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



## PointZero

Hi,
I heard that the Canadian Destroyers are going to be decommissioned in 2010. I haven't heard anything on replacement ships though. Is there any plans for new Destroyers? Or does the Cf just going to rely on the Frigates and not bother making or having Area Defense Destroyers? 






_Edit title title for spelling._


----------



## Occam

You heard wrong.


----------



## PointZero

When will they be decommissioned then?


----------



## Occam

That's a good question.  I'll wager a guess and say "not until there are replacements in the water, and operational", based on our history of decommissioning warships.


----------



## Franko

PointZero said:
			
		

> Hi,
> I heard that the Canadian Destroyers are going to be decommissioned in 2010. I haven't heard anything on replacement ships though. Is there any plans for new Destroyers? Or does the Cf just going to rely on the Frigates and not bother making or having Area Defense Destroyers?





Ahhhh RUMINT


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I am curious though (and a tad concerned) where you heard that. There is lots of speculation on replacement ideas but these seem to change with the political climate. It is too early to say when and with what when it comes to the IROQUOIS class. There are those who see them looking pretty right after a docking and then there are those who have sailed on them their entire careers who know first hand what happens when you drive something 'like it is stolen' for 30 + years!
In all honesty, they probably should have been replaced already but having said that, they (and their crews) are still capable of performing the duties they are required to.


----------



## Newt

A quick search of Google tells me that Wikipedia may be the culprit. In the section of the article that discusses TRUMP it's mentioned that the intended decommissioning[sic] was around 2010. There is no citation for the 2010 date though.


----------



## dapaterson

For the future of Canada's surface combatants,, you could start reading at:

http://www.cdnmilitary.ca/index.php?p=16

and then look for further details on SCSC.


----------



## GK .Dundas

If we have to replace the Tribal s  I've grown rather fond of the Gibbs& Cox submission to Australia's AWD competition .It lost on cost and I suspect the Spanish give them a slightly better deal on the LHD  they  bought as part of the package.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I think SCSC has already fallen away and been replaced by yet another "project" for an 'all-in-one' destroyer/frigate/Command platform. As for TRIBALs (semantics here), that was a class of 21 destroyers (excellent ships by the way) of  WWII vintage, British designed and built for the Navies of Great Britain, Canada and Australia of which HAIDA berthed in Hamilton, ON is the only one remaining. Canada had eight:
ATHABASKAN I - Lost 28/29 Apr 44 off Brittany coast
HURON
HAIDA
IROQUOIS
Though built during the war years, too late to see service (in WW II) were:
ATHABASKAN II
NOOTKA II
MICMAC
CAYUGA 
All but MICMAC (and of course ATHABASKAN I) served in Korean waters also (as did the 3 Australian TRIBALs)

Yes, even the placard on the display at the Maritime Museum in Halifax is in error. 
IRO, ATH, HUR and ALG were actually never 'officially' referred to as TRIBALs though their crews adopted the moniker.

Anyway, I suspect the SCSC concept will be maintained but then that was last envisioned for KINGSTON class (interchangeable payloads mission dependent) but never really seemed to pan out. It will be interesting to see what is floating out in the harbour 5 years from now but in all honesty, I suspect there won't be any major additions (AOPs-type maybe???) My take only.


----------



## dapaterson

The Canadian Single Combatant is still on the books.  But flash to bang, as with any multi-billion dollar project, takes a long time.


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I thought I read somewhere that it was shelved for the time being though I guess not. What I was thinking (which has been tossed) was the thought of converting a couple HALs into Area Air Defence vessels or building a couple based on the HAL hull. 
Again, time will tell.
As for the IRO class being replaced in 2010, you are correct - every civilian source seems to say that!
I do know that CMs are screaming for senior NCMs in Ottawa for "Projects" so there must be a few things on the books. Once again though, as I keep telling him (every ^%#@* time he asks), There is no NAVY in Ottawa!
So far, so good (knock wood)


----------



## Radar114

Re-building he CPFs into area defence with the SM2 fit is what they had planned for the last 6 frigates, Provincial Class or something they were going to call them.  Had we kept going with that plan, the 280s would probably be gone by now.


----------



## canuck101

You may want to take a look at the below link:
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/defencewatch/default.aspx

Four of the Halifax Class Frigates will be getting new gear so they can act as Command and Control ships. Look for the Title:THALES CANADA AWARDED CONTRACT TO PROVIDE CANADIAN NAVY WITH SATCOM ANTENNAS


----------



## Occam

Interesting.  UHF satcom antennae are but a small part of what would be required to turn a CPF into a command platform.  I wonder if anyone has given any thought into which members of the crew are going to have to be landed in order to make bunk space for staff?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

canuck101 said:
			
		

> You may want to take a look at the below link:
> http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/defencewatch/default.aspx
> 
> Four of the Halifax Class Frigates will be getting new gear so they can act as Command and Control ships. Look for the Title:THALES CANADA AWARDED CONTRACT TO PROVIDE CANADIAN NAVY WITH SATCOM ANTENNAS



Command and Control yes but still no AAD capability.


----------



## a_majoor

I read it is also possible to rebuild the Halifax class frigate with a hull "plug" increasing the hull length and internal volume (although my Google fu seems weak tonight, I can't seem to find the reference). This might be faster and cheaper than building new ships from scratch (although it would probably be even better to simply have built more Halifax class ships in the first place...) and provide the hull volume for air defense weapons or command facilities, depending on what is needed or desired.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

All well and good but then you will be forcing the Navy to rely on 35-40 year old hulls in the not so distant future with no replacement in sight like we are doing with the 280s and the AORs now again with no replacement in sight.


----------



## Lumber

Who would build these anyways?


----------



## Occam

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I read it is also possible to rebuild the Halifax class frigate with a hull "plug" increasing the hull length and internal volume (although my Google fu seems weak tonight, I can't seem to find the reference). This might be faster and cheaper than building new ships from scratch (although it would probably be even better to simply have built more Halifax class ships in the first place...) and provide the hull volume for air defense weapons or command facilities, depending on what is needed or desired.



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.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Occam said:
			
		

> 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

Occam said:
			
		

> 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

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> 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

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> 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

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> 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

Pusser said:
			
		

> 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.



			
				Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> 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

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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!


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

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



Here's the storm


----------



## Occam

Yeeeee Hawwwwwwww!   ;D

That second photo looks like a good 30-35 degrees of heel!


----------



## Stoker

Actually we dug into a wave, the stern came out of the water and the both shafts tripped from over speed. Then we took a 39 degree roll and stayed there for a good minute. The sweepdeck was under water, I thought we were goners. :skull: We had 16 meter waves that day.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Can someone send me the DIN link with the updated documents?  I was on the site today and could not locate the drawings with the new spaces, the only one I could find is the one with the new ops layout.


----------



## NCRCrow

have some respect for the old girl its HMCS IROQUOIS not HMCS Iroqouis.


----------



## vonGarvin

Wow.  Awesome photo, but makes me glad that I am in the army.  I would not be able to function in such conditions: I'd be all green and vomity.


----------



## MSEng314

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> Can someone send me the DIN link with the updated documents?  I was on the site today and could not locate the drawings with the new spaces, the only one I could find is the one with the new ops layout.



I'll send you a link to the presentation tomorrow when I am at my computer.


----------



## Occam

Stoker said:
			
		

> Actually we dug into a wave, the stern came out of the water and the both shafts tripped from over speed. Then we took a 39 degree roll and stayed there for a good minute. The sweepdeck was under water, I thought we were goners. :skull: We had 16 meter waves that day.



Yeah, I never thought about that, but I guess with electric motors instead of GTs/PDE, gearbox and CRPP, the screws coming out of the water would be a problem!

I would not want to see 39 degrees of roll on any ship.  I had a few moments on the AthaB where the wind had us heeled over so bad I wasn't sure we were coming back up again, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't 39 degrees.


----------



## NavyShooter

Being a SONAR tech, and being concerned with Gyros and such, I've paid attention to such things as heavy rolls...

I've been down in the Aft Gyro compartment doing rounds and I observed 42.6 degrees of roll, in one direction, I think we came back to about 38 in the other.  

That was a long couple of days.  I don't often end up using the seat-belts in the bunks, that time I didn't even bother with the bunk....


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> have some respect for the old girl its HMCS IROQUOIS not HMCS Iroqouis.


 According to the Canadian Naval Centennial website:

A Canadian warship is known in writing as H.M.C.S. _Buckingham_ or HMCS _Buckingham_, even, the _Buckingham_ (with her name in italics); but a ship’s name should never appear in quotation marks. The name when used for the designated class is not in italic and only the first letter is capitalized. In the Department of National Defence documents, names of ships are written entirely in upper case and are not italicized: HMCS HALIFAX. 
Ref: The Canadian Style – A guide to writing and editing. Dundurn Press Limited, Toronto, 1997, p.107.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That is most definitely the storm I had in mind, Stoker.

For a moment there I was wondering why everyone on the bridge was looking aft. I guess if you just tripped both shafts, that explains it.

I will only say this about these pictures: That, my friends, is why the AOPS will be larger than even the HALIFAX's.

I also note here that the premise in my question has now been vindicated: Even accounting for smaller AC spaces, if they are adding bunks in cabins and merging crew spaces to turn them back into larger mess decks, then the living standards are being set back a few decades.


----------



## Pusser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> 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.



No, that's a little (not much, but still a little) before my time.  As a young DMech though, I certainly heard about that incident.

Thanks for the info on how the IREs were stretched.  I did not know that.  I just know that their length in Jane's got longer.


----------



## NCRCrow

can a mod or the originator of this thread please spell IROQUOIS right.


----------



## Lex Parsimoniae

HFXCrow said:
			
		

> can a mod or the originator of this thread please spell IROQUOIS right.


HMCS _Iroquois_ is spelt correctly - it is HMCS _Algonquin_ that is missing a "u" in her spelling.


----------



## NCRCrow

Thank you for fixing up the IRO and as Lex pointed out Algonquin (ALG) needs to go into spell check re-fit.


----------



## karl28

Stoker  

  Wow amazing photos thanks for sharing them . Makes me really glad that I am a civy on dry land LOL I would not be able to handle a ride like that .


----------



## Stoker

You get used to it.... :


----------



## NCRCrow

I never have :-X


----------



## KrazyHamburglar

... I probably never will...


----------



## Stoker

We were piped down for about 5 days, the PA that we borrowed from a CPF didn't get out of his rack for at least 3 days. I had to check on him to make sure he wasn't dead ;D.


----------



## ekpiper

I'm going to resurrect this thread with some questions, since the news of ATH being refitted made me ponder our replacement options.

SCSC, while a nice idea, will take a long time to get in the water, so instead, would it be wise to buy something like the new Type-45 Destroyer to replace the 280s, and start SCSC for replacing HALIs while they're 25-30 years old?  Perhaps having 4 built for us in the UK, since the Canadian acquisition process would take a long time, might be a good plan.  Politics aside, would the Type-45 be a good fit for Canada, or is it overkill for our needs?  I saw Dauntless in Portsmouth about 2 weeks before she was commissioned, and I have to say that she is a marvelous sight.  My (wild) estimate in cost would be around $7bn for 4 (1.08bn GBP X 1.62CAD/GBP * 4).  Given that we're spending $3.1bn on refitting the Halifaxes (granted that there are 12 to be refitted, so $260mn each), it doesn't seem that out of reach for 4 top-line destroyers.

Thanks in advance for the information,
ekpiper


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Lots of discussion regarding 280 replacement options are really widely discussed already throughout the forum.

Milnet.Ca Staff


----------

