Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Xthenaki

Active Member
It is interesting to contemplate where new frigates would be constructed in 8 - 10 years time if the political crisis deepened in Asia and a war zone existed. A shortage with build and supply would occur
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
It is interesting to contemplate where new frigates would be constructed in 8 - 10 years time if the political crisis deepened in Asia and a war zone existed. A shortage with build and supply would occur
Probably the Euro builders would be the only option assuming none of them were involved in any potential troubles in Asia, possibly a doubtful assumption.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
It is interesting to contemplate where new frigates would be constructed in 8 - 10 years time if the political crisis deepened in Asia and a war zone existed. A shortage with build and supply would occur
Such discussions should be in the appropriate thread and not derail the Canadian thread.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Your point about torpedo stowage is well taken. That would need to be addressed. The CH-148 can carry two Mk 46/54 torpedoes. AOPS (with TRAPS) detects, sends the helo, which confirms with its own sensors. If a decision is made to engage, the helo drops a torpedo. All this will need to be tested and SOPs developed, of course, but all the core capability is there now. I should add that TRAPS has already been tested on a Kingston class:

Acoustic Systems from Our Canadian Friends


Further to this, HMCS Harry DeWolf is currently developing SOPs for ASW, of which the CH-148 will apparently feature prominently. Here is a pic of CH-148 landed on HDW during those trials, with torpedoes loaded (likely dummy rounds). For those interested, the roundel on the side of the helicopter "AETE/CETA" indicates the helicopter is under command of the Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment. They would be fully involved in any testing and trial activities in order to validate the operational envelope and "certify" the helicopter for these types of operations aboard the AOPV class of ships.

Picture is courtesy of CF Combat Camera.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

Git_Kraken

Member
Further to this, HMCS Harry DeWolf is currently developing SOPs for ASW, of which the CH-148 will apparently feature prominently. Here is a pic of CH-148 landed on HDW during those trials, with torpedoes loaded (likely practice rounds). For those interested, the roundel on the side of the helicopter "AETE/CETA" indicates the helicopter is under command of the Aerospace Engineering Test Establishment. They would be fully involved in any testing and trial activities in order to validate the operational envelope and "certify" the helicopter for these types of operations aboard the AOPV class of ships.

Picture is courtesy of CF Combat Camera.
Those are training torps. Adding torpedos changes how the helo responds to take-off and landing due to the weight and airflow over the aircraft All part of the SHOL qualification for the ship. Still, no idea where they would store torpedos on HDW but take-off and landing with torpedos on the helicopter is good policy. Never know when you might need to have that information available.

I love how the Cyclone can carry two torpedos and still use its HELRAS dipping sonar. One of the reason they wanted such a large helo. Find and prosecute a target, instead of one or the other.

Love the pic @Calculus
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
CH-148 trials are currently underway for the AOPV (AOPS). This is a significant capability - the CH-148 is a large machine, larger than an MH-60.

Courtesy RCN Twitter feed:
This helo, combined with this (TRAPS - Towed Reelable Active/Passive Sonar - GeoSpectrum Technologies Inc), gives the AOPV class of ships the capability to both detect and prosecute an enemy submarine.
Looks like Kraken is getting in to the containerized solution game, similar to Geospectrum above: Kraken and SH Defense Sign Cooperation Agreement for Containerized MCM Solutions

Tons of innovation and world leading sonar technology being developed AND marketed out of Canada now. Below are the major players, and I've only listed the products that were designed and built in Canada.

Geospectrum: Defence & Surveillance - GeoSpectrum Technologies Inc
Kraken: Synthetic Aperture Sonar - Kraken Robotics
General Dynamics Canada: Hull Mounted Sonar - General Dynamics Mission Systems-Canada, Towed Array Sonar - General Dynamics Mission Systems-Canada
Ultra Electronics Canada: Ultra awarded contract to provide Towed Low Frequency Active Sonar for Canadian Surface Combatants – Vanguard
 
Last edited:

Git_Kraken

Member
As discussed earlier in this thread, and as predicted by the purchase of 4 sets of radar/Aegis/CEC Canada has begun negotiations for the first group of three CSC. Contract to be signed in ~2023.


Cue wringing hands or snarky remarks about Canadian procurement....lol

I personally don't think the project will be cancelled after three, because Canada can't afford to not build them given there is no plan B. However, there could be a reduction in capability after the first three. Or conversely, the first three are not fully kitted out as expected but the follow on group of four fix those issues.
 
Last edited:

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
As discussed earlier in this thread, and as predicted by the purchase of 4 sets of radar/Aegis/CEC Canada has begun negotiations for the first group of three CSC. Contract to be signed in ~2023.


Cue wringing hands or snarky remarks about Canadian procurement....lol

I personally don't think the project will be cancelled after three, because Canada can't afford to not build them given there is no plan B (cue someone talking. However, there could be a reduction in capability after the first three. Or conversely, the first three are not fully kitted out as expected but the follow on group of four fix those issues.
Don’t think all the MTU diesels or RR turbines have been ordered either. Given the production rate for the CSCs, is it really necessary to place orders for 15 MT30s and 60 (I think it is 4 per ship) all at once?
 

Git_Kraken

Member
I think it's highly unlikely they do that. Given this build program is going to go on for at least 20 years it would be smart project managing only buying what you are contracted for. Costs change and so does equipment. I fully expect that by the end of the CSC run some equipment that was at the start of the run is either obsolete, no longer produced or upgraded to be better.
 

oldsig127

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Don’t think all the MTU diesels or RR turbines have been ordered either. Given the production rate for the CSCs, is it really necessary to place orders for 15 MT30s and 60 (I think it is 4 per ship) all at once?
Definitely something you *don't* do. Look at the consequences for the Australian AWD program of the insistence on buying everything up front

oldsig
 

Albedo

Active Member
I think it's highly unlikely they do that. Given this build program is going to go on for at least 20 years it would be smart project managing only buying what you are contracted for. Costs change and so does equipment. I fully expect that by the end of the CSC run some equipment that was at the start of the run is either obsolete, no longer produced or upgraded to be better.
That's why I always find it short-sighted when articles fixate on the risk in choosing the Type 26, a design that is just starting production, rather than choosing a fully debugged design with several examples in the water. The increased front-end risk with lower design maturity is offset by lower back-end risk by delaying design obsolescence. And with multiple Type 26 users on a similar production/operating time-line, if major shared components like engines are discontinued, Canada won't have to bear the redesign costs of incorporating new engines alone.
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I think it's highly unlikely they do that. Given this build program is going to go on for at least 20 years it would be smart project managing only buying what you are contracted for. Costs change and so does equipment. I fully expect that by the end of the CSC run some equipment that was at the start of the run is either obsolete, no longer produced or upgraded to be better.
Never underestimate the idiocy of politicians. Time and time again they have deep sixed procurement programs for purely political gain and ideology regardless of the cost already expended, nor future costs to the country. The cancellation of the USAF F-22 program, TSR in the UK, scrapping of the RNZAF ACF etc. Look at the RCAF Hornet replacement; how long has that fiasco been going on and how much taxpayers money has been spent by the government trying to find a solution that is politically acceptable to certain senior members of the government? Same in the UK, in fact the poms are very good at wasting billions of taxpayers money on projects that are as useful as nipples on a bull or get cancelled or both.
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
As discussed earlier in this thread, and as predicted by the purchase of 4 sets of radar/Aegis/CEC Canada has begun negotiations for the first group of three CSC. Contract to be signed in ~2023.


Cue wringing hands or snarky remarks about Canadian procurement....lol

I personally don't think the project will be cancelled after three, because Canada can't afford to not build them given there is no plan B. However, there could be a reduction in capability after the first three. Or conversely, the first three are not fully kitted out as expected but the follow on group of four fix those issues.
More on this, specific to the land-based training facility mentioned in the link in @Git_Kraken's post: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/warship-systems-test-facility-hartlen-point-1.6058990
 
Last edited:

Git_Kraken

Member
More on this, specific to the land-based training facility mentioned in the link in @Git_Kraken's post: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/warship-systems-test-facility-hartlen-point-1.6058990
Hartlen Point is an excellent place to do this sort of work. Sailed and driven* past it so many times. It's well placed to monitor the airspace approaches to Shearwater Airbase, Halifax Airport (further north), and the harbor. I don't think it would be used for that operationally, but if one were wanting to practice using equipment for training/testing you're going to have lots of contacts. There is also room to expand, so any other equipment could be trialed there as you expand capabilities.

*driven in golf context. It's right beside a golf course.... lol
 
Last edited:

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Nice ship but i cant help but think that "push button" telegraphs are an incident waiting to happen.
In these days of remote control when the ships driver is using the controls (as opposed to conning) nothing is more logical than pushing forward when you want to move forward and pulling back when reversing, its a natural movement requiring no eye contact.
I know this is old, but I have not, until now, found a picture of the AOPV bridge where the "lever" style EOTs were visible. There are two stations, apparently, port and starboard, for the "finesse" type ship driving. Picture below (attribution embedded) shows the starboard station.
 

Attachments

Top