# HMCS Algonquin refurbishment



## cameron (28 Dec 2008)

Good evening all

Concerning this article I read on the Canadian Navy website
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_news/news_e.asp?category=7&id=686

I certainly think it makes sense to keep the DD280's technologically relevant and potent until a replacement is in hand, so will this refurbishment be done to the other Iroquois Class destroyers as well?  Also what's the latest word on the destroyer replacement?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (28 Dec 2008)

cameron said:
			
		

> Good evening all
> 
> Concerning this article I read on the Canadian Navy website
> http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_news/news_e.asp?category=7&id=686
> ...



Well seing the brass have been saying the 280s will remain in service til about 2012 or 2017 (depending on who you talk to) I would say it would be a good bet that other 280s will get it as well. As for replacement destroyers I would say the silence on the boards should be the answer in itself.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (28 Dec 2008)

Algonquin's refit has more to do with industrial currency than relevancy or err...potency. It's hard to keep kit working when the parts haven't been made in years.


----------



## geo (29 Dec 2008)

Ummm... I know I may be out of my lane but, 
IIRC, in their last refits, the 280s were kitted out as Command & control platforms for naval squadrons/flotillas (?)

When we retired the Restigouche & St Laurent class of ships - we replaced em with Frigates - should the 280s in their turn be replaced by more frigates ?

At a time when we don't have enough sailors to fully crew all our warships, what is it a 280 does that a frigate can't ???


----------



## hugh19 (29 Dec 2008)

Umm they have command and control, plus long range air defence.


----------



## geo (29 Dec 2008)

ok - but, couldn't that kind of weapon system fit onboard a frigate ?


----------



## hugh19 (29 Dec 2008)

Not unless you want to cut the frigate in half and add a section to the hull. Plus the frigates do not have living quarters for all the staff. Unless you really jam them in.


----------



## dapaterson (29 Dec 2008)

I thought I had heard that the intent was to build a single class to replace both fleets, with modular systems to permit plug&play configuration depending on the mission.

With no plans and no steel cut, though, that's a good 8-10 years from any capability (and that's optimistic).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Dec 2008)

sledge said:
			
		

> Umm they have command and control, plus long range air defence.



And I like long range air defence missiles...it helps me sleep at night knowing that should the need arise we will be able to engage an aircraft or missile at 50-75 nautical miles vice 12+ nautical miles with a sea sparrow.



> Ummm... I know I may be out of my lane but,
> IIRC, in their last refits, the 280s were kitted out as Command & control platforms for naval squadrons/flotillas (?)
> 
> When we retired the Restigouche & St Laurent class of ships - we replaced em with Frigates - should the 280s in their turn be replaced by more frigates ?
> ...



remember the Halifax class is going into the FELEX, why replace the 280s with a class that is getting on it years. The Destroyer Replacement Project is designed to replace both the 280s and Halifax class with one class of modular warship.


----------



## geo (29 Dec 2008)

> The Destroyer Replacement Project is designed to replace both the 280s and Halifax class with one class of modular warship


which is +/- what I was driving at...


----------



## HalfmyLife (13 Jan 2009)

Destroyer/Frigate, Its like comparing apples and oranges. If you look at the two classes, they are roughly the same size. If they do in fact build the navy ships(yes I said IF and I am not going to call AOPS a ship yet), they should maintain Canadian TG's with long range SAMs to augment its defence.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2009)

Why would you not call the AOPs a ship? They are planned to be a bue water corvette/large OPV, so it pretty much fits the criteria...


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (13 Jan 2009)

In most cases, engagement range is going to be limited by the radar horizon not whatever missile you want to engage with. The frigates and TRUMPs are pretty much the same there.

In any case, you can't do "modular" AAW. The systems are too big for that, and require too much setup when they're first installed. DRP and whatever they eventually replace the frigates with should have a lot of systems in common, but the AAW systems will have to be different.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (13 Jan 2009)

Our last bit of info we received on the DRP (or whatever flavour this month it is) will be the first 4 ships will be dedicated AAD and command and control platforms.


----------



## FSTO (13 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Our last bit of info we received on the DRP (or whatever flavour this month it is) will be the first 4 ships will be dedicated AAD and command and control platforms.



Was this presented at Fleet Week?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jan 2009)

Never made it to Fleet Week this was info from just before Xmas.


----------



## HalfmyLife (14 Jan 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Why would you not call the AOPs a ship? They are planned to be a bue water corvette/large OPV, so it pretty much fits the criteria...


More of an off handed joke about the ships we plan get smaller and smaller


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (14 Jan 2009)

HalfmyLife said:
			
		

> More of an off handed joke about the ships we plan get smaller and smaller



I think that has more to do with the percieved mission and purpose of this class....


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jan 2009)

cameron said:
			
		

> Good evening all
> 
> Concerning this article I read on the Canadian Navy website
> http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/cms_news/news_e.asp?category=7&id=686
> ...



From VAdm Maddison's brief this morning, the replacement SCSC will consist of 15 ships, the first 3 will be AAD with Command and Control capability, the remainding 12 will be general warfare frigates. look for them around the 2015-18 time frame.


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (15 Jan 2009)

Wouldn't the program need to be funded somewhere between 2005-2008 to be in service 2015-2018?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (15 Jan 2009)

Just going what was relayed to us...


----------



## Sub_Guy (15 Jan 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the program need to be funded somewhere between 2005-2008 to be in service 2015-2018?



For our Navy that's late!  If we are going to see hulls in the water by 2015 funding should have started 10 years ago.   >

On a more serious note it is possible if we go with an off the shelf (proven) design that we can build here (too keep everyone happy).


----------



## HalfmyLife (16 Jan 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> Wouldn't the program need to be funded somewhere between 2005-2008 to be in service 2015-2018?


On the positive side, they were planning the CADRE program for years before they switched to SCSC. So in Theory there was allot of preplanning already done and with the downturn in the economy they might fast track it.


----------



## starseed (2 Feb 2009)

drunknsubmrnr said:
			
		

> In most cases, engagement range is going to be limited by the radar horizon not whatever missile you want to engage with. The frigates and TRUMPs are pretty much the same there.


All too true. The British figured this out the hard way in the Falklands and lost 3 air defense destroyers and 3 frigates, plus some support ships. The Argentines just popped out over the cliff, dropped their bombs  before they had time to launch a SAM. A couple more destroyers were almost sunk as well, but the bombs had the wrong fuses and didn't detonate on impact. Scared the shit out of the Royal Navy, since the Argentinean air force wasn't exactly large.

Doesn't matter how far out your missiles can engage if you can't see them coming in time to fire one


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (2 Feb 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> All too true. The British figured this out the hard way in the Falklands and lost 3 air defense destroyers and 3 frigates, plus some support ships. The Argentines just popped out over the cliff, dropped their bombs  before they had time to launch a SAM. A couple more destroyers were almost sunk as well, but the bombs had the wrong fuses and didn't detonate on impact. Scared the shit out of the Royal Navy, since the Argentinean air force wasn't exactly large.
> 
> Doesn't matter how far out your missiles can engage if you can't see them coming in time to fire one



Thats why you have to plan to position your assets where they would do the most good. There were a lot of painful lessons learned during the Falklands and most western navies doctrines, construction etc reflect that today.


----------



## starseed (3 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Thats why you have to plan to position your assets where they would do the most good. There were a lot of painful lessons learned during the Falklands and most western navies doctrines, construction etc reflect that today.


Absolutely, all it woulda taken to avert many of these losses was AEW. Of course they only had tiny carriers that either couldn't or just didn't carry those planes. The type 45 destroyers and their new Fleet Carriers are a direct result of the, as you say, painful lessons they learned in the Falklands.

edit: As are, one might say, our own Evolved Sea Sparrow and the mounting of Goalkeeper systems on all our ships for point defense


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Feb 2009)

Lets wait till the UK actually has their new carriers built and in service before going down that path, not to mention their lone Type45 that has sea trials to do....

we don't use the Goalkeeper we use the Phalanx system.


----------



## starseed (3 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Lets wait till the UK actually has their new carriers built and in service before going down that path, not to mention their lone Type45 that has sea trials to do....
> 
> we don't use the Goalkeeper we use the Phalanx system.


Same thing. Goalkeeper is just the British, and frankly far more descriptive, name


----------



## George Wallace (3 Feb 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> Same thing. Goalkeeper is just the British, and frankly far more descriptive, name



Be careful there.  Next thing we'll have is someone saying that the Leopard 2 is the same as a M1 Abrams, only it is German, not American, and a far more descriptive name.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (3 Feb 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> Same thing. Goalkeeper is just the British, and frankly far more descriptive, name



Different calibers, different capabilities so _not_ the same thing and the last time I checked it Dutch not British. :

Not to mention Phalanx is an apt name as well, you do realize the Greeks used the phalanx as a formation for their hoplites and during missile attacks on the formation the ranks of hoplites used to raise their shields and long spears to help deflect the arrows and what have you from the troops.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Feb 2009)

Still waiting for a rebuttal starseed (I know you have been online since this discussion started), or can you admit you were a wee bit out of your lanes?


----------



## drunknsubmrnr (5 Feb 2009)

Goalkeeper is actually more of a copy of a TRUMP's systems, down to certain parts in common with the LIROD. It only looks like a Phalanx...totally different system that works on totally different principles.


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Feb 2009)

How different or similar Goalkeeper and Phalanx are depends entirely on the observer.  To someone knowledgeable in naval weapons they are evidently quite different.  To the rest of the world, they are both about the same thing: Gatling guns with integral radar mounted on ships for defence against missiles and such.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> How different or similar Goalkeeper and Phalanx are depends entirely on the observer.  To someone knowledgeable in naval weapons they are evidently quite different.  To the rest of the world, they are both about the same thing: Gatling guns with integral radar mounted on ships for defence against missiles and such.



Here we go back to the rest of the world looking at a M1 and a Leo 2.  Yup!  Dems both a tank.  Dems both the same.

Perhaps N. Mckay is ltmaverick25?  They both support the same side of a certain argument.  They have to be the same.

This is a site, where we know the differences.  We are not "the rest of the world".  This is a military forum, where the SMEs are on hand to sort out and enlighten the less knowledgeable.


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Perhaps N. Mckay is ltmaverick25?  They both support the same side of a certain argument.  They have to be the same.



I'm not ltmaverick25, and I'm not supporting any side of the argument.  I'm only offering, for everyone's consideration, an explanation for how a person not knowledgeable in the subject might be forgiven for thinking that Phalanx and Goalkeeper are the same thing.



> This is a site, where we know the differences.  We are not "the rest of the world".  This is a military forum, where the SMEs are on hand to sort out and enlighten the less knowledgeable.



So it is, and I hope they continue to contribute to the thread so that the less knowledgeable do, in fact, get enlightened.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Feb 2009)

Whoose!  Right over your head.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Feb 2009)

N. McKay said:
			
		

> I'm not ltmaverick25, and I'm not supporting any side of the argument.  I'm only offering, for everyone's consideration, an explanation for how a person not knowledgeable in the subject might be forgiven for thinking that Phalanx and Goalkeeper are the same thing.



then starseed should not have made the claim that they were the same thing. If you don't know then don't dismissively remark as he did so.



> So it is, and I hope they continue to contribute to the thread so that the less knowledgeable do, in fact, get enlightened.


I have no problems sharing my knowledge and experience but idiot comments like he made only serve to drive the knowledge base away. Why should I waste my time answering questions or raising points when some armchair admiral thinks he knows it all?


----------



## Neill McKay (5 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Whoose!  Right over your head.



Such is the imperfect nature of the Internet.



			
				Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I have no problems sharing my knowledge and experience but idiot comments like he made only serve to drive the knowledge base away. Why should I waste my time answering questions or raising points when some armchair admiral thinks he knows it all?



I guess I'd suggest that those are the people who need it most, but of course it's your time to use as you like (and there's no sense in wasting it because none of us is getting any more than what we have now!).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Feb 2009)

Like you do anything for the site :


----------



## ltmaverick25 (6 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Here we go back to the rest of the world looking at a M1 and a Leo 2.  Yup!  Dems both a tank.  Dems both the same.
> 
> Perhaps N. Mckay is ltmaverick25?  They both support the same side of a certain argument.  They have to be the same.
> 
> This is a site, where we know the differences.  We are not "the rest of the world".  This is a military forum, where the SMEs are on hand to sort out and enlighten the less knowledgeable.



Hah!  I was about to send you a nasty PM and then I realized what you were trying to say!  That was alot of wasted typing power for nothing  ;D

On another note, what exactly to did starseed do to be labelled an idiot?  I have reread the posts and to the best of my knowledge, all I can see is him being mistaken on the differences between the phalanx and the goalkeeper, and I must confess, I am guilty of the same misunderstanding, well, at least until reading this thread anyway.  Were there other posts made that were deleted?


----------



## Neill McKay (6 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Like you do anything for the site :



Is this directed at me?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (6 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Here we go back to the rest of the world looking at a M1 and a Leo 2.  Yup!  Dems both a tank.  Dems both the same.
> 
> Perhaps N. Mckay is ltmaverick25?  They both support the same side of a certain argument.  They have to be the same.
> 
> *This is a site, where we know the differences.  We are not "the rest of the world".  This is a military forum, where the SMEs are on hand to sort out and enlighten the less knowledgeable.*



I've said this before and I'll say it again....in my experience there's too quick a reaction to "sort out" and too slow a reaction to "enlighten".  

In reading this thread there were many ways the differences between Goalkeeper and Phalanx could've been explained to the non-military individual.  The path taken was the most confrontational and insulting.  

The part I don't understand is that you guys who seem to feel entitled to "sort out" people ever came to us (non-military civilians) in a different forum (in our areas of expertise) and let's say said something 'not quite accurate' in the field of financial or estate planning, and received the same sort of "sorting out" that is regularly dished out here, you'd be insulted and justifiably angry.

Bottom Line:  It's your board.  I'm a civilian and a visitor.  But I humbly request that instead of the rush to competitively "sort out" the various civilians (especially young civilians who are interested in military matters and may one day be considering a career in the forces), that you take into account the old tenet: "Treat others the same as you would want them to treat you."  One final note, whether your realize it on a daily basis or not, most people who come here look up to you guys as role models and heroes.  You are better than us because of the sacrifices you've made and are willing to make.  I beg of you, please do not let your disdain for inaccuracy from the ingorant but exhuberant, ever take precedence over the character and ethic that makes us respect you so much.


Matthew.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (6 Feb 2009)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I've said this before and I'll say it again....in my experience there's too quick a reaction to "sort out" and too slow a reaction to "enlighten".
> 
> In reading this thread there were many ways the differences between Goalkeeper and Phalanx could've been explained to the non-military individual.  The path taken was the most confrontational and insulting.
> 
> ...



Wording and tone is everything Matthew, look at starseeds reply#27. It is like saying an AK and an M16 are the same...yes they are both rifles but we know them to be inherently different.


----------



## starseed (6 Feb 2009)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Still waiting for a rebuttal starseed (I know you have been online since this discussion started), or can you admit you were a wee bit out of your lanes?


That, or it was enough of a semantic argument that I didn't bother replying? 20mm vs 30mm, almost identical purpose and capabilities.

I have an education to attend to, I don't feel the need to respond to every thread I've posted in rightly or wrongly - see below.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> That, or it was enough of a semantic argument that I didn't bother replying? 20mm vs 30mm, almost identical purpose and capabilities.
> 
> I have an education to attend to, I don't feel the need to respond to every thread I've posted in rightly or wrongly - see below.



 ;D  I have to laugh after reading that.  The contradictions within each statement are really amusing.  It looks like "Null Returns" to me.  

If you are attending to your education, the semantics of this discussion just may be educational.  If you don't feel the necessity to respond positively when being informed of your errors or not, doesn't sound like one who is seeking education in anything.  If you want to use that excuse and run away when you are wrong, then you really won't do well in life.  If you intend on becoming a leader (NCO or officer) then you must learn not to run away, but to learn from your mistakes.  

Gunner, Re-Lase!


Sorry.  I mean; Try again.


----------



## starseed (6 Feb 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ;D  I have to laugh after reading that.  The contradictions within each statement are really amusing.  It looks like "Null Returns" to me.
> 
> If you are attending to your education, the semantics of this discussion just may be educational.  If you don't feel the necessity to respond positively when being informed of your errors or not, doesn't sound like one who is seeking education in anything.  If you want to use that excuse and run away when you are wrong, then you really won't do well in life.  If you intend on becoming a leader (NCO or officer) then you must learn not to run away, but to learn from your mistakes.
> 
> ...



You're making the assumption that my ego or education depends on the opinions of people I don't know except over the internet. Hint: they don't. If you don't value my contribution, then don't. I promise not to lose too much sleep over it. I was wrong in thinking goalkeeper and phalanx were exactly the same thing; turns out they're only almost exactly the same thing, with the same function and almost the same capabilities. As soon as I read his post, I of course rushed to respond to the post and express my gratitude for pointing it out and admit my intellectual inferiority to make sure the guy on the other end of the interweb got his moment of glory in proving someone wrong on a forum....?

Seriously, think about what you're saying.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Feb 2009)

starseed said:
			
		

> Seriously, think about what you're saying.



Thanks.  I did.

Your, and a couple others, common mistake is thinking that because something looks the same, or perhaps has the same role, or capabilities, it is the same as some other piece of kit.  I have said that N. McKay was the same as ltmaverick25 in the same light as a tongue in cheek piece of sarcasm that went way over his head, because he didn't catch on to the Leo 2-M1 comparison being the same as your Goalkeeper-Phalanx example.   If you don't take criticism, advice, or correction well, then ................well.....I'll let someone else tell you later.  Perhaps you will be better prepared to listen then.


Love your cartoon.  Have you walked away yet?


----------



## ltmaverick25 (7 Feb 2009)

Come on guys, who cares who was right and wrong about the phalanx system?  I am much more interested in seeing a discussion on the phalanx system itself, capabilities and limitations... ect...  Lets stick to that stuff so boobs like me can be "enlightened"!  The navy boards never have enough discussion on them, lets not kill it with an ego fest.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (7 Feb 2009)

Given a choice I would love to see all of our ships fitted with one Block 1B Phalanx and one C-Ram mounted fore and aft, it would really increase our defensive capabilities against some of the newer Russian cruise missiles. 



> Come on guys, who cares who was right and wrong about the phalanx system?


I do because that piece of kit may or may not save my life and that of my shipmates someday.


----------



## starseed (7 Feb 2009)

ltmaverick25 said:
			
		

> Come on guys, who cares who was right and wrong about the phalanx system?  I am much more interested in seeing a discussion on the phalanx system itself, capabilities and limitations... ect...  Lets stick to that stuff so boobs like me can be "enlightened"!  The navy boards never have enough discussion on them, lets not kill it with an ego fest.


Anyone who is willing to argue semantic differences of this nature is not a suitable person to ask for enlightenment my friend, their only reason for existence is to be right to the exclusion of all others. Every western Navy has some equivalent to goalkeeper or phalanx that performs the same function in the same way. The differences are not worthy of mention outside the circles of people who design or procure them. The way I see it, if it makes them happy to nitpick nothing subjects and be right about them, there's nothing to be gained by arguing.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Feb 2009)

> there's nothing to be gained by arguing.



Yet you can't seem to stop.....

When you discuss things with experts, be prepared to get into minutiae, whether you want to or not; whether you are equipped to or not. This is a forum meant for professionals and otherwise interested parties. Not a HALO chat room, nor a Jane's fan club.

Now - *everyone* - please quit bickering and keep this on topic.

Army.ca Staff


----------

