New replacements for HMCS Iroquois, HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Athabaskan?

[Ex-Dragoon]

While the CPFs were built with a modular design, I think the ability to vary the number of modules was supposed to be done during the construction process, and not as an afterthought 20 years after they hit the water.  The sheer number of wiring, cabling, plumbing, and ventilation connections that would have to be lined up (or completely rerun) with a new module would be staggering.  I'm sure it's technically possible, but the costs would be prohibitive.

Not to mention from the FELEX guys I have talked to impractical.

 

[Pusser]

While the CPFs were built with a modular design, I think the ability to vary the number of modules was supposed to be done during the construction process, and not as an afterthought 20 years after they hit the water.  The sheer number of wiring, cabling, plumbing, and ventilation connections that would have to be lined up (or completely rerun) with a new module would be staggering.  I'm sure it's technically possible, but the costs would be prohibitive.

I seem to recall while they were building the CPFs years ago that there was talk of an extended version, but that was something that was to be built that way from the keel up.  I don't think anyone was talking about lengthening existing ships.

Having said that, four out of the seven Restigouche class ships were extended to become Improved Restigouche or IRE class ships.  However, in that case they just added a bit on to the stern.  They didn't insert anything into the middle.

The IREs were GATINEAU, TERRA NOVA, KOOTENAY and RESTIGOUCHE.  COLUMBIA, CHAUDIERE and ST CROIX were left in their original configuration (and placed in reserve soon after - the so-called "black" fleet).

 

[a_majoor]

Since we will be waiting a long time for any replacements, maybe we should look farther out of the box to see how we can achieve our various wants and needs.

The DDH-161 Hyuga helicopter carriers of the JDSF (officially "Destroyers") are large enough to carry a useful load of helicopters (and eventually UAV's) for ASW work, and the hull is large enough to be used as a LHD or supply ship (with suitable internal modifications) to go one way. Maybe we need a swarm of small ships (a Corvette navy?) using the latest in technology and combat networking to create lots of individually low value targets. Multi hull, lifting body or SWATH technology has some advantages which might be worth looking into (especially if we want to trade volume and cost for high speeds, large deck area or stability, among other things).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Thucydides if you ever get the opportunity to sail in the North Atlantic in a 400+ ft frigate compared to something smaller you would be changing your tune.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I have to agree with Ex-D.

When dealing with the North Pacific in winter time, size has a quality all of it's own.

If your hull size is too small, you aren't really going to be a warship, as you will just spend all of your time trying to survive.

 

[a_majoor]

I don't doubt that a larger hull is more stable, comfortable etc.

I am pointing out that (especially the way Canada manages procurement) we will have a very long time to consider what we really want and need, and all the different options available. If after a detailed analysis it turns out the best way to carry out the role of the Navy is to move to Zeppelins, then we can shift our resources there without a lot of extra wasted time.

Given that a half decade after the CDS said getting a "Big Honking Ship" was a priority there still isn't a design, much less a keel on a slipway, I can't see replacements for the 280 class ships happening at any great speed.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Given that a half decade after the CDS said getting a "Big Honking Ship" was a priority there still isn't a design, much less a keel on a slipway, I can't see replacements for the 280 class ships happening at any great speed.

At least there is movement to replace the 280s with the first 4-6 SCSC in the next decade or so with offices stood up in Ottawa. The BHS was something General Hillier wanted, the Navy realized that other priorities exist so BHS I would say is a dead issue.

 

[Occam]

At least there is movement to replace the 280s with the first 4-6 SCSC in the next decade or so with offices stood up in Ottawa. The BHS was something General Hillier wanted, the Navy realized that other priorities exist so BHS I would say is a dead issue.

The JSS concept is still alive and well, and there is a project office in Ottawa.  Can't tell you for sure if that is still the current name for it or not, but there are staff here working on it...

 

[NavyShooter]

The BHS was a seperate project/idea from the JSS.  Always was. 

The JSS will move forward in some fashion.

The BHS, with the intended deployable troops based in Shearwater, plus the helos, plus the AFV's, etc, is not moving forward.  (or at least, not that I've heard of!)

NS

 

[Occam]

The BHS was a seperate project/idea from the JSS.  Always was. 

My mistake, I thought they were one and the same.  Been away from the Navy too long....woops, that feeling lasted about 10 seconds. 

 

[Pusser]

Thucydides if you ever get the opportunity to sail in the North Atlantic in a 400+ ft frigate compared to something smaller you would be changing your tune.

I did Force 10 in a Gate Vessel (135 ft) once.  It wasn't a lot of fun. :-\

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Could be even worse: Thucydides could go through an Atlantic storm in one of our lovely MCDV's.

While storms, including Hurricane, in a Gate Vessel could be exhausting, I never felt truly in danger. They were very heavy ships with deep draft (13 feet deep for 125 feet of length) and little in terms of superstructure weight so extremely stable - plus you just could not kill the damn train diesel engines that drove them. But the MCDV's are shallow  draft top heavy and I gather that one went through a hurricane on its way to Europe some years back and it was not pretty.

BTW Pusser: The force ten storm you talk about, was it the 1980 storm where we lost a petty officer who fell from the infamous "fourth" bunk in the CPO's mess and bled to death before we could do anything about it? I remember that one because the GV was escorting a gaggle of reserve units tenders to Halifax (some Bozo thought bringing them there for the winter as training platforms was a good idea and compounded the gaffe by having them transit there during mid-October Hurricane season).  I was driving Captor (65 feet - 45 tons) and to this day I wonder at the fact that somehow we did not lose a single one of those little dinky toys in the storm.

So yes, size matters in our waters . And in any events, that size costs little: The difference in price between a 4000 tons Frigate and a 5000 tons one, carrying the same warfare suite, is probably no more than 10%. That is a 10% well spent.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

It might even be 10% more for the 4000 ton frigate. It costs a lot to bend waveguide and pipe to fit into a smaller space.

 

[Navy_Blue]

I know we have all heard this speech before over the last 8 to ten years.  From what the Admiral had to say last week our ship building plan has passed through parliament.  This means it will no longer be a good suggestion but the way we do business from here on out.  It means we will build a platform over a longer period keeping our yards going and expertise in country.  He told us that as early as this summer they will have selected the yards that will be building more or less civi platforms and yards that will handle the bigger military needs. 

So that in a small part this is good news.  It seems the first ships we will see are going to be AOP’s, JSS then the “Surface Combatant” which will replace the 280’s and CPF’s.  Even with multiple yards working of several platforms this will most likely take years to decades.  If we have an other change in government this could all go out the window and we could start again. 

As for a CPF being a command platform minus capability they have in the past fitted ships to be command ships with more bunks and equipment.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Having said that, four out of the seven Restigouche class ships were extended to become Improved Restigouche or IRE class ships.  However, in that case they just added a bit on to the stern.  They didn't insert anything into the middle.

Actually, Pusser, the extension was done merely by reversing the pitch of the stern plates. All the other steamers, you may recall, had their stern "tumble home" from the keel. When they refited the IRE's to carry the VDS, instead of copying the "half-way" cut back they used to retrofit on the DDH's, they kept the keel but reversed the angle of the stern plate: That grew the lenght from 366 feet to 375 feet at the top of the hull, but the keel and compartment configuration below the VDS compt were left untouched.

As for a CPF being a command platform minus capability they have in the past fitted ships to be command ships with more bunks and equipment.

I would seriously like to know where they think they can put more bunks and equipment on the CPF's, at least without removing something else or setting the living standards back by a few decades.

 

[yoman]

I would seriously like to know where they think they can put more bunks and equipment on the CPF's, at least without removing something else or setting the living standards back by a few decades.

From what I can remember hearing this summer is that their combining a couple of the messes (therefore knocking down a bulkhead) and rearranging the bunks to fit more of them. That's part of the solution anyways. I don't remember the other things that their doing to expand living space.

 

[MSEng314]

If you have access to the DIN you can look up the HCM project website which has a presentation on the engineering changes that will be made regarding habitability on the CPF's, including drawings of the new arrangements. One of the big things will be the conversion of the majority of officers' cabins to triple bunks like in the mess decks, since the command and control functions lost with the 280's will require more officers on board. That being said, those changes are planned for only four of the ships, but it doesn't specify which four.

 

[NavyShooter]

Yeah,

We were reviewing those changes today as a discussion in class (put a bunch of techies together and see what we talk about)

There's a lot of habitiability changes going on.  3 bunks here, 6 bunks there, adds up to quite a few extras.  There's even some going on 4 deck!  That'll be a nice quiet spot to work/sleep!

NS

 

[MSEng314]

At least they will be attempting to rectify some of the issues with the crews washplaces & heads (specifically No. 3), and most of the offices will be getting more desk space, so it's not all bad

 

[FSTO]

One of the big space savings was in terms of air conditioning. You have to remember that the CPF was designed in the 70's and built in the 80's and 90's. Therefore the ac required to cool all that computer equipment was huge. With the reduction in size of the computers to run the new CCS system they could expand the ops room and add a few more accommodation spaces as well. Another thing is the new SHINCOMM that is alot smaller and more capable than the other piece of crap that sat on the middle of the desk in the officer cabins!