginia
Posts: 1,995
Threads:
Considering their experience with the Victoria's I doubt that is a politically acceptable option.

Also, Canada has helped pay for APAR, so that is likely to be the favored sensor suite.
________________
"The beatings will continue until morale improves."
Forum rules, read them!
AegisFC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2013   #68
Super Moderator
General
swerve's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 6,472
Threads:
So . . . a mishandled purchase of secondhand, stored for years, submarines is an impediment to buying new frigates? Different product, different supplier. If the Canadians don't understand that, it's unfortunate, but it wouldn't exactly inspire confidence in the rationality of their purchasing decisions.

And why is a likely Canadian preference for APAR a problem? BAe has now seen sense & started pushing the ability of the design to incorporate different sensor suites.
swerve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2013   #69
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,752
Threads:
It might not be so clear from the general publics point of view, say for example we bought second hand SSKs of someone like the French and we kept hearing about how they didn't work despite the amount of money spent on them, would you then be happy to buy frigates from France?

I mean, I get it's a bad example, but that's what i'd imagine the case being. Plus I reckon the smiley got lost in translation

APAR can work, so that's not an issue. The bigger issue - in my mind - is the same trouble why we'd be hard pushed to flog them to other Commonwealth nations; size of the main missile silo.

EDIT: Apparently they're due to start building the Halifax/Iroquois ships in 2016, better get a move on.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2013   #70
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,826
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
AFAIK one of the things counted against it was that there wasn't a dedicated AAW variant being produced, it does seem a bit weird considering that by then there'd only been some some concept art produced and a couple of vague numbers about displacement.

I'd be surprised if - come 2015 and the final design is published - that they don't at least look back at the design. It's only recently we've seen BAE be keen to demonstrate things like the mast can handle active phased array radar systems.

I still reckon they need to expand the main missile silo to make it more exportable.
Well, yeah - it was at such an early stage in proceedings it seemed hard to understand - worse, a British minister had just come back rubbing his hands and stating that he was confident he could make an announcement in the coming weeks about a partnership of some sort, when Canada made a rather sniffy sounding statement that GCS didn't tick the box, move along, nothing to see here...

With the Upholders, unfortunately perceptions are hard to shift - I know they were very good boats in service and a bit of a blow to lose but I doubt Joe Public is aware of that. Australia had a good chance to look 'em over before turning them down and there's no suggestion of any deception - they'd just been left to rot and their material condition was well known. However, again, does Joe Public understand that ?

I suspect the Canadians generally feel a bit aggrieved and hold the perception they were sold a pup and nothing is going to shift that. Sadly, that may well transfer to that whole "designed in Britain" tag

Silo wise, really depends on what you're after - 24 strike length cells (discarding the CAMM fit) means a possible 96 ESSM for instance. I don't know the weight comparisons for the CAMM silos on Type 26 but I'd guess you could work in another pair of Mk41' SDLS length for another 16 cells with no major fuss in a ship that size.

That's 48 cells, half of which can take anything up to TLAM and SM3, half of which can do ASROC and ESSM.

FREMM is packing 32 Sylver, split on similar lines. Hobart has 48 silos - same as the Daring in fact. The whole quad packed ESSM has driven down the number of silos you need to sensibly provide for. I think Type 26 has a fairly competitive capacity and if you're after more, there's room (you may have to take stuff out of other places but Type 26 is a fairly large, roomy sort of a design - and the team seem very open to any input from an export customer.)
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2013   #71
Senior Member
Major
harryriedl's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: london
Posts: 1,018
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobWilliams View Post
The design for the Canadian Joint Support Ship project has been selected, the Berlin class (Type 702) replenishment ship from ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems to replace the current Protecteur class AOR.

Second attempt at Canadian JSS project moves ahead - News - Shephard



The Berlin class beat the design from the Aegir family from BMT Defence & the Cantabria class from Navantia.

Some basic specs for the Berlin class AOR.
  • 20,000t+
  • 173.7m long
  • 24m beam
  • Cargo capacity
    • 7850t of fuel
    • 1330t of water
    • 280t of cargo
    • 220t ammunition
    • 150t of lubricants
  • Capacity for 2 Sea King sized helicopters

I'd be quite interested to know what Canada plans on doing for its plan to replace their Halifax + Iroquois class warships as the Type 26 isn't an option.
The big thing which comes out of this to me is that IOC isn't till 2019 when the Proctures are on their last legs and if I remember correctly one is out of service already. I would have thought the Korean yards could have given a much earlier IOC also a larger tonnage might have made more sense 35K tons vs 20K.

Similarly mystified by the of ducking the T26 a Euro Frigate as an alternative I can imagine LCS or Japanese or Korean equivalent unless they desgine their own but I can hardly imagine that's the most desirable option
________________
Colin McRae 1961-2007 true champion
Unofficial Royal navy cheering section
harryriedl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2013   #72
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,826
Threads:
They seem hell bent on home build, which is odd because they don't have enough throughput to keep an industry ticking over I'd have said, so you'd be staffing up for a short run followed by laying everyone off and starting again twenty years later. The home build approach has meant some stiff program costs because they've had to do a lot of changes and improvements in yards - a lot of which I guess will carry through to the future destroyer builds ?

Personally, yeah, I'd have gone for a Korean build, home fitted option, same as we did for MARS, and maybe done the same for the destroyers - get the steel bent some other place, do the added value stuff at home. I'm assuming this is a big social/jobs/votes approach ?
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2013   #73
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
RobWilliams's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 2,752
Threads:
Their current AORs are pretty old, they're commissioned in 1969/1970. There was even a rumour that apparently the Canadian government says the costs could go up to $4 BILLION because of the delays (but it's currently expected to be closer to $2.9billion. Canadian dollars presumably but even so. I'll try find the link.

Still. $2.9bn for 2 AORs with maybe a third? (Just gunna add in that the 4 Korean built 30,000+t tankers are projected for $800mn CAD all in) Hardly the best way to spend funds in this economic climate, as valuable as these ships are.

One argument against the Type 26 was that there was issues about the project being seen as threatening Canadian shipbuilders, but this seems more of a red herring as Canada would have built her ships anyway. Another point was that they would like to retain an indiginous ship design capability, but they made the selection of a German design for their AOR replacement?

I'll be interested to see where they go, that's for sure. Still say it was premature to discount the Type 26 so early.
RobWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 15th, 2013   #74
Super Moderator
Lieutenant General
No Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,826
Threads:
Well, apparently there were designs being chucked about for what was rather speculatively known as the Province class so they have spent money and done work on designs - so there could credibly be a nascent design team on tap.

We'll see what emerges I guess.
StobieWan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18th, 2013   #75
Senior Member
Brigadier General
John Fedup's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 1,731
Threads:
Quote:
Originally Posted by harryriedl View Post
The big thing which comes out of this to me is that IOC isn't till 2019 when the Proctures are on their last legs and if I remember correctly one is out of service already. I would have thought the Korean yards could have given a much earlier IOC also a larger tonnage might have made more sense 35K tons vs 20K.

Similarly mystified by the of ducking the T26 a Euro Frigate as an alternative I can imagine LCS or Japanese or Korean equivalent unless they desgine their own but I can hardly imagine that's the most desirable option
The west coast shipyard tasked with building the JSS-AOR ships is also building the new polar class icebreaker. The problem is the yard can only build one ship at a time. As both are urgently required it might make sense to start the icebreaker first and bid on the new supply ship (Karl Doorman) that the Dutch plan to sell off due to budget cuts.
John Fedup is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:52 PM.