Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[JMCanada]

Meanwhile ... a rumour within Spain has been made public: NAVANTIA & the Spanish Navy have shown the jointly developed flight II of the F110 frigate. Let me remember that the contract for the first (batch I) 5x F110 was signed just a few months after the first contract was signed with Irving for the RCD.

It's a pity they only say two, not three or four.

Navantia confirma que la Armada contará con dos fragatas F-110 Flight II, dotadas con 64 sistemas de lanzamiento vertical de misiles

Navantia ha confirmado que la Armada tendrá dos F-110 Flight II con 64 VLS, sistemas de lanzamiento vertical de misiles, Mk 41, más defensa aérea, 6.700 toneladas y hasta 29 nudos

www.defensa.com

 

[childs56]

Meanwhile ... a rumour within Spain has been made public: NAVANTIA & the Spanish Navy have shown the jointly developed flight II of the F110 frigate. Let me remember that the contract for the first (batch I) 5x F110 was signed just a few months after the first contract was signed with Irving for the RCD.
View attachment 101915
It's a pity they only say two, not three or four.

Navantia confirma que la Armada contará con dos fragatas F-110 Flight II, dotadas con 64 sistemas de lanzamiento vertical de misiles

Navantia ha confirmado que la Armada tendrá dos F-110 Flight II con 64 VLS, sistemas de lanzamiento vertical de misiles, Mk 41, más defensa aérea, 6.700 toneladas y hasta 29 nudos

www.defensa.com

But Canada has "very" special and different requirments then all of our Allies combined. Remember we are not only building a ship, we are building an industry. dont forget we have to figure out how to work money into the freinds and family pocket without getting to openly caught.

Good for Spain to get the ball rolling with minimal delay.

 

[Cloud Cover]

I recall a story from Gulf War 1. Pre-Trump ATH was so overweight from all of the new the stuff being bolted on that everything got landed from the Wardroom, including artwork; books; the piano; panelling and all glassware, cutlery and plates, excepting only one set for each officer onboard. This exercise went on shipwide- finding tonnes of parts squirrelled away in void spaces. That all got sent to PRO to carry. Even the tanker was down to her Plimsol line.

TL;DR- naval personnel are packrats and stuff builds up over time.

Oh No! Not the piano!

 

[Cloud Cover]

Yes. We suffer from "farmer's illness".

WTF man.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

WTF man.

Farmers never throw anything away. They squirrel everything and put that stuff in a corner of the farm just because "You never know. One of these days, it may come in handy". Mind you, not all of them are like that, but quite a lot of them.

When they do a farm auction, they put all that stuff in boxes of mixed lots and by the end of that auction, most of them find a new home ... usually on another farm. I swear there must be some farms somewhere in the old Upper and Lower Canadas that have stuff that goes back to the original settlers.

 

[suffolkowner]

Australia lays keel of first Hunter-class frigate amid concerns over weight - Navy Lookout

Australia has laid the keel of the first Hunter-class frigate, marking the start of full assembly of the Royal Australian Navy's new generation of anti-submarine warships. The Hunter design is derived from the Royal Navy's Type 26 but has evolved into a considerably larger and differently...

www.navylookout.com

Progress on the Hunter

"The keel-laying ceremony for NUSHIP Hunter took place at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in South Australia today. Following naval tradition, a coin was placed beneath two blocks forming part of the keel in the presence of shipbuilders, Defence Industry Minister, Pat Conroy and Royal Australian Navy Chief, VAdm Matthew Buckley.

The two sections will now be joined by further blocks to form the hull. Construction is already well advanced across the ship, with work underway on 59 of the 78 units; these will then be consolidated into the 22 blocks that make up each ship."

the build facility

 

[NavyShooter]

I was engaged by a gent to 3D print my RC Type 26 for him at 1/72 scale. He likes large models. He's in Montreal and I'll be driving by there next week and will have the chance to drop it off and see some of his ships.

He's got a 1/48 scale R/C Halifax Class model that I'm really looking forward to seeing.

 

[Underway]

But Canada has "very" special and different requirments then all of our Allies combined. Remember we are not only building a ship, we are building an industry. dont forget we have to figure out how to work money into the freinds and family pocket without getting to openly caught.

Good for Spain to get the ball rolling with minimal delay.

Don't believe the Spanish glossy brochure. Just look at Australia's experience with Navantia. The spanish ships are like new build house from a sketchy contractor. No primer under the paint, and shortcuts everywhere.

Our problem isn't this BS friends and family narrative you're pushing. Its our governance structures for projects, and our inexperience building ships. Things are starting to roll now though, of that have no doubt.

 

[dapaterson]

Don't believe the Spanish glossy brochure. Just look at Australia's experience with Navantia. The spanish ships are like new build house from a sketchy contractor. No primer under the paint, and shortcuts everywhere.

Our problem isn't this BS friends and family narrative you're pushing. Its our governance structures for projects, and our inexperience building ships. Things are starting to roll now though, of that have no doubt.

Shortcuts everywhere. So... like Irving installing potable water systems that are not certified for drinking water?

 

[Underway]

Shortcuts everywhere. So... like Irving installing potable water systems that are not certified for drinking water?

I'll argue that whatever they are going to deliver for RCD will be better than Navantia.

 

[dapaterson]

I'll argue that whatever they are going to deliver for RCD will be better than Navantia.

Hope apparently is now the default CoA.

 

[Maxman1]

Shortcuts everywhere. So... like Irving installing potable water systems that are not certified for drinking water?

The water systems met the specifications and complied with health standards on delivery. The government just changed the standards after the fact.

There's plenty of things to legitimately shit on Irving for, but this isn't one.

 

[Furniture]

The water systems met the specifications and complied with health standards on delivery. The government just changed the standards after the fact.

There's plenty of things to legitimately shit on Irving for, but this isn't one.

Also, the filtered water fountains for refilling water bottles are awesome.

I am now back on a CPF, and forgot how some of the little things on an AOPV made a big difference. That said, the big things, like smaller cabins, make a bigger difference.

 

[childs56]

The water systems met the specifications and complied with health standards on delivery. The government just changed the standards after the fact.

There's plenty of things to legitimately shit on Irving for, but this isn't one.

Is there documents on the change in requriments.
My understading was the valve was spec'd by the ship designer. Was overlooked by the contractor. the experts.

Don't believe the Spanish glossy brochure. Just look at Australia's experience with Navantia. The spanish ships are like new build house from a sketchy contractor. No primer under the paint, and shortcuts everywhere.

Our problem isn't this BS friends and family narrative you're pushing.

Ok, tell me how many many hands are/ were in the pot before the metal was even cut. The R&D alone was a large sum of money for what it is. The Destroyers and the AOPS. Sorry even our Allies questioned our "redesigne" costs.

Its our governance structures for projects, and our inexperience building ships.

Yet they went ahead with the project to build ships with inexpierance. I woudl call Bs on all this. They have been reparing. inspecting and had/have access to other expertise from aroudn the world. Irving wanted the whole cake and added the pie and whipcream. I wonder if they get any other follwo on work from this going forward from our allies.

Things are starting to roll now though, of that have no doubt.

Throw enough money at a problem you can make anything work.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Also, the filtered water fountains for refilling water bottles are awesome.

I am now back on a CPF, and forgot how some of the little things on an AOPV made a big difference. That said, the big things, like smaller cabins, make a bigger difference.

You got soft

Enjoy the CHOD tour friend! I've no doubt you'll kick ass.

 

[Furniture]

You got soft

Enjoy the CHOD tour friend! I've no doubt you'll kick ass.

It's a true struggle daily, particularly when the soup is "mid" at best...

Who knew free soup could be such a drag on morale...

Fucking weak sailors will kill me before beer, and beer has been putting in a solid shift for at least a decade.

 

[oldcpu]

We always look at NATO. Take a look at Australia, Japan and Korea for other comparables. Then you need to compare what the "frigates" actually are for capability. Some are short range national water types of ships.

Australia is a good comparable, however their requirements have them worrying about the sea/air gap north of the continent, and their requirement to maintain a health amphibious capability. Japan and Korea like most of NATO only worry about domestic water deployments close to home. France and the UK have plenty of long range colonial remnants that they need to pay attention to.

Right now the Canadian doctrine as presented in various policy documents are that the RCN needs to maintain one task group consisting of an AOR, 3-4 destroyers/frigates, with add ons.

In order to do that 15 destroyers would mean we have approx 4-5 destroyers available at all times. So that part of the doctrine is covered off. Following on from that we would want four JSS/AOR's to provide one available at all times. That fills out the core capabilities of the task group.

I deliberately limited the scope to NATO, as Canada has an alliance with NATO and I wanted to compare with other NATO alliance members.

Your point though is very well noted ... albeit I don't think anyone needs a forum post by me on army.ca summarizing all nation's frigate/destroyer count, especially given such can be deceptive given a navy's balance between quantity of submarines, patrol boats, corvettes, frigates, destroyers and larger capital ships - all of which can be different from navy to navy - not to mention geographical differences of countries.

Still, limiting the scope to frigates and destroyers, given that you mentioned Australia, Japan and South Korea, I note:

• Australia (RAN) = ~10 frigates/destroyers ( 3 x Hobart class + 7 x Anzac class)
• Japan (JMSDF) = ~50 frigates/destroyers (with 36-40 Kongo, Atago, Maya, Murasame destroyers) + ( ~10-12 Mogami class)
• South Korea = ~31 frigates/destroyers (13 destroyers across KDX-I, II, and III, plus ~18 frigates across Chungnam, Daegu, and Incheon classes).

... where, for example, Australia has major changes coming and those numbers are deceptive.

Your comment about 15 destroyers likely means only 4 to 5 available, at all times, which is something I also note to be generally true. I think all navies "suffer" with that limitation, albeit the numbers can vary from nation to nation from time to time.

These are interesting times for the RCN, with challenges ahead to procure both new ships, submarines, and the sailors to man them. Similar to what I believe all in this thread wish, I too wish the best for the RCN.

 

[FSTO]

^^
I'll see if I can find the graphic of current USN carrier availability. That and their incompetence in getting a replacement for the OHPs is really starting to put a strain on resources. On the plus side, that means the Trump class BB should never see the light of day!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

All I know is that, according to the US navy itself, the Roosevelt is on its way to relieve the Abraham Lincoln and is already listed as being on a 7 to 8 months deployment.

They are now staring from time periods that greatly exceed the normal 6 months maximum deployments of the past. I think there are people in Hegseth's department of defense that believe their own public relations: "A nuclear aircraft carrier can remain at sea indefinitely, as long as it is resupplied in food and aviation fuel".

Well, no! There is another limit, and an important one called human endurance. I can only imagine what such deployments will do for retention and recruiting.

 

[Czech_pivo]

All I know is that, according to the US navy itself, the Roosevelt is on its way to relieve the Abraham Lincoln and is already listed as being on a 7 to 8 months deployment.

They are now staring from time periods that greatly exceed the normal 6 months maximum deployments of the past. I think there are people in Hegseth's department of defense that believe their own public relations: "A nuclear aircraft carrier can remain at sea indefinitely, as long as it is resupplied in food and aviation fuel".

Well, no! There is another limit, and an important one called human endurance. I can only imagine what such deployments will do for retention and recruiting.

Maybe they need to bring back the Rum ration and lower the drinking age to 18 for the USN, LOL.