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

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
8,338
Points
1,360
I am of the minority that believes we should be buying off the shelf from allies the U.S.
Agree. And we can debate all we want about to whom we should hitch most of our wagons, but we benefit most from our relationship with America’s benevolence. USN-RCN interoperability and likemindedness, check (SPY-7 on T26 says a lot). Land/SOF cooperations/collaboration, check (locked down after 9-11). NORAD cooperation flowing throughout the rest of the globe, check (C-17, C-130J, CH-147F [a thinly-veiled MH-47G], and now F-35).

$0.02
 

Halifax Tar

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
2,277
Points
1,260
Agree. And we can debate all we want about to whom we should hitch most of our wagons, but we benefit most from our relationship with America’s benevolence. USN-RCN interoperability and likemindedness, check (SPY-7 on T26 says a lot). Land/SOF cooperations/collaboration, check (locked down after 9-11). NORAD cooperation flowing throughout the rest of the globe, check (C-17, C-130J, CH-147F [a thinly-veiled MH-47G], and now F-35).

$0.02

Absolutely no disagreement from me. I would give anything to be compatible on all levels with their logistics support.
 

suffolkowner

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
727
Points
1,060
Well instead we have a Norwegian half icebreaker a German AOR and a British frigate. While I tend to be in favour of building our own I also tend to think there should be an explicitly good reason for other than American platforms. The A330MRTT being a good example at present.

Having said that some considersations for MCDV replacement

Argentinian gowindArafuraBraunshweigknud rasmussenriver
displacement14501640184017201700
length8780897280
beam11131314.513.5
draft3.343.454
speed2122261720
range80004000400030005500
endurance30217/2121
complement3040651830
main arnament30mm40mm76mm76mm20mm
secondary arms2x0.525mm2x27mm2x0.5
hanger5 tonnosmall uavnono
stern rampyesnonoyesno
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Well instead we have a Norwegian half icebreaker a German AOR and a British frigate. While I tend to be in favour of building our own I also tend to think there should be an explicitly good reason for other than American platforms. The A330MRTT being a good example at present.

Having said that some considersations for MCDV replacement

Argentinian gowindArafuraBraunshweigknud rasmussenriver
displacement14501640184017201700
length8780897280
beam11131314.513.5
draft3.343.454
speed2122261720
range80004000400030005500
endurance30217/2121
complement3040651830
main arnament30mm40mm76mm76mm20mm
secondary arms2x0.525mm2x27mm2x0.5
hanger5 tonnosmall uavnono
stern rampyesnonoyesno
What I have seen of the statement of requirements for the Kingston Class replacement so far, is a slightly longer ship, small caliber main gun, modular payloads including MCM , drone capability, full size RHIB, good range, 25 knots, small crew size, Lloyds standards. They are taking the original requirements for the Kingston Class and improving upon the deficiencies. It may be an existing design which I favor the River Class or it may be a home grown design and I have seen concept art for it. Remember any replacement will have do the MCM job and be a patroller.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,013
Points
1,040
What I have seen of the statement of requirements for the Kingston Class replacement so far, is a slightly longer ship, small caliber main gun, modular payloads including MCM , drone capability, full size RHIB, good range, 25 knots, small crew size, Lloyds standards. They are taking the original requirements for the Kingston Class and improving upon the deficiencies. It may be an existing design which I favor the River Class or it may be a home grown design and I have seen concept art for it. Remember any replacement will have do the MCM job and be a patroller.
Doesn't sound too far off my "Must Haves"
  • Eventual replacement of the Kingston-Class. I see this falling somewhere between an OPV and a Corvette-type vessel. Must haves to me would be range/endurance to reflect our operating requirements✅, a flex-deck of some sort✅, USV/UUV/UAV operations capabilities✅, a flight deck large enough to re-fuel/rearm the Cyclone/Cormorant, RHIBs✅ and constabulary weaponry✅. Like-to-haves in my mind would be a towed-array sonar (integrated or containerized), a hanger to support a larger-class UAV (MQ-8 Fire Scout?) and some limited AAW/ASW/ASuW capability.

For the Kingston-Class replacement I think you'd want to keep the manning well below 100 personnel (60-80 max...preferably closer to the lower end✅?) which could definitely limit the capabilities wish list (especially on the air ops side). Between that and the extra manning required for an expanded submarine fleet I think you've likely hit the limit of what the Navy would be able to support even with a major recruiting push and retention efforts. To my mind that rules out wish-list items such as Aircraft Carriers, Amphibious Assault Ships, etc.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
Doesn't sound too far off my "Must Haves"
You should add the towed array because any replacement will more than likely operate the current TRAPS towed array payload. No hanger or flight deck and crew size around 38 core with 15 to 20 training bunks.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,013
Points
1,040
You should add the towed array because any replacement will more than likely operate the current TRAPS towed array payload. No hanger or flight deck and crew size around 38 core with 15 to 20 training bunks.
(y)

My preference would be to have a flight deck to be able to extend the range of a Cyclone when teaming with a CSC in an ASW role. That extra deck space could also be used for a bolt-on missile system to provide some limited self-defence/strike capability if required but of course that may mean some trade-offs in terms of speed/range due to a larger hull size.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
(y)

My preference would be to have a flight deck to be able to extend the range of a Cyclone when teaming with a CSC in an ASW role. That extra deck space could also be used for a bolt-on missile system to provide some limited self-defence/strike capability if required but of course that may mean some trade-offs in terms of speed/range due to a larger hull size.
Understood but the RCN is probably going to lightly arm this ship and want to keep in simple. So no missiles, no large gun, no helo.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
Well instead we have a Norwegian half icebreaker a German AOR and a British frigate. While I tend to be in favour of building our own I also tend to think there should be an explicitly good reason for other than American platforms. The A330MRTT being a good example at present.

Having said that some considersations for MCDV replacement

Argentinian gowindArafuraBraunshweigknud rasmussenriver
displacement14501640184017201700
length8780897280
beam11131314.513.5
draft3.343.454
speed2122261720
range80004000400030005500
endurance30217/2121
complement3040651830
main arnament30mm40mm76mm76mm20mm
secondary arms2x0.525mm2x27mm2x0.5
hanger5 tonnosmall uavnono
stern rampyesnonoyesno
I believe the info quoted here is for a batch 1 RIVER CLASS. The batch 2 has a higher top speed (24kts) and a larger main weapon (30mm) for example. It's a better fit for us than the batch 1.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
I believe the info quoted here is for a batch 1 RIVER CLASS. The batch 2 has a higher top speed (24kts) and a larger main weapon (30mm) for example. It's a better fit for us than the batch 1.
That would be my choice or a new design.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
850
Points
910
Operated with Kund Rasmussen numerous times in the Arctic in the summer and toured her sister ship Ejnar Mikkelsen when she visited Halifax a few years ago. That ship is built to operate in bay ice and the ice type normally found in their part of the Arctic and the conditions in our part of the Arctic are very different. No hanger, 1 ROD and 1 shaftline and the endurance is significantly less than a Kingston Class. It is built to operate off the Greenland Coast with heavy shore support. That being said buy some to operate off our coasts but keep it away from the our Arctic.
Yeah that's a no-starter.
 

Swampbuggy

Full Member
Reaction score
81
Points
380
It might make some sense to explore having BAE build 6-7 of these for us as hulls and have them brought here for fitting out at ISI or possibly Davie. If CPF availability may be an issue going forward, a RIVER could maybe do a job that's beyond an MCDV tasking, while keeping a HAL free for something that really calls for it.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
294
Points
880
It might make some sense to explore having BAE build 6-7 of these for us as hulls and have them brought here for fitting out at ISI or possibly Davie. If CPF availability may be an issue going forward, a RIVER could maybe do a job that's beyond an MCDV tasking, while keeping a HAL free for something that really calls for it.
or just give the contract to Heddle, but I do like the take the pressure off the Halifax class idea.
 

TacticalTea

Sr. Member
Reaction score
850
Points
910
Agree. And we can debate all we want about to whom we should hitch most of our wagons, but we benefit most from our relationship with America’s benevolence. USN-RCN interoperability and likemindedness, check (SPY-7 on T26 says a lot). Land/SOF cooperations/collaboration, check (locked down after 9-11). NORAD cooperation flowing throughout the rest of the globe, check (C-17, C-130J, CH-147F [a thinly-veiled MH-47G], and now F-35).

$0.02
That's what I've been arguing for as well. We can greatly benefit integration from further integration with our American ally.

That said, we have the NSS now, and I think it's worth maintaining that course for the foreseeable future. When it comes to everything else though, whether it's add-ons like weapons systems, radar and comm suites, or procurement for the army and aviation, I'm all for it.
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,013
Points
1,040
That would be my choice or a new design.
The Batch 2 River Class would tick pretty much all my boxes as well, including the flight deck.

I wonder, if both being BAE designs if there might be some commonalities between the general design concepts of the Rivers and the Type 26's which might lead to some commonalities in basic fittings and components?

Also, the RN Rivers might operate in some of the areas where we may deploy our own OPV's which could possibly lead to opportunities for shared logistics support?
 
Top