- Reaction score
- 2,973
- Points
- 1,090
the UK is hoping to get construction down to 66 months eventually @Oldgateboatdriver guesstimate seems reasonable if not a little optimistic for first of class for us/Irving
Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 17,239
- Points
- 1,160
To think they used to launch 25-35,000 DWT Battleships in 2 years and they were peak tech at the time.
- Reaction score
- 4,120
- Points
- 1,190
I admire your optimism lol.
- Reaction score
- 4,120
- Points
- 1,190
Yea... The 10 year time span from when they laid down steel in 2025 to fully mission capable in 2035, while depressing is, I fear, realistic.
- Reaction score
- 19,384
- Points
- 1,160
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 21,761
- Points
- 1,260
Different time with different thinking people. They were willing to work their asses off because the dirty Jerries and filthy Japs attacked them.
- Reaction score
- 1,809
- Points
- 1,160
Considering the ship will be the most technologically advanced warship ever built by the RCN, 10 years for the first one to reach operational status is realistic. Comparing the RCD to a WW2 ship is like comparing apples and orange's.
- Reaction score
- 17,239
- Points
- 1,160
Not really, the tech to build a battleship back then was cutting edge stuff for them, with the same sort of challenges and no computers to help them. We would absolutely struggle to make armour plate that thick and guns that big nowadays. In fact we would have to build the machines to make them first.
- Reaction score
- 22,854
- Points
- 1,010
We really struggled in WW2 to produce the Tribal Class Destroyers. They were on the bleeding edge of what our shipyards could handle at that time and took a long time to build, compared to UK yards. Anything bigger than that was beyond Canada’a ability, then.
The RCD class is the most complex thing Canada has ever built.
The RCD class is the most complex thing Canada has ever built.
- Reaction score
- 17,239
- Points
- 1,160
I was looking at some old footage of a WWII drafting room and thinking: "How the hell did they keep track of each sheet and make sure the stuff on one sheet fitted with the stuff on another"? All while puffing on a pipe.
- Reaction score
- 1,809
- Points
- 1,160
Not really. The technology to build battleships isn’t lost, and modern industry could absolutely produce armour plate and large gun barrels again if anyone actually wanted them. The issue wouldn’t be rediscovering how to do it, it would simply be retooling industry and spending the money. Large naval guns, high-strength steels, and heavy forging still exist today and were maintained for ships like the Iowa-class battleship well into the Cold War. What’s actually changed is where the complexity sits. A WWII warship was mechanically impressive but electronically pretty simple. A modern ship like the River-class destroyer is basically a floating combat network packed with sensors, radars, missiles, software, and communications systems that all have to work together and integrate with NATO systems. That integration and testing is what takes time today. WWII ships were also built fast because it was wartime and governments cut through bureaucracy and testing requirements. Today everything goes through years of design work, system integration, certification, and trials before it’s declared operational. So it’s not that we’ve lost the ability to build big ships or guns, it’s that modern warships are far more complex in completely different ways.
- Reaction score
- 17,239
- Points
- 1,160
When I say struggle, I mean that you would have to build the machines to work with that size material, the heavy rotary forges for the barrels were dismantled a long time ago. Just finding out the details of the process in the archive would take years. Most of the other equipment is gone asell. Although a few large presses from that era continue to work.
I get the RCD are electronically complex and our version needs testing. However the hull form and machinery construction is now well proven. That portion should be going faster than it is.
I get the RCD are electronically complex and our version needs testing. However the hull form and machinery construction is now well proven. That portion should be going faster than it is.
- Reaction score
- 1,495
- Points
- 1,010
In my experience, military electronics design and test, and especially software design, implementation, integration, and verification do not follow modern practice. The production of software artifacts, as demanded by certification processes, does not produce more robust or reliable software.
There is a lot of room to improve the integration processes for both timeliness and performance. Canada does not currently have the capacity to take the lead on that; perhaps we should develop it.
There is a lot of room to improve the integration processes for both timeliness and performance. Canada does not currently have the capacity to take the lead on that; perhaps we should develop it.
- Reaction score
- 1,809
- Points
- 1,160
A River class destroyer is not just a proven hull with some equipment bolted on. It is a heavily modified national variant built to modern survivability, shock, signature, compartmentation, power, integration, software, QA, and certification standards. Once you start changing sensors, masts, combat system elements, cabling, power loads, accommodation, and Canadian requirements, you are no longer simply repeating somebody else’s ship. Just as important, the first hull was always going to take the longest because the yard is not only building a ship, it is also building the production system, workforce experience, sequencing, and quality control process that go with it. First of class work always exposes bottlenecks, rework, design conflicts, and lessons that only get solved once steel is actually being cut and modules are being assembled. That is normal.
We already saw this with the AOPVs. The early ships took longer while Irving worked through the learning curve, module flow, outfitting sequence, and production rhythm. Later ships benefited from those hard won lessons and efficiency improved. The same thing should happen with the River class, although it is a far more complex ship. So yes, the steelwork and machinery may be more mature on paper than the combat system, but in the real world modern warship construction is still governed by design maturity, supplier performance, workforce experience, inspection standards, and production learning. The first hull will be slowest, and as the construction process matures the yard should get more efficient, just as it did with the AOPVs. That is the real comparison, not whether we could still build a battleship.
So again comparing building a battleship back in the 40's to a RCD is still like comparing apples and oranges, in fact no reasonable comparison at all.
