Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I think this vessel will be kept after the lease. As for the Queenston class, a cancellation would be politically impossible, at least for the first vessel, IMHO. The only way to change this is a doubling on the heavy icebreaker build to SeaSpan and let Davie take care of future AOR requirements. A vague promise to build some kind of LHD or LPD to SeaSpan down the road for HADR should pacify the West coast pollies. Long term promises (which can be forgotten with the passage of time) are something our pollies exceed at.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Just like the incompetent Liberal government that bought the UK's Upholder subs on the cheap, our current Liberal government led by the even more incompetent junior plans to squander 2.5 billion on keeping these subs running until 2030. The recent Defense Review has no mention for a future sub acquisition past that date. Why not take the 2.5 billion and buy one new sub instead. At least the RCN would have one sub running past 2030.:mad3
 
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
The Australians have their shit together.

Naval Today Mobile

And we have been at this how long now and still haven't cut steel on the Queenstons.

Pathetic industrial offsets over military capability.

Let Davie build two more Resolves. At least we know it can be done in two years or less. This is getting silly. Save the billions and get some value for the money.
 
H

hauritz

Well-Known Member
Novascotiaboy said:
The Australians have their shit together.

Naval Today Mobile

And we have been at this how long now and still haven't cut steel on the Queenstons.

Pathetic industrial offsets over military capability.

Let Davie build two more Resolves. At least we know it can be done in two years or less. This is getting silly. Save the billions and get some value for the money.
Click to expand...
It is even sadder when you think that Canada has been planning its new tankers since 2004 and yet were somehow caught by surprise when its two veteran replenishment ships were decommissioned last year.

The two new Queenstons should have been in service 5 years ago.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Our previous replenishment ships were 45 years old so they should have replaced closer to 10 years rather than 5.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
This is link to a Price-Waterhouse report comparing local build versus European build for Canada's CSC ships. I have only glanced at it. It should come as no surprise the report concludes a local build is more beneficial. The opposite conclusion wouldn't be good for future consultation business from the government. The report assumes Irving's experience with the AOPS will minimize any risk. IMHO this assumption is premature. If Irving were to screw up (hopefully not), some of the benefits will evaporate.

http://www.pwc.com/ca/en/risk-oppor...ans-of-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy.pdf
 
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
A peek at what's to come of the Harry a Dewolfe courtesy of Shipfax.

Shipfax

July will be a good month as we see offerings from both Irving and Davie coming together hopefully.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Canadian Defence Review has an article discussing the progress of the Cyclone CH-148 program. The delays were the result determining the S-92 needed a tremendous amount of development to turn it into a naval helicopter, well $ucking duh! The article implies happy days soon for the CH-148 and lists its many features and Canadian content. One can only hope this pans out.

The same issue also has a piece comparing Lockheed-Martin's and Boeing's commitment (or in Boeing's case, lack of) to the Canadian aerospace sector. LM will no doubt be pointing out their superior presence in Canada compared to Boeing. LM's Canadian partners in the JSF will be echoing this fact to enhance the F-35 chances in Canada.
 
F

Future Fleet

New Member
John Fedup said:
Yes, at least this report acknowledges the importance of a sub fleet. I agree, SSNs make more sense for us because of the Arctic. There are other considerations as well such as support for our nuclear industry and the ability to have subs that can keep up with a USN CBG. Unfortunately the only realistic choice is the Virginia SSN and Electric Boat has enough work with current orders for SSNs and the forcoming Columbia SSBN. If something could be worked out to set up a Canadian yard with US help then this idea would be a small maybe. Would Canada be better off with a heavier emphasis on submarine capability over surface? IMHO, yes but it will pollies on both sides of the border who would will decide this, hopefully after seeking RCN and USN advice. To be clear, the chances of SSNs are just above zero and new SSKs are only a hair above that.:(
Click to expand...
Canada could partner with DCNS to build the original SSN version of the Barracuda. The Barracuda uses civilian grade fuel so no concerns about the nonproliferation treaty. I agree SSKs make little sense for Canada. Under ice operations would be very limited with even modern SSKs and SSNs can deploy anywhere in the world without support. A continuous build would develop and maintain capability indefinitely.

With the deployability of SSNs you wound't need 12 but could more than cover the Arctic and join allied operations internationally with 8 to 9 SSNs. The crew requirements for a Barracuda are approximately half of that of a Virginia class reducing demands for personnel.

Canadian SSNs would free up some of the obligations the US SSNs (which are tasked to the breaking point) at a time when many countries (China especially) are expanding their submarine inventories.
 
F

Future Fleet

New Member
John Fedup said:
Here's a link to an article by a Canadian academic proposing an alternative to the troubled CSC program. At the end of the article he asks the question "why not"? The answer is simple, there is no way a NIH design would ever be considered by the US.

A Surprise New CSC Design has Emerged - A Surprise New CSC Design has Emerged - Canadian Defence Review | Canadian Defence Review
Click to expand...
Canada should look to partner with the USCG offshore patrol ships to replace the Kingston class and expand capability. I still think the CSC will be based on one of the Danish designs.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Future Fleet said:
Canada should look to partner with the USCG offshore patrol ships to replace the Kingston class and expand capability. I still think the CSC will be based on one of the Danish designs.
Click to expand...
Several years ago I believed the Iver Huitfeldt along with a modified Absalon (destroyer/command ship) package might be the main contender. Now, WTF knows. Apparently the RCN requirements more or less make a MOTS solution next to impossible. For this reason the Type 26 may be the choice as BAE probably can more easily tweak the design as it is still a design in progress. It looks like the August close date will be extended yet again. The longer this process drags on may even result in a reset which could then see another contender, the future US frigate or LSC-frigate.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Future Fleet said:
Canada could partner with DCNS to build the original SSN version of the Barracuda.
Click to expand...
Dealing will the French could be politically difficult domestically. Certainly the SSN Barracuda makes more sense for Canada than the Shortfin version. If Australia manages to integrate the US systems successfully into the DCNS sub then this would be an important consideration for the RCN. Frankly the risk should be less for the Barracuda than the Shortfin.
 
F

Future Fleet

New Member
John Fedup said:
Several years ago I believed the Iver Huitfeldt along with a modified Absalon (destroyer/command ship) package might be the main contender. Now, WTF knows. Apparently the RCN requirements more or less make a MOTS solution next to impossible. For this reason the Type 26 may be the choice as BAE probably can more easily tweak the design as it is still a design in progress. It looks like the August close date will be extended yet again. The longer this process drags on may even result in a reset which could then see another contender, the future US frigate or LSC-frigate.
Click to expand...
Yes it was the same with the Cyclones. I'm sure we could have gotten along fine with an OTS Seahawk and had them 8 years ago! It seems like many things are fluid right now and nothing would surprise me in this environment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top