Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Calculus said:
Not exactly. The locks are in fact 24.4m wide, but the typical Seaway freighter (Seawaymax) will have a beam of 23.8 in order to give a bit of room for margin. That does not mean a vessel with a beam of 24m can't transit the locks, however, if extra care is taken, and there are may examples of this happening during the history of the canal. And now, with the new hands-free mooring system that eliminates the mooring cables (in favour of vacuum pads), it's anticipated that the Seawaymax specification will be increased to 24m anyway. The only area I see Heddle Marine being deficient is with respect to the requirement that a yard will be currently building (or will have built recently) a vessel of at least 1000 tonnes displacement. Given these new icebreakers will likely be even larger (probably quite a bit larger, given the currently tasked vessels are all in the 4-6000 ton range, full load), this seem like a reasonable requirement.
Click to expand...

Government updated the requirement: Feds amend shipyard search criteria, extend deadline following complaint
 
Pictures of HMCS Ville de Quebec at the new Nanisivic Naval Facility (Arctic refueling station) (courtesy RCN Twitter feed):
 

Attachments

  • VDQ at Nanisivic 1.jpg
    VDQ at Nanisivic 1.jpg
    170.4 KB · Views: 32
  • VDQ at Nanisivic 2.jpg
    VDQ at Nanisivic 2.jpg
    131 KB · Views: 28
  • Nanisivic Naval Facility 1.jpg
    Nanisivic Naval Facility 1.jpg
    77.6 KB · Views: 29
  • Nanisivic Naval Facility location map.jpg
    Nanisivic Naval Facility location map.jpg
    55.6 KB · Views: 27
There's a podcast on vanguard radio with the VP of LM Canada it talks about CMS 330 and the CSC it's a lengthy podcast but towards the end he said the requirements reconciliation is winding down and the preliminary design will start soon so maybe in a few months we will have a bit more information on things like the number of vls cells and some of the weapon systems
 
Novascotiaboy said:
Finally the RCN is getting mexiflotes for use from its new supply ships.

Canada buying ship-to-shore connectors for its Joint Support Ships

I posed this question to a Federal Fleet Services employee but received no response about a month ago. This is a great moment for the RCN and the CAF as a whole as it gives much greater ability to move equipment from sea to shore.
Click to expand...


Have they started building the AORs yet? If not, it would seem that they are getting a bit ahead of themselves!
 
Waiting on junior to decide which shade of pink should be used to paint them!:D Apparently MAN has been awarded the engine contract so things are slowly progressing.
 
spoz said:
Have they started building the AORs yet? If not, it would seem that they are getting a bit ahead of themselves!
Click to expand...

The first of three fisheries vessels has been handed over to the Coast Guard, the second was launched this summer and is fitting out at Seaspan's Lonsdale yard and the third is looking pretty complete in the main yard. Not sure when the third will be launched. If you're in Vancouver, you can see them quite clearly from Canada Place (with good eyes). The third fisheries vessel needs to be launched to make room for final assembly of the AOR, but with it in final assembly, there is room to start assembling mega blocks for the AOR.

The steel for the AOR started cutting last year and there are some pics on Seaspan's NSS website, but nothing has been updated since March 2019. It would be nice to see some new pics.

So things are progressing and I would not think the timing of this announcement is off by too much. Also, there is an election coming, so the spending announcements are flowing like Niagara Falls right now.
 
spoz said:
Have they started building the AORs yet? If not, it would seem that they are getting a bit ahead of themselves!
Click to expand...
Yes, construction started June 2018. You can see the progress update photos at the bottom of the following web page: Joint Support Ships | Seaspan

The first ship is to be delivered in 2022, the second in 2023. There is an option for a third ship, but that has not been exercised yet, though the rumour is it will be.

Engines: MAN 12V32/44CR (MAN wins contract to provide engines for Canada’s Joint Support Ships)
Radar: Saab Sea Giraffe AMB (Saab to Deliver Radars for Royal Canadian Navy's Joint Support Ships)
RAS: Hepburn Engineering (Hepburn Engineering secures contract to provide replenishment systems for Canada’s Joint Support Ships)
CMS: LM Canada CMS330 (Seaspan brings in Lockheed Martin for Canadian Joint Support Ship construction)
Integrated Navigation/bridge system and internal communications: OSI and Thales (OSI to Provide Naval Integrated Bridge System for Royal Canadian Navy's JSS - Naval News)

It should be noted that Asterix was also built to support Mexeflote.
 
Last edited:
Davie jumping the gun a bit, on a announcement for the next batch of icebreakers for the Canadian Coast Guard: Davie Hopes to Become Canada’s National Icebreaker Builder

What is interesting is the statement "...it is expected that the initial order will consist of six heavy icebreakers of 8,000 tonnes and up to two 23,000 tonne polar icebreakers." That jibes with what I have been hearing around Ottawa, which is a second Diefenbaker (CCGS John G. Diefenbaker - Wikipedia), and a follow-on order for a number of light icebreakers after this initial 8 ships. The six 8000 tonne icebreakers are being designed by VARD in Vancouver, and will be classed as medium-heavy (PC3 or PC4+).
 
Nice. Hopefully the Conservatives will maintain the plan when the government changes. Otherwise more time wasted and no ships for the proud men and women of the CCG.
 
wowu5 said:
Just want to share this photo i found on twitter taken by someone in DSEI2019, the models of both Canadian and Australian Type 26 alongside each other.
Click to expand...
Wow they are going to be quite different ships, it seems like they are different in every possible way around a common hull. Even the same things are in different positions (Harpoons?). Even doors and access hatches seem slightly different.
 
StingrayOZ said:
Wow they are going to be quite different ships, it seems like they are different in every possible way around a common hull. Even the same things are in different positions (Harpoons?). Even doors and access hatches seem slightly different.
Click to expand...
I noticed that as well. I think it could be as simple as the Australian ships are more advanced in the design phase, whereas Canada is still in the Requirements definition phase, so the CSC models are more of a guess as to what the final ship design will look like.

On another note, I'm not sure if this is coincidence or not, but since the Canadian T26 decision was confirmed in February, I've noticed a heck of a lot of RAN and RN officers around my building in downtown Ottawa. Hopefully this relates to T26 cooperation. There is a fantastic opportunity for these 3 countries to manage costs and interoperability issues.
 
Last edited:
wowu5 said:
Just want to share this photo i found on twitter taken by someone in DSEI2019, the models of both Canadian and Australian Type 26 alongside each other.
Click to expand...

As discussed elsewhere in this thread, doors / hatches / bits-n-bobs are 'different' from T26. That's the joys of different nations wanting different things from the same design. Based purely on the models - CAN & AUS want Harpoon, but UK doesn't. UK & CAN want NATO RAS facilities mid-ships, but AUS doesn't. EVERYONE wants a flight deck / Mission Bay / Rear, small calibre guns above the flight deck, but their main mast / Radars / Comms facilities are all different. Each Nation has a sovereign intent on how they want to use this hull form & while the base hull package is 'similar', they won't all be the same.

The fun part will be in 5 - 10 years time when all x3 nations have hulls in service, as it'd be nice to get x1 from each nation together at the same place for side by side comparisons. Langkawai or WESTPAC sound good for a start, or how about DSEi. THAT would be a great talking point...
 
I think 10 years for the RCN is a bit tight for having a ship in service but hope I am wrong. It definitely will be interesting to see all three variants exercising together.
 
Australia’s normal expectations for RAS stations in major surface combatants used to be for two RAS(L), one heavy jack stay (preferably sliding padeye) and two light jackstay positions; there’s been no apparent change to that, certainly not in the public arena anyway.
 
Had the opportunity to be aboard NRU ASTERIX today in Halifax at the new AOPS wharf below the Macdonald bridge. A very imposing ship for the Halifax Dockyard.

Showing a little rust stains here and there but overall the ship is in good order after its 500 plus day deployment away from Canada. After a short work period alongside she is supposed to be open to delegates at the Halifax DEFSEC starting October 1st.

Once that’s over she is returning to the Davie yard in Quebec for a more intensive work period before deploying yet again in support of the RCN.

If allowed I will try and get some photos when I am back aboard Friday and Saturday.

One thing I did take note of were the M2 HMG mounts port and starboard opposite the refueling control centre between the two RAS towers amidships.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top