Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I believe the Netherlands plans to sell 40 and Cdn Govt plan is to buy108. Apparently the Cdn army no longer wants the CCV and the RCN will likely not want the Doorman so maybe this opportunity will be lost by DND/Govt infighting.
plus what Ive gathered is the great importance of their be Canadian jobs ideally with local build (of course the Leo's are the exception). I imagine unless it was a first of class their would be hue and cry from the ship builders if they felt they would be denied a big old contract(the Doorman and the CV-9035 would apply)
apologies for being further off topic
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
If the Cdn Govt were to acquire the Karel Doorman from the Netherlands, it might mean the loss of one ship but a sister ship would be built in Canada. The CCV program might be for 108 CV-90s with remote weapons stations with an option for 30 more. Having the Dutch big gun version in the mix would offer some flexibility and an opportunity to save money and speed up the process. I guess we will no in a couple of months.
I prefer to think in terms what does a infantry battalion consists of, or a mechanized infantry battalion consists of, or a armored battalion consists of instead, and I am sure that is different with each and every country, but it should be enough to do any of the above as the Dutch planned on the ship to do so.
For example, New Zealand planned their Canterbury sea lift ship to carry an enlarged mechanized infantry company, not a battalion, which require 390 lane meters. HMNZS Canterbury has 403 lane meters. There is no sense in buying a ship that can't do what it is intended to do.
Canada has named its JSS: HMCS Queenston & HMCS Chateauguay, named after important battles in the War of 1812.
Joint Support Ships To Be Named HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay | Ottawa Citizen
Has there been any news vis-a-vis the RCN SCSC program? If they want construction to start in 2016, then they better get a move on . . .
Joint Support Ships To Be Named HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay | Ottawa Citizen
Has there been any news vis-a-vis the RCN SCSC program? If they want construction to start in 2016, then they better get a move on . . .
Not really in the long term considering spare parts and maintenance procedures shared with others. The British which have three times the population and more shipbuilders have decided to concentrate their efforts with warships, not tankers. There is a reason why most tanker shipping firms have decided to buy their tankers from South Korea, including the British government for their navy.
We figured that as the tankers aren't technically 'complex warships', they can be built externally, as it's only ships classed as such we've created the requirement that we still need to be able to design & build them in house (plus a couple other details, but CBA). Still get 1/3 of the cost of the build in fitting out etc.
If you look at the cost differences in doing so, it's shocking. Something like 3bn CAD for a pair of AORs for the Berlin class isn't it? MARS tankers coming in at ~1bn CAD total for 4 37,000t tankers.
Norway are going the same route too AFAIK, BMT design built by DSME and probably fitted out in Norway.
If you look at the cost differences in doing so, it's shocking. Something like 3bn CAD for a pair of AORs for the Berlin class isn't it? MARS tankers coming in at ~1bn CAD total for 4 37,000t tankers.
Norway are going the same route too AFAIK, BMT design built by DSME and probably fitted out in Norway.
t68
Well-Known Member
The Canadians see it as nation building and also has a strategic effect to keep their shipbuilding alive, it's not only just about the $ but the long term effect on keeping skills in house you build you maintain it, most spare will be bought off shore anyway you go about it unless its all home grown and as part of any ship building program this will be put aside under a maintenance schedule, the only down side if the do not get their supply chain set up and established before hand could in theory see the ship side lined to a similar degree like HMAS Choules if they are not really familiar with its operating systems. The Australian goverment will also be going thru this assement to replace our replenishment ships we also could be building overseas and building in house so it's not as cut and dried as it seems.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The SCSC program is rarely mentioned. It has taken 10 years for the CDN JSS program to morph into 2 Berlin class supply ships, both now named but nowhere near the metal cutting stage. The SCSC is years away approaching never will happen.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Apparently the Dutch Govt has reversed their decision and will now keep the Karl Doorman. They intend to dump even more CCV 9035s instead for cost savings. With the lack of progress on the National Ship Building program, the RCN's future is pretty bleak. It will be even worse when the Liberals form the next Cdn Govt.
At one stage in the late 90's serious consideration was being given to getting the Upholders as a 2nd interim sub squadron while Collins was being sorted.A lot of bad procurement programs seem to happen because the options are "this, or nothing". The Canadian submarine saga comes to mind.:
The 98-99 reports I saw were basically advising RAN to run screaming from the room - so the idea was canned very very quickly. In fact I haave a video of VADM Chris Barrie telling a room of people why it was a bad idea - it goes for about half an hour.
If we knew why they weren't a sensible buy, then the Canadians sure as heck did - esp as there were Snr sirs from the Canadian Navy in the room.
I remember you mentioning this before - we've got a very mixed view from the UK because losing those boats was a blow - they were regarded as being very capable and the sale price was very cheap, so it's odd reading from the Canadians as to how ferked over they felt.
Were the problems related to how they'd been stored (or dumped..) - and had they been picked over for parts? Their sensor suite was basically a Trafalgar scooped out and crammed into an SSK hull as I recall?
I guess I remember reading about how they were a very capable SSK at the time so it was a real surprise to see them struggle as much in service.
Buyer beware - You can't blame the seller for the failings of due diligence on the buyer
There was a whole lot of emotion attached to the loss of the Upholders. eg Things like Perisher evals for conventional crews basically got handed over to the Dutch and Australians - and there was the ongoing and semi-furious debate about how conventionals were better than nukes for some of the ISR missions - and generally were regarded as better in the HK role
They were regarded as being mini Trafalgers, ie nuke capabilities but in a conventional drivetrain - albeit with all the endurance limitations that comes with being a conventional
most of the issues were around maint and upkeep as they went to the dogs when inop - the Canadians should have been more vigorous in their evals. If RAN knew that they were rooted in 1998, then the Canucks had no excuse. In fact part of RADM Barries speech on the Upholders was that the cost of refurbing and triggering a clean maint cycle precluded them being cost effective. When you consider how much grief Collins was copping even then by all the newspaper maritime engineering experts (TIC) then it just shows how stuffed we thought they were.
The 2nd Sqdn idea got dumped very quickly - although it was also generally regarded by Govt that RAN was trying a sleight of hand to get sub numbers up by proxy - ie get 8 + subs by having Collins and the Upholders in a blurred acquisition.
it would have been a maintainers nightmare and would have killed RANs budget and procurement model for decades/
Partially that and part of the pain is self inflicted. For example the RCN was forced to re-engineer the boats to use Mk-48 torpedo's rather than just buying the torpedo's the subs and the combat system were designed for. Different pots of money...
And the Canadians haven't exactly looked after them well.
Chicoutimi - running on the surface in rough seas with hatches open. Let in enough seawater to flood some of the wiring (old spec, poor insulation - which the Canadians knew, or should have) which shorted & caught fire
Victoria - blew out electrics by connecting her to the wrong dockside power source.
Corner Brook - run aground. Repairs needed.
I've seen all three of these lumped in with the poor state of them on purchase as somehow the fault of the UK.
Chicoutimi - running on the surface in rough seas with hatches open. Let in enough seawater to flood some of the wiring (old spec, poor insulation - which the Canadians knew, or should have) which shorted & caught fire
Victoria - blew out electrics by connecting her to the wrong dockside power source.
Corner Brook - run aground. Repairs needed.
I've seen all three of these lumped in with the poor state of them on purchase as somehow the fault of the UK.
I did wonder about that - I'm sure we'd have rubbed our hands in glee at the idea of selling them on with Spearfish bundled. Been quite a bit neater I'm sure.