Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
If even half this article is correct, the RCN will be ship short in the future. I can’t see where the money is going to come from to actually build the needed 15 ships. The JSS ships are likely over budget as well and the government still thinks it can buy 8 SSKs next decade. Money is also needed for F-35s and P-8s not to mention the thousands of new homes required for all the immigrants and refugees junior has invited in. The Canadian economy will be vulnerable to the erratic behaviour of a potential 2nd Trump term. One has to wonder why any opposition leader would want to step into the mess junior has created. Defence contractors no doubt see dark times ahead.

 

shadow99

Member
If even half this article is correct, the RCN will be ship short in the future. I can’t see where the money is going to come from to actually build the needed 15 ships. The JSS ships are likely over budget as well and the government still thinks it can buy 8 SSKs next decade. Money is also needed for F-35s and P-8s not to mention the thousands of new homes required for all the immigrants and refugees junior has invited in. The Canadian economy will be vulnerable to the erratic behaviour of a potential 2nd Trump term. One has to wonder why any opposition leader would want to step into the mess junior has created. Defence contractors no doubt see dark times ahead.

The costs are staggering, but any story from David Pugliese will be all doom and gloom.
It would be nice if he could find something positive to say, or at least go a little deeper in his articles, but at the end of the day its a business and he needs reads/views to justify his job.

Junior certainly has made a mess and I will be glad when he's gone. It can't come soon enough. Saying no to F35's then asking for used f18's from Australia was a strange one for sure and a waste of money. Unfortunately PM's are all cut from the same cloth, and the previous PM's haven't done much better wasting millions for political gains.

Decisions to not have continuous shipbuilding, or have ships built when replacements are needed adds to the cost and creates un-necessary problems.
What were seeing today are from the seeds that were not planted by past governments. Of course it will be expensive, especially when they have all the major projects coming on all at the same time. Its their plan all along.

So many repeated boneheaded decisions over decades to save money then costing much more in the long run, shows me that PM's are the liability here. As Canadians, were constantly loosing money that could be better spent.

At the end of the day there is money, just not for the military.
Its embarrassing a country the size of Canada can't manage 2% GDP for its military.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
The costs are staggering, but any story from David Pugliese will be all doom and gloom.
It would be nice if he could find something positive to say, or at least go a little deeper in his articles, but at the end of the day its a business and he needs reads/views to justify his job.

Junior certainly has made a mess and I will be glad when he's gone. It can't come soon enough. Saying no to F35's then asking for used f18's from Australia was a strange one for sure and a waste of money. Unfortunately PM's are all cut from the same cloth, and the previous PM's haven't done much better wasting millions for political gains.

Decisions to not have continuous shipbuilding, or have ships built when replacements are needed adds to the cost and creates un-necessary problems.
What were seeing today are from the seeds that were not planted by past governments. Of course it will be expensive, especially when they have all the major projects coming on all at the same time. Its their plan all along.

So many repeated boneheaded decisions over decades to save money then costing much more in the long run, shows me that PM's are the liability here. As Canadians, were constantly loosing money that could be better spent.

At the end of the day there is money, just not for the military.
Its embarrassing a country the size of Canada can't manage 2% GDP for its military.
The 2% GDP for defence will never be possible as long as bleeding heart socialists demand massive funds for refugees relief, support for drug addicts who reject rehab, and whining citizens that what all sorts of free $hit at taxpayer expense. As for pollies, useless SOS, regardless of party affiliation.
As for David Pugliese’s doom and gloom reporting, yes he is guilty of that but much of the information seems to be coming from numerous insiders which might be accurate. I hope not but given junior’s history…….
 
Last edited:

shadow99

Member
as long as bleeding heart socialists demand massive funds for refugees relief, support for drug addicts who reject rehab, and whining citizens that what all sorts of free $hit at taxpayer expense
This line is so true and made me laugh, thank you.

As for David Pugliese’s doom and gloom reporting, yes he is guilty of that but much of the information seems to be coming from numerous insiders which might be accurate. I hope not but given junior’s history…….
Unfortunately given Juniors history the article is likely accurate and the realities what the Navy wants and what it costs, do not align.
With most of the info. censored its hard to see where the money goes but I really hope its money well spent and not padding pockets.

I'd still like to see a positive article from David Pugliese but I don't think he has it in him. He never seems to look for anything positive and with so much negativity in the world I tend to tune him out.
 
If even half this article is correct, the RCN will be ship short in the future. I can’t see where the money is going to come from to actually build the needed 15 ships. The JSS ships are likely over budget as well and the government still thinks it can buy 8 SSKs next decade. Money is also needed for F-35s and P-8s not to mention the thousands of new homes required for all the immigrants and refugees junior has invited in. The Canadian economy will be vulnerable to the erratic behaviour of a potential 2nd Trump term. One has to wonder why any opposition leader would want to step into the mess junior has created. Defence contractors no doubt see dark times ahead.

So we are going to get at least 3 ships in the first flight, long lead equipment has been ordered for it. When the contract is signed, it will only be for 3 ships not the total amount. Three ships will take 10 to 14 years to build, a lot can happen in that time period and stretching the budget over that period of time is more acceptable than everything up front.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
So we are going to get at least 3 ships in the first flight, long lead equipment has been ordered for it. When the contract is signed, it will only be for 3 ships not the total amount. Three ships will take 10 to 14 years to build, a lot can happen in that time period and stretching the budget over that period of time is more acceptable than everything up front.
HMCS Halifax was commissioned in 1992, so the ship has been operational for 32 years. If construction started today Halifax will be close to 40 years old by the time it is replaced. This is an optimistic time estimate. Yes, the cost will be spread out over time but $1-2 billion per year will be on top of the current $19 billion deficit. Add in other expensive programs, F-35, P-8s and new tankers together with social spending such as subsidised dental care, urgently needed funding more healthcare and new housing....not a pretty outlook. A potential Trump return could mean trade friction with our largest trade partner leading to further economic constraints. As I have said before, I doubt 15 ships will be built. Any future government, regardless of party, can always justify a smaller number as the RCN only has 12 frigates now. If subs are actually going to be purchased, it won't be 8 boats, more likely 4 and that could lead to a further cut in CSC in order to pay for them. Things could worse if a new government decides to go with a new less expensive and capable frigate. The less capable spec will be met, the less expensive part, not bloody likely and of course delivery will be even further away. I realize this is a pessimistic outlook but given our defence procurement record during the last 30 plus years......a realistic one. :(
 
Sorry Trump is not going to be the next president, too much going against him. There will be several CPF's "self paid" off in the next 5 years and more than likely more than that. It will under the guise of alongside 180 days notice for power, like what they did with Huron. 15 ships will certainly be built, at least 3 will be CSC and IF the program is cancelled a more inexpensive option will be purchased and built in Canada. We'll have 6 AOPS, 5 East Coast and 1 West Coast. Some Kingston Class will soldier on for at least the next decade, the replacement project is not even being looked at currently. Victoria Class will keep going and I say we'll ask for 8, settle for 6 replacements. 2 JSS and Asterix given back to Federal Fleet. Canada wise there will be some sort of government change hopefully in the next two years but really impossible to predict the status of projects in a decade.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Sorry Trump is not going to be the next president, too much going against him. There will be several CPF's "self paid" off in the next 5 years and more than likely more than that. It will under the guise of alongside 180 days notice for power, like what they did with Huron. 15 ships will certainly be built, at least 3 will be CSC and IF the program is cancelled a more inexpensive option will be purchased and built in Canada. We'll have 6 AOPS, 5 East Coast and 1 West Coast. Some Kingston Class will soldier on for at least the next decade, the replacement project is not even being looked at currently. Victoria Class will keep going and I say we'll ask for 8, settle for 6 replacements. 2 JSS and Asterix given back to Federal Fleet. Canada wise there will be some sort of government change hopefully in the next two years but really impossible to predict the status of projects in a decade.
Any cancellation of CSCs in favour of a cheaper design will in fact probably cost as much or more when the resulting delay induces inflation costs. Cutting the build number would be unfortunate but a better solution plus CSC is more capable.

As for Trump not getting a second term, hopefully not but I don’t share your optimism. I see fragmentation looming wrt the Democratic Party over Palestine, the border, and economic issues. The GOP a$$kissers are all mostly unified and happy having Trump pull their strings. Those that aren’t are too chicken $hit to speak up.
 
Last edited:

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
That discussion started long before the Houthi attacks. Almost from the day the design was selected there have been suggestions that it should have another 16 cells. To date that proposal, which has featured in Senate hearings, has been firmly rebuffed by DoD and the Navy.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
That discussion started long before the Houthi attacks. Almost from the day the design was selected there have been suggestions that it should have another 16 cells. To date that proposal, which has featured in Senate hearings, has been firmly rebuffed by DoD and the Navy.
It’s DND, not the American DoD. RCN officers are not allowed to tell the pollies they are wrong, at least in public where it may do some good.
 

Sender

Member
There are no plans to have another 16 cells added to the CSC's first flight of three, the 24 cells will stand.
Let's not forget there are an additional 6 cells directly aft of the funnel, adding 24 CAMM to the mix. There are 30 cells (24 MK41 + 6 ExLS) on CSC Flight 1.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Let's not forget there are an additional 6 cells directly aft of the funnel, adding 24 CAMM to the mix. There are 30 cells (24 MK41 + 6 ExLS) on CSC Flight 1.
In blue waters protecting other ships from subs, the current missile configuration is probably ok. Assisting allied ships in a Taiwan invasion scenario or other missions where land launched missiles can be fired in significant numbers, I gave my doubts. Hopefully I am wrong.
 

Sender

Member
In blue waters protecting other ships from subs, the current missile configuration is probably ok. Assisting allied ships in a Taiwan invasion scenario or other missions where land launched missiles can be fired in significant numbers, I gave my doubts. Hopefully I am wrong.
Don't disagree. Just correcting the record with regards to the number of cells on the Flight 1 CSCs. 24 CAMM plus up to 96 ESSM is still a pretty potent mix.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Don't disagree. Just correcting the record with regards to the number of cells on the Flight 1 CSCs. 24 CAMM plus up to 96 ESSM is still a pretty potent mix.
More likely 48 ESSM maximum and 12 SM2 for the Mk41 along with the 24 CAMM. Maybe SM6 later. Flight 2 might see SM3 for BMD.
 
Top