Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
[

Compare it to where Australia is at, we are refitting ours and building their replacements at the same time. Requirements have similarities in that there is probably no Sub design suitable, and want to build locally but will need to build up the facilities and Workforce. Canada is about where Australia was 6-7 years ago but with no intention of building new Subs in the short to med term. and the RAN are not getting the first new boat before about 32-33.
Hello Redlands18. Yes, but at least Australia has a "plan" and is acting upon it. Canada has no idea what their "plan" will be after the Victoria class is retired (perhaps we will get out of the Sub business forever!). The discussions about replacements need to happen now, not 15 years from now. That's why the NSS strategy needs to be revisited soon. We can't wait until the Subs are on their "last legs" before we decide to act. :mad:
 
I'm noticing a trend here a few Canadian members have a discussion then posters from other threads come into this thread tell us we are wrong then the thread gets suspended or a Canadian gets punished I guess that's explains why there's not a lot of Canadian members on this forum
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
@Calculus YOU HAVE BEEN ON HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A REPUTABLE SOURCE.

A MODERATOR ASKED THAT THE DISCUSSION OF CANADIAN NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGIES CEASE ON THIS THREAD AND BE HELD IN MORE APPROPRIATE PLACES. YOU DECIDED TO CARRY ON . SUCH DISPLAYS OF BEHAVIOUR IN DEFIANCE OF A MODERATORS INSTRUCTIONS ARE UNACCEPTABLE. DO NOT DO THIS AGAIN. 5 WARNING POINTS FOR 3 MONTHS AWARDED.
Hi ngatimozart. I have searched all threads and the one that somewhat comes close is; Missiles & WMDs. I think the problem here is that there is no "Thread" where members can have a realistic conversation on this subject. Perhaps a new thread needs to be created under Navy & Maritime. Call it: Propulsion Systems For Modern Submarines. This could alleviate all this nonsense on the RCN Thread. Can I create this myself or does the Webmaster have to do it? Just a suggestion. Cheers! :)
 
Last edited:

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
I'm noticing a trend here a few Canadian members have a discussion then posters from other threads come into this thread tell us we are wrong then the thread gets suspended or a Canadian gets punished I guess that's explains why there's not a lot of Canadian members on this forum
Hi Long Range. I hear you. Yes, it is very frustrating, but I guess we must play by the rules. Just grin and bear it old salt! Cheers!:)
 

Calculus

Well-Known Member
In the latest edition of Canadian Naval Review (Volume 16, Number 1 (2020)), on page 39, the author of an article on the NSS (David Perry) states that the Requirements Reconciliation phase for CSC was completed in 2019. I for one would very much like to see how well those "requirements" match up to what we think we know, through much detective work by various members on this RCN thread. I will attempt to summarize what I think it will look like below.
  • Volume Search Radar: SPY-7 (V1), S-band (supplied by LM)
  • Illuminator: Unknown. (Supplied by MDA. Not known if this is a bespoke or existing design.)
  • 32 x Mk41 strike-length VLS (ESSM, SM-x)
  • Sea Spider anti-torpedo system (supplied by Magellan/TKMS)
  • 6 x ExLS VLS (SeaCeptor, quad-packed) for CIADS
  • Main gun: 1 x 5 inch Mk 45
  • Secondary guns: 2 x 30mm DSM 30 (Bushmaster 30mm) - presumed. (Could be the Mk38 25mm, for compatibility and supply chain reasons with the AOPVs)
  • CEC
  • CMS: CMS330/Aegis
  • Bow sonar: Presumably the Ultra 2150
  • Towed-array: Unknown.
  • Speed: Reputed the SOR required the capability to keep pace with a US CBG, which is widely thought to be around 30 knots. Given the current Halifax class can meet this performance standard, it seems likely that the RCN would like to maintain the capability.
  • Crew complement: unknown

If I've missed anything, please chime in.
 
Last edited:

Calculus

Well-Known Member
I'm noticing a trend here a few Canadian members have a discussion then posters from other threads come into this thread tell us we are wrong then the thread gets suspended or a Canadian gets punished I guess that's explains why there's not a lot of Canadian members on this forum
Yes, that's my feeling as well.
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
In the latest edition of Canadian Naval Review (Volume 16, Number 1 (2020)), on page 39, the author of an article on the NSS (David Perry) states that the Requirements Reconciliation phase was completed in 2019. I for one would very much like to see how well those "requirements" match up to what we think we know, through much detective work by various members on this RCN thread. I will attempt to summarize what I think it will look like below.
  • Volume Search Radar: SPY-7 (V1), S-band (supplied by LM)
  • Illuminator: Unknown. (Supplied by MDA. Not known if this is a bespoke or existing design.)
  • 32 x Mk41 strike-length VLS (ESSM, SM-x)
  • Sea Spider anti-torpedo system (supplied by Magellan/TKMS)
  • 6 x ExLS VLS (SeaCeptor, quad-packed) for CIADS
  • Main gun: 1 x 5 inch Mk 45
  • Secondary guns: 2 x 30mm DSM 30 (Bushmaster 30mm) - presumed. (Could be the Mk38 25mm, for compatibility and supply chain reasons with the AOPVs)
  • CEC
  • CMS: CMS330/Aegis
  • Bow sonar: Presumably the Ultra 2150
  • Towed-array: Unknown.
  • Speed: Reputed the SOR required the capability to keep pace with a US CBG, which is widely thought to be around 30 knots. Given the current Halifax class can meet this performance standard, it seems likely that the RCN would like to maintain the capability.
  • Crew complement: unknown

If I've missed anything, please chime in.
Hi Calculus. I know most recent graphics of the CSC Frigates do not show a CIWS or SEA RAM system mid-ships (Port & Starboard) as some other models have. Does this mean that CIADS will have to do all the work or is CIWS Blk 1B and/or Sea RAM still on the table? Also, sure would like to know what that X Band Illuminator radar is, but nobody's talking. Especially MDA. And of course the EW suite, Chaff, Link11/16/22. What Torpedo system will the CSC deploy-MK 48/MK51 (other)? Will the CSC be fitted for but not with some sort of Laser defence system? And let's not forget the Skeldar V-200 UAV along with the Cyclone 148 Helicopter. Crew compliment will probably have a max capacity of 208 sailors. Towed Array may be an updated CANTASS system (but....again, nobody's talking). Cheers!;)
 
Last edited:

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Hi Calculus. I know most recent graphics of the CSC Frigates do not show a CIWS or SEA RAM system mid-ships (Port & Starboard) as some other models have. Does this mean that CIADS will have to do all the work or is CIWS Blk 1B and/or Sea RAM still on the table? Also, sure would like to know what that X Band Illuminator radar is, but nobody's talking. Especially MDA. And of course the EW suite, Chaff, Link11/16/22. What Torpedo system will the CSC deploy-MK 48/MK51 (other)? Will the CSC be fitted for but not with some sort of Laser defence system? And let's not forget the Skylar 200 UAV along with the Cyclone 148 Helicopter. Crew compliment will probably have a max capacity of 208 sailors. Towed Array may be an updated CANTASS system (but....again, nobody's talking). Cheers!;)
David, all good questions. We need some answers, pronto! The suspense is killing me....
 

Preceptor

Super Moderator
Staff member
Directed at no one person in particular, but I'd pay close attention to Forum Rule #19 which includes a prohibition on discussing 'fantasy' topics. Given that the Liberal's 2017 defense policy envisioned replacing the current subs in 2040 and that there doesn't seem to be any current plan to replace them, or fit them into any sort of national shipbuilding program, then discussion on indigenously developing and designing first a suitable compact nuclear power plant for a sub, then the sub itself, and then arranging everything to be built in Canada really does get into fantasyland. Especially since Canada has history spending defense dollars, only to see things get cancelled following a change in power, when Defence isn't exactly flush with cash in the first place.
-Preceptor
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
I'm noticing a trend here a few Canadian members have a discussion then posters from other threads come into this thread tell us we are wrong then the thread gets suspended or a Canadian gets punished I guess that's explains why there's not a lot of Canadian members on this forum
This forum is an international forum and posters are not restricted to country specific topics. If any poster is sanctioned by a Moderator it is for breaking the rules, not because they are Canucks, Kiwis, Aussies, poms, Yanks, or whatever. So I suggest that you make yourselves familiar with the rules.

Secondly, when others, especially defence professionals, correct misconceptions, and explain why, it's called education. There are many reasons why things are done certain ways or happen. If some of us appear harshly critical of some Canadian defence procurement practices, for example, it's because we see that they don't compare well with other nations, procurement practices, so we wonder if the Canadian taxpayer is really getting value for money, or being ripped off. We do recognise that different governments do their accounting sums differently.

Yes we would like more Canadian posters, but like everyone else they must abide by the rules. First and foremost this is a professional defence forum run by mostly defence professional Moderators on behalf of the owner. That's what the owner wants, and the owner is the boss.
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
Directed at no one person in particular, but I'd pay close attention to Forum Rule #19 which includes a prohibition on discussing 'fantasy' topics. Given that the Liberal's 2017 defense policy envisioned replacing the current subs in 2040 and that there doesn't seem to be any current plan to replace them, or fit them into any sort of national shipbuilding program, then discussion on indigenously developing and designing first a suitable compact nuclear power plant for a sub, then the sub itself, and then arranging everything to be built in Canada really does get into fantasyland. Especially since Canada has history spending defense dollars, only to see things get cancelled following a change in power, when Defence isn't exactly flush with cash in the first place.
-Preceptor
Hi Preceptor. I have searched all threads and the one that somewhat comes close is; Missiles & WMDs to post this subject. I think the problem here is that there is no "Thread" where members can have realistic conversations on this subject. Perhaps a new thread needs to be created under Navy & Maritime. Call it: Propulsion Systems For Modern Submarines. This could alleviate all this nonsense on the RCN Thread. Can I create this myself or does the Webmaster have to do it? Just a suggestion. Cheers!
 

ngatimozart

Super Moderator
Staff member
Verified Defense Pro
Hi Preceptor. I have searched all threads and the one that somewhat comes close is; Missiles & WMDs to post this subject. I think the problem here is that there is no "Thread" where members can have realistic conversations on this subject. Perhaps a new thread needs to be created under Navy & Maritime. Call it: Propulsion Systems For Modern Submarines. This could alleviate all this nonsense on the RCN Thread. Can I create this myself or does the Webmaster have to do it? Just a suggestion. Cheers!
The new thread is here Propulsion Systems For Modern Submarines in the Navy & Maritime forum.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Suggestion, perhaps the thread is too narrowly focused. Perhaps it should be Naval propulsion systems so we can also discuss surface ship developments in this area such as IEP.
 

DAVID DUNLOP

Active Member
Suggestion, perhaps the thread is too narrowly focused. Perhaps it should be Naval propulsion systems so we can also discuss surface ship developments in this area such as IEP.
Hi JohnFedup. OPSSG & ngatimozart have already put the thread on the Navy & Maritime forum as Propulsion Systems For Modern Submarines as that was what all the fuss was all about. If you want, you could ask them to change the thread to just Naval Propulsion Systems. It would not matter to me. Cheers!:)
 
Top