Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[GR66]

Just a thought but just because a ship is designed doesn’t mean it has to be built immediately or perhaps at all.

A CDC vessel, a sub tender, a hospital ship, a C2 ship like the Blue Ridge Class, maybe a militarized AOP , pick 2-3 and get the designers working.
Keeps the skills alive and the designs might prove handy?

No reason they have to design military ships is there? Might be hard to compete with the Koreans, etc. on general commercial ships but I imagine there are plenty of specialty ships for industry that could compete for. Conversions as well?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Oceanographic survey is a CCG job, and and also not a specialized ship anymore. You can have a UUV and offshore work ship do it no problems.

Actually, CFAV Quest and CFAV Endeavour were oceanographic research vessels that did a lot of the Defense Research Establishment work related to ASW and mine warfare. That did include some underwater surveying as required in support of that work. There is no reason further research in those fields shouldn't continue, and perhaps it is time to replace those vessels so we can continue with it.

 

[Maxman1]

Just a thought but just because a ship is designed doesn’t mean it has to be built immediately or perhaps at all.

A CDC vessel, a sub tender, a hospital ship, a C2 ship like the Blue Ridge Class, maybe a militarized AOP , pick 2-3 and get the designers working.
Keeps the skills alive and the designs might prove handy?

The Mistral class does several of those things. It has C2 facilities rivaling the Blue Ridge class allowing it to act as its own command ship, and NATO Role 3 medical facilities with a 69 beds, of which 7 are fit for intensive care, and in a pinch cots and room dividers can be set up in the hangars, and the flight deck and well deck speed up medivac patient transfer.

Or there's the larger  Canberra class LHD, which has similar C2 and hospital facilities, but quite a bit more troop capacity. Maybe we could get a license for it and have Seaspan redesign it to remove the ramp (the biggest criticism of the class) and convert it to a flat top helicopter carrier, unless the E-2D can be operated off it.

 

[NavyShooter]

And here we have the crux of the matter.....

The design teams that are a part of the NSPS can ONLY be part of the NSPS, because they cost too much to be relevant in the real world of ship production.

NSPS is a Jobs program disguised as a shipbuilding plan.

Ships are merely a somewhat useful byproduct.

In the 'real world' it doesn't take hundreds of millions of dollars to take a well established civilian design and modify it slightly to 'Canadianize' it for the GOC.

If they were a relevant, cost effective solution, then they'd have people beating down their doors to get them to work for them. They are not. They are overpriced, underperforming, and only 'work' in an environment where the customer is the Government of Canada.

No-one else would be willing to pay their overhead costs.

 

[dapaterson]

A submarine rescue ship would be useful, especially considering the history of our sub fleet. And an oceanographic survey ship is a capability we lost when  Quest was scrapped.

If a sub goes down you need a salvage ship.

 

[Maxman1]

If a sub goes down you need a salvage ship.

Sub rescue ships do salvage, too. And carry a submersible.

 

[Underway]

In the 'real world' it doesn't take hundreds of millions of dollars to take a well established civilian design and modify it slightly to 'Canadianize' it for the GOC.

Actually it does in the "real world", those costs don't change much if you do that in Europe or the US, because some of that design work is subcontracted to specialist firms. And what estabilished civilian design are you refering too exactly? And how do you define established? Because my definition is of established is designed, built and iterated over years. And we certainly don't have one of those in production anywhere.

If they were a relevant, cost effective solution, then they'd have people beating down their doors to get them to work for them. They are not. They are overpriced, underperforming, and only 'work' in an environment where the customer is the Government of Canada.

To buy what? Our very specialized and specific offshore science vessels or Arctic and Offshore Patrol ships? Who has a requirement for those? No body does, because Canadian needs are very specific. Also build ships with what extra capacity? The yards are working flat out just to meet the Canadian Governments orders. There isn't slack for other countries, unless the schedule gets rejigged or a yard has a solid order to expand with.

 

[KevinB]

Actually it does in the "real world", those costs don't change much if you do that in Europe or the US, because some of that design work is subcontracted to specialist firms.

And what estabilished civilian design are you refering too exactly? And how do you define established? Because my definition is of established is designed, built and iterated over years. And we certainly don't have one of those in production anywhere.

My concern is civilian design companies generally are not building combatant craft, dealing with security issues that entails etc.

To buy what? Our very specialized and specific offshore science vessels or Arctic and Offshore Patrol ships? Who has a requirement for those? No body does, because Canadian wants are very specific.

FIFY

Also build ships with what extra capacity? The yards are working flat out just to meet the Canadian Governments orders. There isn't slack for other countries, unless the schedule gets rejigged or a yard has a solid order to expand with.

Solid orders for the yards has been the main issue for most of the NATO combatant craft builders.

When you look at the AB’s we still have issues getting contracts cut in a timely manner to get the long lead time items, and the same occurs on the VA class boats.

Most yards can do a lot more in terms of physical capacity - but one needs materials and just as (if not more) importantly; a stable trained workforce.

 

[Genetk44]

Once again why? Our warships are not designed to enter any ice. And why would you put a warship whose main defence is maneuverability within an ice pack. Its like making your infantry trying to fight in quicksand.

Thank you…that is the sort of answer and clarification I was looking for.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

And here we have the crux of the matter.....

The design teams that are a part of the NSPS can ONLY be part of the NSPS, because they cost too much to be relevant in the real world of ship production.

NSPS is a Jobs program disguised as a shipbuilding plan.

Ships are merely a somewhat useful byproduct.

In the 'real world' it doesn't take hundreds of millions of dollars to take a well established civilian design and modify it slightly to 'Canadianize' it for the GOC.

If they were a relevant, cost effective solution, then they'd have people beating down their doors to get them to work for them. They are not. They are overpriced, underperforming, and only 'work' in an environment where the customer is the Government of Canada.

No-one else would be willing to pay their overhead costs.

Apparently the US is in talks with Canada in regards to ship building capacity. We may not get a ship to build, but perhaps sub components and possible some modules?

 

[Halifax Tar]

Apparently the US is in talks with Canada in regards to ship building capacity. We may not get a ship to build, but perhaps sub components and possible some modules?

Have a reference for that ?

 

[KevinB]

And here we have the crux of the matter.....

The design teams that are a part of the NSPS can ONLY be part of the NSPS, because they cost too much to be relevant in the real world of ship production.

NSPS is a Jobs program disguised as a shipbuilding plan.

There are a lot of jobs that are Public Sector simply because the P/L doesn't support them being Private sector jobs, but they are still required.

Ships are merely a somewhat useful byproduct.

I would hope that they are more than somewhat useful

In the 'real world' it doesn't take hundreds of millions of dollars to take a well established civilian design and modify it slightly to 'Canadianize' it for the GOC.

If they were a relevant, cost effective solution, then they'd have people beating down their doors to get them to work for them. They are not. They are overpriced, underperforming, and only 'work' in an environment where the customer is the Government of Canada.

No-one else would be willing to pay their overhead costs.

Probably would have made more sense to create a GoC Naval Design Bureau to come up with designs or modifications of designs.
Then when bidding the designs for NSPS look as to if it was in the countries best interest to make a GoC Shipyard(s) to build them, as there seems to have been a lot of public money thrown at this that is being used to enrich the private sector.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would hope that they are more than somewhat useful

It really depends on the class.

Anyways. We should be working on what will replace the RCDs now. The R&D and Design phase. That should keep the white hats employed at their drawing boards.

 

[KevinB]

It really depends on the class.

Anyways. We should be working on what will replace the RCDs now. The R&D and Design phase.

I would suggest that the RCD flights will be fairly different from flight to flight - but until Flight 1 is in the water, it would be premature to look to a replacement.

That should keep the white hats employed at their drawing boards.

I think there are plenty of requirements for the RCN that could keep a design team busy.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I would suggest that the RCD flights will be fairly different from flight to flight - but until Flight 1 is in the water, it would be premature to look to a replacement.

If we were a country that had a habit of good Life Cycle Management I would agree with you.

I think there are plenty of requirements for the RCN that could keep a design team busy.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Have a reference for that ?

From Noah

Rumors & Speculation
The United States Navy has stepped up discussion with Canadian shioyards about their capacity. I have nothing solid yet on this, but multiple people have confirmed to me. This comes as the Unuted States struggles to keep with their current building schedules. Other countries including Japan and South Korea were also consulted.

 

[KevinB]

From Noah

Rumors & Speculation
The United States Navy has stepped up discussion with Canadian shioyards about their capacity. I have nothing solid yet on this, but multiple people have confirmed to me. This comes as the Unuted States struggles to keep with their current building schedules. Other countries including Japan and South Korea were also consulted.

Pretty sure this is in relation to the USCG - not the actual USN.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Pretty sure this is in relation to the USCG - not the actual USN.

Possibly, but a lot of a ship is boring metal bits, pipes, ladders, hatchcovers. Canada is now using pretty modern techniques in ship building and they may want to buy that expertise or have specialty components made, particularly if there is a production bottleneck in the US that can be alleviated by using a North American Shipyard.