Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[OldSolduer]

It's not a very good model.

It's a model....

Like Camelot?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Trolling the US

https://twitter.com/x/status/1993445747933823463

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That is gold…

 

[Lumber]

That is gold…

Can you imagine?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Can you imagine?

Irving CEO is likely jacking off in the in the executive bathroom to the thought of landing a Golden Fleece USN contract...

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Can you imagine?

Trade them RCDs for F35s?

 

[Lumber]

Trade them RCDs for F35s?

Nah just the idea of the US replacing the Constellation class with River Class, and part of that agreement being US yards build a couple of ours for us.

 

[Underway]

Do they have an alternate plan for frigates? Or they all in on their DDX super destroyer/cruiser/battleship with missiles concept now.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

It's highly knowledgeable people like Pete Hegseth and his ilks making the "MAGA" calls now: They'll go for the "super-duper" DDX destroyer/cruiser/battleship. Never mind that half of them will quickly get sunk by submarines in a shooting war because there aren't any "little escorts" around them to carry out ASW.

And, BTW, they couldn't go for the RCD as a replacement of the Constellation class any more than they could do it successfully with the Italian FREMM: They would have to Americanize it to death to accommodate their manning system, i.e. modify it to manage to stick 300+ humans in that hull originally developed for 200. It would cause the same chaos it did with the Italian design.

IMHO, the biggest mistake they made in their choice for the Constellation class was not picking an American design to start with - one that met all their DC requirements already and could be easily amenable to their accommodation standards: The Ingalls designed one based on the very successful USCG Legend class cutter.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Do they have an alternate plan for frigates? Or they all in on their DDX super destroyer/cruiser/battleship with missiles concept now.

No plans currently besides vague overtures towards "Small Surface Combatants", although we have no idea as to what this entails. It seems likely that the US will need some kind of interim frigate or corvette design given their fleet operational issues, although the political leadership of the US/USN might have also caught the unmanned platform brainrot and could be going all in on such things.

 

[Lumber]

It's highly knowledgeable people like Pete Hegseth and his ilks making the "MAGA" calls now: They'll go for the "super-duper" DDX destroyer/cruiser/battleship. Never mind that half of them will quickly get sunk by submarines in a shooting war because there aren't any "little escorts" around them to carry out ASW.

And, BTW, they couldn't go for the RCD as a replacement of the Constellation class any more than they could do it successfully with the Italian FREMM: They would have to Americanize it to death to accommodate their manning system, i.e. modify it to manage to stick 300+ humans in that hull originally developed for 200. It would cause the same chaos it did with the Italian design.

IMHO, the biggest mistake they made in their choice for the Constellation class was not picking an American design to start with - one that met all their DC requirements already and could be easily amenable to their accommodation standards: The Ingalls designed one based on the very successful USCG Legend class cutter.

Yea but so much of the RCD is now American systems they probably wouldn't need to modify it like they did with the FREMM. The RCD is already slightly Americanizing it's ops department (including calling the Ops Rm the CIC, calling the ORO the TAO and calling the directors Coordinators and making them NCM only). But, I agree they probably won't, just a neat idea.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yea but so much of the RCD is now American systems they probably wouldn't need to modify it like they did with the FREMM. The RCD is already slightly Americanizing it's ops department (including calling the Ops Rm the CIC, calling the ORO the TAO and calling the directors Coordinators and making them NCM only). But, I agree they probably won't, just a neat idea.

This is going to change the Navy. From trades, to crewing, to security and more.

I don't think a lot of people fully grasp that either.

 

[Lumber]

No plans currently besides vague overtures towards "Small Surface Combatants", although we have no idea as to what this entails. It seems likely that the US will need some kind of interim frigate or corvette design given their fleet operational issues, although the political leadership of the US/USN might have also caught the unmanned platform brainrot and could be going all in on such things.

Yes and somehow this decision is going to speed up their getting ships in the water.

 

[Lumber]

This is going to change the Navy. From trades, to crewing, to security and more.

I don't think a lot of people fully grasp that either.

I talk almost weekly with the dude in charge of designing the changes to the NWO trade and even after months of back and forth with him I still can't fully wrap my head around the path between jr. BWK to ORO.

 

[FSTO]

Yea but so much of the RCD is now American systems they probably wouldn't need to modify it like they did with the FREMM. The RCD is already slightly Americanizing it's ops department (including calling the Ops Rm the CIC, calling the ORO the TAO and calling the directors Coordinators and making them NCM only). But, I agree they probably won't, just a neat idea.

Next week is a major OA brief to CRCN (SAG 3). The OA team will be visiting the coasts I think in Feb/March to inform the fleets about the implementation plan.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I talk almost weekly with the dude in charge of designing the changes to the NWO trade and even after months of back and forth with him I still can't fully wrap my head around the path between jr. BWK to ORO.

Does the USN have their operations officers start in the BWK world ?

Could the case be made for a split ?

 

[Lumber]

Does the USN have their operations officers start in the BWK world ?

Could the case be made for a split ?

The American systems is weird. I could write a huge post to try and explain it, but they kind of do both simultaneously and then some.They start as BWKs but can have divisional roles that can actually take the into ops room. A jr BWK is, for example, the Strike officer and whenever they are doing Tomahawk launch drills he's in their with the operators. But, they can also have divisional roles that take them into the MSE department as well. Electricians Officer, hull techs officer, DC officer, etc, are all jr SWOs. When they become more Snr SWOs (full Lts with some experience) they becomes HODs, including the OpsO and Engineering Officer. However, even when they are the HOD of non-Ops departments, they also stand watches as TAO (ORO) in ops. They aren't locked into a stream either. If your first two tours was as a divisional officer in the MSE department, you could still do your HOD tour as OpsO, and vice versa. So, they get a lot of breadth of experience but very little expertise. I remember one day the CHENG (Chief Engineer, their term for the MSEO, who remember is a SWO, not a dedicated Engineering Officer) complaining that he didn't know if his SMEs were bullshitting him when they said something could/couldn't be done and how long it would take.

 

[Halifax Tar]

The American systems is weird. I could write a huge post to try and explain it, but they kind of do both simultaneously and then some.They start as BWKs but can have divisional roles that can actually take the into ops room. A jr BWK is, for example, the Strike officer and whenever they are doing Tomahawk launch drills he's in their with the operators. But, they can also have divisional roles that take them into the MSE department as well. Electricians Officer, hull techs officer, DC officer, etc, are all jr SWOs. When they become more Snr SWOs (full Lts with some experience) they becomes HODs, including the OpsO and Engineering Officer. However, even when they are the HOD of non-Ops departments, they also stand watches as TAO (ORO) in ops. They aren't locked into a stream either. If your first two tours was as a divisional officer in the MSE department, you could still do your HOD tour as OpsO, and vice versa. So, they get a lot of breadth of experience but very little expertise. I remember one day the CHENG (Chief Engineer, their term for the MSEO, who remember is a SWO, not a dedicated Engineering Officer) complaining that he didn't know if his SMEs were bullshitting him when they said something could/couldn't be done and how long it would take.

That is definitely one way to do business eh ?

I kind of like our more focused lanes. But I do think LogOs should have to obtain BWK and stand regular watch rotation on the bridge.

 

[Navy_Pete]

@Lumber I did a tour on an AB as the A/EO along with the C.Eng and some of the Cert 2s and 3s; made the mistake of asking their EO a technical question, then ended up just talking to their techs. It was weird for us to figure out what that meant for them, and I think they found it weird that our NTOs were actual engineers that genuinely knew stuff so could have called them out.

It was kind of funny as I think both sides were glad that we each operated the way we do and not the other way around, so guess a lot of it is what you are used to. Some days would have loved to just be a divO though lol.

Things like that, and generally their focus on specialization at a certain job vice our more generalist approach though drives such a massive change in basic ship design and crew sizes though that the AEGIS system selection is really creating an issue.

@FSTO Are they finally going to get moving on the new HT specialization? The entire combat survivability crewing aspect is reliant on having the skillset that comes with HTs, especially with the absolutely anemic size of the engineering department onboard and what that means for section base numbers, particularly with some of the design choices and damage scenarios. A DCPO without a lot more stability expertise is going to be a liability.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

God, no! Please!

Don't go the American way.

Their Warfare Officer's are such a screwed up bunch that it's not funny anymore. I prefer our system where you learn to be a mariner first, then learn a tactical skill, ending up with command skill.

Their system insists on what I would call "engineering" knowledge first (i.e. know what makes your "weapons-of-assignment" tick, rather than know how to fight the ship overall) so much that they never become real mariners nor real tactical/strategic thinking officers.