Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

John Fedup said:
This sixth AOPS is more about dragging out the CSC build date and keeping Irving's Workforce employed rather than increasing the RCN’s presence. Nevertheless six is better than five.
Click to expand...
I actually found this line a little concerning
A sixth patrol ship will greatly increase the capacity of the Royal Canadian Navy to deploy AOPS simultaneously, at home or abroad. Additionally, a fleet of six AOPS will allow our frigates to focus on further tasks, allowing the RCN to use its fleet more effectively
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like they might be foreshadowing a cutback in frigate numbers ... or maybe I am just being paranoid.
 
hauritz said:
I actually found this line a little concerning

It sounds to me like they might be foreshadowing a cutback in frigate numbers ... or maybe I am just being paranoid.
Click to expand...
I dont think it is paranoia but I can see the east coast screaming bloody murder if the frigate purchase size got reduced, I think it is more likely to see a split production between Davie and Irving.
 
Letting Davie build combat ships is unacceptable. It will a political $hitstorm if junior or any other PM were to suggest such an idea. They don't deserve 1/3 of the frigate support contract either.
 
hauritz said:
I actually found this line a little concerning

It sounds to me like they might be foreshadowing a cutback in frigate numbers ... or maybe I am just being paranoid.
Click to expand...

Irving was looking at an 18 month gap between the 5th AOPS and the start of work on the CSC. This fills the gap (along with repair work on the current fleet), thus eliminating the real possibility that the yard would have to start laying off skilled workers before the start of CSC production, which is what ASC is experiencing now in Australia. It was a wise move, in my opinion, as it brings the RCN back to the minimum AOPS requirement (which was 6-8 ships), while keeping the Irving assembly line hot until the first CSC. This wasn't exactly a surprise, I might add, as the press have been predicting this announcement since August.
 
J_Can said:
I dont think it is paranoia but I can see the east coast screaming bloody murder if the frigate purchase size got reduced, I think it is more likely to see a split production between Davie and Irving.
Click to expand...

I don't believe there is any chance Davie will get any part of the CSC program. That ship has sailed, so to speak. They could get some Coast Guard work, however. The CCG is going to need approximately 12 light and medium icebreakers over the next 15-20 years, which are not currently part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, and given both Seaspan and Irving are pretty busy with programs in that time frame, it bodes well for Davie. There is a capacity problem in Canada, and no appetite whatsoever to build offshore, so I would say things are looking pretty positive for Davie in the short to medium term. Not to say the work will be given to them without competition, as there are several other yards that could build some of the smaller vessels, but Davie does have a great deal of ice breaker experience, which should play in their favour when scoring a bid.
 
Wasn’t #6 to have been costed in the original plan. Here Irving gets paid for the sixth when it should have been paid for through savings in the $3.4 billion.

My god we suck at buying equipment for our military.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
Wasn’t #6 to have been costed in the original plan. Here Irving gets paid for the sixth when it should have been paid for through savings in the $3.4 billion.

My god we suck at buying equipment for our military.
Click to expand...
Where did you see anything about paying Irving extra for number 6? I was curious about that as well, but I could find nothing about extra costs in any of the press coverage.
 
My understanding was the 6th ship was to be built if Irving could reduce the build cost, i.e. from the $3.4 billion budget. Don’t know whether this still the case or not (probably not). The overriding concern is keeping the workforce and related skill sets intact. Building a sixth ship will be less expensive than reassembling Irving’s production capability and much faster as well.
 
Novascotiaboy said:
The future HMCS Hampton Grey.

So does this mean three ships per coast or are we likely to see 2 west and four east?
Click to expand...


At some point we need additional OPVs and the majority of these should be on the west coast. Maybe 1-2 AOPS and an extra frigate on the west coast until this happens. Makes more sense, IMO, to base ice-capable ships where the ice is, namely east and north.
 
@Calculus ....visited the Cellula site to see if there was more nformation on the Solus-LR but found none. I was wondering mostly about the size but the mission capabilities would be interesting as well.
 
John Fedup said:
Hardly a surprise here, the ruling Liberals have rejected a Commons committee report to replace the Victoria class subs. One more reason to turf junior out of office, as if we needed additional reasons.

Liberals reject committee recommendation to replace Victoria-class subs – no desire for subs with under-ice capability
Click to expand...
So does this mean Canada is going out of the submarine business?

Given Australia's experience, the submarine replacement program should have already started.
 
Last edited:
If the Liberals win next year’s election, the additional damage they will inflict on our economy will reduce the defence commitments planned already and the chances for a sub replacement will approach zero IMO.
 
John Fedup said:
If the Liberals win next year’s election, the additional damage they will inflict on our economy will reduce the defence commitments planned already and the chances for a sub replacement will approach zero IMO.
Click to expand...
I think that there is more concern about maintaining the Canadian shipbuilding industry then there is in equipping the navy with ships that they actually need. Probably the only chance of a submarine replacement could be if it were a local build. Once again looking at the Australian experience that would be a very long and hard road. Australia can at least point to its relatively recent experience in building the Collins class ... but Canada hasn't built submarines since WW1.

I doubt there is the political will for Canada to take on a project of that scale. Buying an off-the-shelf foreign build would seem to be the best option but there would no doubt be a political shitstorm it that that happened.
 
Our lack of political will and inability to make a decision on defence procurement has relegated us to third world status on the political stage. It is so frustrating to watch Australia rebuild its defence forces with new high tech capability across all three branches.

Our navy will get new hulls but the twenty year build cycle will see fifteen new ships in the water by 2040 or so. Just in time to start the midlife refit of the first ones.

A balanced force like Australia is building is an example of what we could be and should be doing.
 
John Fedup said:
Well it appears the legal fluster cuck has started over the CSC decision. Frankly, I thought Navantia would have been the company launching a protest. Doesn’t matter if it is pipelines, fighters, or frigates, procurement on just about anything in Canada is hopeless. GD disgrace.

Failed warship bidder sues to scuttle deal | The Chronicle Herald
Click to expand...

They appear to be throwing the baby out with the bath water with this court bid, as the article suggests they have to prove what they have tendered during selection
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top