John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Hopefully soon! The faster Irving proves itself with the AOPS the better. It will make life easier when they start the much more complicated CSC project.
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
The CAMM cells are shorter than Mk 41, even than the self-defence length. They're half the length of strike-length Mk 41. So, to fit Mk 41 in place of CAMM launchers requires space under the CAMM launchers or a raised housing. How easy it is to make space available depends on what's there already. It's also additional topweight, quite high on the ship. T26 is supposed to have plenty of growth margin built in, so maybe that's OK.
Yes, @Novascotiaboy is correct. It seems handover to the Navy is no longer "summer 2019", but now "late 2019".
The bow for Margaret Brooke is built, but still being fit up. You can see it here (taken during last week's CSC announcement): Government of Canada selects design for Canadian Surface Combatants
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Is late 2019 the handover to the RCN or start of sea trials by Irving? Not a good sign if it is the latter.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
First of class always has teething problems. Look at Halifax and St. Laurant. Both took extra time to get the kinks worked out as lead in class.
As was stated previously concerning the Kingston class although they appear in very good condition the need for something bigger and faster as an OPV would be better than extending the lives of the Kingstons. The Vard 85m design used by the RNZN woukd be fantastic but with improvements including a 57 mm on the bow and the flight deck extended aft to allow a stern ramp for launching and recovering a fast interceptor RHIB. A 25mm should be located port and starboard along with a couple of M2 mounts.
These vessels could then be used on Caribbean patrols and offer a better option for the counter piracy operations in the Gulf of Guinea. With a Bell 429 aboard able to deploy SF or provide ISR it would give a better platform for low intensity situations.
As was stated previously concerning the Kingston class although they appear in very good condition the need for something bigger and faster as an OPV would be better than extending the lives of the Kingstons. The Vard 85m design used by the RNZN woukd be fantastic but with improvements including a 57 mm on the bow and the flight deck extended aft to allow a stern ramp for launching and recovering a fast interceptor RHIB. A 25mm should be located port and starboard along with a couple of M2 mounts.
These vessels could then be used on Caribbean patrols and offer a better option for the counter piracy operations in the Gulf of Guinea. With a Bell 429 aboard able to deploy SF or provide ISR it would give a better platform for low intensity situations.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yep, I hope something like a Vard 85 is selected for the future OPV. I guess the 57 mm guns from retired Halifax frigates could be a cost saving measure. I’m a fan of the 30mm Millennium gun.
Should be on AOPS as well. I appreciate lead ship teething problems but almost a year after launch before sea trials begin seems somewhat long.
Should be on AOPS as well. I appreciate lead ship teething problems but almost a year after launch before sea trials begin seems somewhat long.Hi guys, I believe it is handover to the RCN. However, the only corroboration I could find is this article in Lookout magazine, which says she is "set for delivery in late 2019": Keel-laying marks another milestone for AOPS programYep, I hope something like a Vard 85 is selected for the future OPV. I guess the 57 mm guns from retired Halifax frigates could be a cost saving measure. I’m a fan of the 30mm Millennium gun.
Hopefully, Irving gets through their production problems and QC issues with AOPS and when CSC is being built those kinks are all worked out and the workforce can crank them out on schedule and without many QC issues. I believe at this point in the program there should be a retrospective look at how the NSPS is functioning and if there are any issues that have crept up, it is always good for a 3rd party review of a program this large. It seems like the schedules for many of the ships are all over the place (Protecteur being built and then another ship in between the 2nd of class), it also seems that Irving was rewarded for having fallen behind schedule (AOPS 6), I understand the reasoning but it still seems like it was a reward of sorts. I also expect Davie to get some additional work moving forward either before or after the election. If the Liberals win they are going to offer a bone to them on top of the Icebreaker conversions and the Conservatives will for sure, if they win I foresee something like a Mistral or two built at Davie in pretty short order.
Perhaps not a Mistral, but maybe the HADR ship ("Purpose-converted peace-support ship") that is shown in the Platforms column on p. 58 of Leadmark 2050: http://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Leadmark-2050-13-May-2016.pdf.
I saw those, I also saw the other day that the Royal Navy is doing something similar to those exact ships but more likely being used for SOF work. I like the idea of them but that is just another Asterix conversion job and not new construction. I am thinking they are going to get some new construction work especially if the Conservatives win, if the Liberals are re-elected I would put more money on the HADR type ship. I think with how close the Mistral purchase was in the past with the Conservatives in power they may want to go that way again (Although SNC was involved before @ $2.6 Billion, not so likely now with their issues...) the extra capability afforded should make NATO very happy. I would much prefer something like an order of 3 Mistral Class vessels (CMS 330, Americanized Weapons Systems and such) than a converted cargo vessel, call it an ASW Frigate if you need to get around the Assault Ship hurdle. I am of the very firm opinion that in the next 5-10 years the type of capability they provide is going to be sorely needed, it is only going to take one major earthquake on the west coast to realize this.
Novascotiaboy
Active Member
Mattshelnyou beat me to the question of the recently announced Royal Navy sea bases.
Do those here see an opportunity for this very same type vessel in RCN service?
Do those here see an opportunity for this very same type vessel in RCN service?
I think you would be better off with a proper Assault Ship (Mistral Class, Canberra Class), but if the option is a HADR ship or nothing I think my choice would be the additional capability.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
My choice is two JC/Canberra. Just as important they should be acquired the same way as Australia got theirs, hull done in Spain and finished off in Canada. Although I am not enthusiastic about Davie, a project like this is not unlike Asterix in some regards. Not sure if Irving can build vessels of this size and hauling a JC Hull all the way to Vancouver from Spain seems a pain. I guess if SeaSpan excels on the AOR builds, consideration for a total build of LHDs might be possible.
I may be talking out of my read end but I am not sure if Irving can build something of this size (JC/Canberra) from scratch. I keep on hearing and reading things (none of which I will repeat) that mention a lack of confidence in Irving's ability to deliver vessels on time and on budget. I do not think it would be a bad thing to have Davie just hanging around waiting in the wings should Irving fail at delivering, even if that means giving them piecemeal work to keep the yard around without messing with the NSPS allotments. I am however confident that with Lockheed and BAE together on the CSC Project that it should help.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Leaving aside Irving competence, I think it could be more of a space limitation if one is talking about a build from scratch. I believe both Davie and SeaSpan have the space. Unless the government commits to more ships, keeping three yards open long term will starve them all eventually.
In the long term maybe not, but in the next 20 years there is more than enough work to be spread around. The coast guard ships are getting really old, especially a large portion of the icebreaker fleet and they are not even in the original allotment of work. Irving has 20 years of work locked up with the CSC and AOPS, Seaspan has a little bit less with the JSS, Diefenbaker, and Offshore Fishing vessels. The Kingston class still needs a full replacement, Victoria’s are going to need replacement (If we build them here, I am of they opinion we should not), along with half the CSG icebreaker fleet, barring any new builds for additional capability on top of this as well, plus refits and ongoing maintenance.
I am of the opinion that we should do like the Dutch do with a lot of their ships, instead of going for in depth mid life refits, instead arrange to sell those vessels off at that point, while having new vessels commissioned before their sale, this would keep the shipyards going and keep a steady stream of work for the yards and ensure the navy always has relatively young vessels in commission.
40 deg south
Well-Known Member
Supposedly a big factor in RNZN's choice of CAMM over ESSM. Less topweight, and more space below decks once the Mk 41 launchers were removed.
Hard to imagine the (supposedly) lower whole-of-life cost of CAMM wasn't also a major consideration.
On the Anzac Class that is understandable, but with the Type-26 closing in on 9,000 tons I would assume this would be less of a concern. If the decision was made to fit 2 x Mk 41 in place of the CAMM Silos amidships, maybe it would be as simple as limiting weight in the rest of the Mission Bay (On the AAW Variants). Limit the mission bay to 8 x 20' ISO containers instead of the 10 that the mission bay could regularly hold.
I doubt either the RCN, RN, or RAN would go this route but I am certain that the hull form has the margin available if so required.
Knowing the RCN, commonality with USN Missile Systems was the major deciding factor on the ESSM Decision and makes logistics support a little bit easier on the RCN.
Black Jack Shellac
Active Member
I was thinking of why the RAN version has the VLS cells in a 1 x 4 pattern yet the RCN version has a 1x3 and 1x1. I think it is because the RAN is only looking for a single version of the frigate but the RCN is looking for two variants, a GP version and an AAW version. Total guess here, but I think the GP version has 32 cells and the AAW version will have 48 cells, explaining the unusual change in arrangement on the Canadian version.
Those are my thoughts exactly, 48 cells would be where I would think the RCN would want their AAW variant to come in at. I am more curious at this point of weapons fit, I wonder if there is the stomach to fit some weapons. I am thinking LRASM is a shoe in as the ASM as it’s a Lockheed product, ESSM due to Canadian involvement in its development, and some variant of the Standard Family, but some of the VL options like VL-ASROC, and the Tomahawk are less clear. We can postulate currently that if it is the same radar Lockheed is using for Aegis Ashore in Japan it will have BMD Capability, so SM-3 May be an option. I would expect more information to come out from CANSEC or Sea Air Space in May.