# New Destroyers?



## CGY/PHX (29 Jul 2004)

Does anybody know when we will be getting new ones.? And if so where can I find more info.

Thanks


----------



## Sundborg (29 Jul 2004)

I don't think we will be getting new "Destroyers" for a long time.  We have the new AOR's coming, I doubt the liberal government will spend more on us at the moment.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jul 2004)

The next major acquisition for the navy (after the OPVs if this comes to pass) will be a a major program that will replace both the 280s and the CPFs but you are looking at a 2015-2020 time frame.


----------



## Inch (29 Jul 2004)

Ex-Dragoon, any chance we could just replace the whole navy with say, more airforce guys?  ;D Just kidding man, you know I've been assimilated.


----------



## canuck101 (29 Jul 2004)

I would wait and see what the Australians are getting.  If they can get the US to design a Smaller version of the Arleigh Burke Class Aegis destroyer then go for that. ;D

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jul 2004)

As much as I like the AB by the time this project is under full steam there will be no doubt newer and better designs. Who knows maybe we will develop something again that gave the world pause when the CPF came out.


----------



## canuck101 (29 Jul 2004)

That is true it will probably be ten years before anything happens and that is if they replace the 280's.  Our first issuse would be to get the Halifax-class Frigate Life Extension project started. Then we can start thinking of new Destroyers. 

Cheers


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (29 Jul 2004)

Well like I alluded to above our next generation of surface combatants will replace both the 280s and the CPFs. The first ones off the slips are already slated to be command and control and air defence vessels.


----------



## winchable (4 Jan 2005)

Even if we do in fact get replacements for the Destroyers, is the 2015-2020 timeline much too late??
Can the Destroyers be given yet another program similar to the TRUMP program to extend their life even further, the old girls must be getting pretty old by now.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Jan 2005)

Personally I don't think anymore can be done to keep the 280s going past then, the class has been modified and remodified, but we need AAD and a flag capability so what else can we really do but push them like we do with all of our equipment.


----------



## winchable (4 Jan 2005)

They're still running smoothly now then are they?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Jan 2005)

Running yes......smoothly, well thats a matter for debate.


----------



## winchable (4 Jan 2005)

As smoothly as anything else I suppose.

*sigh*


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Jan 2005)

280's are like a real old car with a lot of new parts..... It's still an old car with old car problems.

The hulls were being put together in 1969, that makes them 36 years old!! 

It definately is time to look at a replacement for them.


----------



## winchable (4 Jan 2005)

Now, I'm clearly not an expert.
But wouldn't a replacement for the 280's be somewhat higher (though perhaps not alot higher) than the replacement for the oilers?


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Jan 2005)

I think that the AOR's need to be replaced much sooner. 

We can still get the 280's to sea, but the East Coasts AOR has been in refit for the past year.

If we get the new JSS's then these ships can service as multiuse platforms which will be more beneficial to the CF. From what I understand, depending on what type of replacement is received for the AOR's, they may be able to provide us with Command and Control Platform, Sea-Lift capabilities and a troop transport if required.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (4 Jan 2005)

The problem with AORs as flagships is you have to utilize another platform to provide some sort of defence. For Joint Ops by all means the JSS is ideal but to control fleet defence keep it on a warship not an auxillary.


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Jan 2005)

Obviously there is a requirement to look at replacing both the 280's and the AOR's.

Hopefully it won't take as long as the Sea King Replacement..


----------



## winchable (4 Jan 2005)

Oh by then the ice caps will have melted so we can funnel all the money from the other components into the navy...get a proper dingy.


----------



## Navalsnpr (4 Jan 2005)

You bring up a valid point though.... The ability for the Navy to patrol and defend the Artic Coast line.

Maybe I should call the guys at Alert and have them put in a good word to Santa for next Christmas!!


----------



## canuck101 (5 Jan 2005)

What do you think of this as a choice for a replacement for the 280s. 
http://www.amiinter.com/samples/netherlands/NL1301.html


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2005)

The _Loss of the 280s _ topic covers some possible replacements for the 280s.


----------



## Meridian (5 Jan 2005)

This is a "I have no idea so please help me understand" type question...

What is the real naval threat these days? I mean realistically... do we need Destroyers to hunt down terrorism and trafficking or is a another boat better suited? 

Should we reasonably expect naval combat any time in the near future (ie Navy on Navy) or would it be better to have more ships capable of providing maritime interdiction ops and land-op support?

(I have no idea in these matters, asking more as a curious citizen).


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2005)

Discussed here:
http://army.ca/forums/threads/18403.0.html

Meridan just a few points on your post. If you have no idea why would your statement say:


> I mean realistically... do we need Destroyers to hunt down terrorism and trafficking or is a another boat better suited


Why do you think a Destroyer is so ill suited? I look forward to your view.



> Should we reasonably expect naval combat any time in the near future (ie Navy on Navy) or would it be better to have more ships capable of providing maritime interdiction ops and land-op support?


You realize everytime someone predicts we won't need ships for a certain role, war has a habit of proven them wrong. By the way in your view where are your air defence assets? Unless you feel like so many citizens that we must rely on other countries to provide that. THats just a step above handing the US trhe keys to Canada and asking them to defend us.


----------



## winchable (5 Jan 2005)

Easy Gents,


----------



## Bograt (5 Jan 2005)

Can I ask a very simple question? Okay, two simple questions not counting these preface ones?

1. What is the difference between a cruiser, destroyer, frigate, and a cutter? Simply speaking is it the tonnage, is it the role?
2. What is the food chain- i.e cruisers eat land targets, destroyers eat ships, frigates eat subs?

I don't mean to be an jerk- I really don't know. All the navy boats I've ever seen have been gray and parked under the bridges in Halifax. I can't tell them a part.


----------



## Bograt (5 Jan 2005)

I looked into it.
http://www.navy.forces.gc.ca/mspa_fleet/fleet_home_e.asp

Ummmm. guys, why are Sea Kings and Auroras listed under navy platforms?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2005)

A lot has to do because their taskings usually evolve around the navy but they are firmly an air force asset.


----------



## Meridian (5 Jan 2005)

Well this was about the Navy afterall.

And Im asking from a "im a dumb canadian citizen who thinks destroyers blow up other ships" point of view.

What are they used for? What do we need them for?

Do we need to have a "total force" to be effective I guess is the larger question, and probably better debated in another format, or at least another day.

My point here is I know very little about the navy and was hoping someone could layman's term it for me and basically like Bograt asked...   whats the food chain..

Ex-Dragoon : so you are saying basically right now, the primary reason for needing new destroyers (beyond getting supply ships, amphib, subs (hehe) or any other naval vessel) is that things tend to happen when we don't have stuff?

Don't get me wrong, Im not trying to be anatagonist.. I just get asked these questions by my not-so-military friendly friends all the time, Id like to have at least a somewhat good answer to respond with.


----------



## Dogboy (5 Jan 2005)

we will have to up grade or up size our nave soon.
because if global warming continues at this rate the north-west passage will need to be defended full time
some more coastal patrol ships or something.


----------



## Meridian (5 Jan 2005)

And as for Air Defence.. I assume you mean Naval group air defence.. as in defence for the naval ships at sea, right?


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2005)

Hey Bograt found this, hope it helps:
http://www.hazegray.org/faq/smn6.htm

For the most part destroyer and frigate are blurred. Our CPFs are longer then our 280s and Aeliegh Burkes are the same size at WW1 Battleships.


----------



## Meridian (5 Jan 2005)

Ex-D.. thanks for the link, even if you directed it to someone else...

I had never realized the size differences and where the Frigates fit into the Cruisers/Destroyers mix.


----------



## Bograt (5 Jan 2005)

Thanks Ex-d. Very informative. My apologies for my sophmoric post. I am equally ignorant when it comes to land forces as well.

Curious to know the last time a Canadian ship fired a shot in anger.

<edited to mask my newfie accent, and please my grade 12 english teacher>


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2005)

> And Im asking from a "im a dumb canadian citizen who thinks destroyers blow up other ships" point of view.
> 
> What are they used for? What do we need them for?



We use destroyers for command and control (flagship) and as area air defence platforms.



> ]Do we need to have a "total force" to be effective I guess is the larger question, and probably better debated in another format, or at least another day.


If you mean different type of surface combatants then I say yes. Again the more we can bring to the table the more useful we can be for our allies.



> Ex-Dragoon : so you are saying basically right now, the primary reason for needing new destroyers (beyond getting supply ships, amphib, subs (hehe) or any other naval vessel) is that things tend to happen when we don't have stuff?


Ok I have used this before and I will use it again. If a small town has a fire department and there has been no fires should it get rid of the fire department to save money? Especially if the nearest help is far away?



> Don't get me wrong, Im not trying to be anatagonist.. I just get asked these questions by my not-so-military friendly friends all the time, Id like to have at least a somewhat good answer to respond with.


Sorry its just how I took your initial statement. I find I have always have to had defend the navy's needs here for the most part.


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (5 Jan 2005)

Bograt FYI with regard to cutters, for the most part its a term that the USCG uses for ships I believe is over 65 ft. In Cdn service its pretty much any ship used for patrol in CCG service.


----------



## FSTO (5 Jan 2005)

canuck101 said:
			
		

> What do you think of this as a choice for a replacement for the 280s.
> http://www.amiinter.com/samples/netherlands/NL1301.html



If you look closely at this Dutch ship you may notice that the 5 inch gun are the same guns that were on the 280's prior to Trump. What we did was trade them to Otto Mallera for the 70 mm. The Italians refitted them and sold them to the Dutch.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jan 2005)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Italians refitted them and sold them to the Dutch.



Seems to be a Canadian tradition of equipping the Dutch.


----------



## Infanteer (6 Jan 2005)

whiskey 601 said:
			
		

> Seems to be a Canadian tradition of equipping the Dutch.



...with Chinooks, Naval Guns, UN Safe Havens-soon-to-become-massacres....


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Jan 2005)

Now now ... that was uncalled for.


----------

