• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Adaptable Strike Frigate

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,269
Points
1,040
Be interesting. This most likely will be the basis of BAE's T-32 entry. Think BAE got the message the MoD was sending when Badcock got the T-31?

Problem now is you have the Badcock frigate factory open after the 5 T-31 and one foreign build what comes next? Badcock will need work. But BAE looks to like they are to get the T-83 after the T-26 build. So the T32 to BAE would be stretch.

Then the big elephant in the room...Scotland. If a new vote is held and it goes to leave, all bets are off.
 

MTShaw

Full Member
Reaction score
109
Points
580
I’m watching this closely. I’m curious about how it can be useful for Canada. I don’t know how it would be built. Perhaps at Davie once they’ve warmed up with a few Icebreakers like Irving with the HDW.

Yes I think we need more than 15 warships. Crewing would be a problem, but I’ll leave it at that.

@Spencer100 mind your spelling in the first sentence in the second paragraph. Yup I’m 10.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,269
Points
1,040
I’m watching this closely. I’m curious about how it can be useful for Canada. I don’t know how it would be built. Perhaps at Davie once they’ve warmed up with a few Icebreakers like Irving with the HDW.

Yes I think we need more than 15 warships. Crewing would be a problem, but I’ll leave it at that.

@Spencer100 mind your spelling in the first sentence in the second paragraph. Yup I’m 10.
Babcock.

Oh crap.....spelling is not my superpower

I won't edit.....so people can have a chuckle at it and me
 

Rainbow1910

New Member
Reaction score
83
Points
330
I’m watching this closely. I’m curious about how it can be useful for Canada. I don’t know how it would be built. Perhaps at Davie once they’ve warmed up with a few Icebreakers like Irving with the HDW.

Yes I think we need more than 15 warships. Crewing would be a problem, but I’ll leave it at that.

@Spencer100 mind your spelling in the first sentence in the second paragraph. Yup I’m 10.
Davie is likely going to be kept busy with their current polar icebreaker and smaller icebreaker programs for the Coast Guard into the mid to late 2030's, assuming they aren't given anything else on top of what is planned currently. I have some extensive doubts about any additional corvettes, frigates, etc being built for the RCN that overlap with the mission of the CSC. A large point of the CSC program was to provide the Navy with a single class which can do all of the roles required of current frigates and decommissioned destroyers, simplifying logistics and training across the force. Having another frigate program undermines CSC and potentially puts it into jeopardy. Lets get CSC going along before we already start considering less capable options that aren't even off the drawing board yet.

If CSC manages to fall through, sure lets look at other options at that point.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
685
Points
910
The RCN has been talking a good game on "single class" since the early 1950's, but in practice, has only achieved it for a few years ... by accident.

The SAINT-LAURENT class was to be single class to replace the mish-mash of ships inherited from WWII. But the last vestige of WWII era ship were retired just about when the ANNAPOLIS hit the water. Then for a few years we had single class, until 1972 when the IRO's came on line. But it was an accident because between the two, there was supposed to be a class of General Purpose Frigates built, that was cancelled in view of all the reorganization of the forces, so you would have had two types anyway otherwise.

When the HAL's came about , again supposedly as a single class, we still had the IRO's - so no single class. Again, by accident (because of the replacement delays of CSC and "early" retirement of the IRO's, we had a short period of single class. But now, with the AOPS and frigates, we are back to more than one class. Who knows when the last AOPS or HAL will be retired as the 15 CSC's come on line, but towards the end, there may be a short time with single class again - but that would be because the next gen frigate to replace the first CSC's or the AOPS replacements have been delayed.

Again: Single class is a nice concept, but unless you want to be married to a design in perpetuity, it doesn't pan out in practice.
 

Rainbow1910

New Member
Reaction score
83
Points
330
The RCN has been talking a good game on "single class" since the early 1950's, but in practice, has only achieved it for a few years ... by accident.

The SAINT-LAURENT class was to be single class to replace the mish-mash of ships inherited from WWII. But the last vestige of WWII era ship were retired just about when the ANNAPOLIS hit the water. Then for a few years we had single class, until 1972 when the IRO's came on line. But it was an accident because between the two, there was supposed to be a class of General Purpose Frigates built, that was cancelled in view of all the reorganization of the forces, so you would have had two types anyway otherwise.

When the HAL's came about , again supposedly as a single class, we still had the IRO's - so no single class. Again, by accident (because of the replacement delays of CSC and "early" retirement of the IRO's, we had a short period of single class. But now, with the AOPS and frigates, we are back to more than one class. Who knows when the last AOPS or HAL will be retired as the 15 CSC's come on line, but towards the end, there may be a short time with single class again - but that would be because the next gen frigate to replace the first CSC's or the AOPS replacements have been delayed.

Again: Single class is a nice concept, but unless you want to be married to a design in perpetuity, it doesn't pan out in practice.
I think you are misconstruing my point. I am saying we should be procuring one class of main combatants at a time if possible, not that the navy should have one class of ships for everything. I don't count AOPS or Kingston in this as I am talking about frigates/destroyers. CSC specifically did not go for a split class of air warfare and anti-submarine warfare vessels in order to consolidate resources and make the entire operational process easier. The Navy happening to operate other vessels like AOPS and Kingston has no relevance to planning for a single class of main surface combatants.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
5,310
Points
1,160
Be interesting. This most likely will be the basis of BAE's T-32 entry. Think BAE got the message the MoD was sending when Badcock got the T-31?

Problem now is you have the Badcock frigate factory open after the 5 T-31 and one foreign build what comes next? Badcock will need work. But BAE looks to like they are to get the T-83 after the T-26 build. So the T32 to BAE would be stretch.

Then the big elephant in the room...Scotland. If a new vote is held and it goes to leave, all bets are off.

But the T31 Arrowhead 130 is also being built in Polish and Indonesian yards for their home navies.

If Scotland were daft enough to leave the Union - and I don't put it past them - London could find other places to build a navy.
 

torg003

Member
Reaction score
141
Points
580
I wouldn't have them. I'd sooner we build shipyards in the Turks and Caicos.
Good idea! Let's ask the Turks and Caicos to join Canada (I remember that being briefly discussed in Parliament during the '70s). While we're at it, give all British Carribean colonies the opportunity to join as well (maybe even ask the French ones as well). ;)
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
The RCN has been talking a good game on "single class" since the early 1950's, but in practice, has only achieved it for a few years ... by accident.

The SAINT-LAURENT class was to be single class to replace the mish-mash of ships inherited from WWII. But the last vestige of WWII era ship were retired just about when the ANNAPOLIS hit the water. Then for a few years we had single class, until 1972 when the IRO's came on line. But it was an accident because between the two, there was supposed to be a class of General Purpose Frigates built, that was cancelled in view of all the reorganization of the forces, so you would have had two types anyway otherwise.

When the HAL's came about , again supposedly as a single class, we still had the IRO's - so no single class. Again, by accident (because of the replacement delays of CSC and "early" retirement of the IRO's, we had a short period of single class. But now, with the AOPS and frigates, we are back to more than one class. Who knows when the last AOPS or HAL will be retired as the 15 CSC's come on line, but towards the end, there may be a short time with single class again - but that would be because the next gen frigate to replace the first CSC's or the AOPS replacements have been delayed.

Again: Single class is a nice concept, but unless you want to be married to a design in perpetuity, it doesn't pan out in practice.
I'm strongly betting on single class, multiple variants (does that mean its still a single class?).

The skuttlebut is that the second block of CSC are going to have more missiles and a smaller main gun. Burke I, II, III variants are basically different ship classes but are generally rolled into one for discussion purposes.

I'll defer to your expertise on that, but to me it sounds like species vs subspecies vs breed arguement from biology. Kind of irrelevant as its the ships capabilities that really matter.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
99
Points
380
I'm strongly betting on single class, multiple variants (does that mean its still a single class?).

The skuttlebut is that the second block of CSC are going to have more missiles and a smaller main gun. Burke I, II, III variants are basically different ship classes but are generally rolled into one for discussion purposes.

I'll defer to your expertise on that, but to me it sounds like species vs subspecies vs breed arguement from biology. Kind of irrelevant as its the ships capabilities that really matter.
When you say “second block” is that understood to be ships 4-6 or do we feel like that may come later in the stream?
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,621
Points
1,210
I'm strongly betting on single class, multiple variants (does that mean its still a single class?).

The skuttlebut is that the second block of CSC are going to have more missiles and a smaller main gun. Burke I, II, III variants are basically different ship classes but are generally rolled into one for discussion purposes.

I'll defer to your expertise on that, but to me it sounds like species vs subspecies vs breed arguement from biology. Kind of irrelevant as its the ships capabilities that really matter.
Just spitballing. That block may become the AAW frigate/destroyer to replace the Tribals.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
3,735
Points
1,040
When you say “second block” is that understood to be ships 4-6 or do we feel like that may come later in the stream?
Block I, is three ships, Block II four ships, Block III four ships and that leaves Block IV as four ships.

It's smart to build them this way. Gives you time to adjust and fix issues from the first three and modify as needed with new tech/solutions to problems as the process moves forward. And it allows for resets in the cost/contracting that is fair for both Canada and the company.

You'll end up with basically the Italian FREMM build this way with each block being different from the previous.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,917
Points
1,140
Just spitballing. That block may become the AAW frigate/destroyer to replace the Tribals.
Can we really continue to say 'replace the Tribals' when the time between the last active Tribal and the first AAW frigate/destroyer will be greater than 20yrs? It's a bit like us suddenly getting a Mistral class ship and saying its to replace the Bonnie that's been gone over 40yrs. All that experience/knowledge of having an aircraft carrier is long gone, it's a brand new capability that has to be re-learned I would think. It will be the same with the first AAW version of the CSC's when it comes on line, all the experience/knowledge of the Tribals will be long gone by then.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,621
Points
1,210
Can we really continue to say 'replace the Tribals' when the time between the last active Tribal and the first AAW frigate/destroyer will be greater than 20yrs? It's a bit like us suddenly getting a Mistral class ship and saying its to replace the Bonnie that's been gone over 40yrs. All that experience/knowledge of having an aircraft carrier is long gone, it's a brand new capability that has to be re-learned I would think. It will be the same with the first AAW version of the CSC's when it comes on line, all the experience/knowledge of the Tribals will be long gone by then.
The Tribals (Post TRUMP) were AAW C2 ships. It’s a capability that we need and there are residual memories within the fleet that will help in regaining that knowledge.
 
Top