Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 415237 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 340
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1475 on: April 06, 2019, 10:02:38 »
So I just saw......drum roll please....

It's the River Class.

Offline Swampbuggy

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,600
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 142
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1476 on: April 06, 2019, 10:41:05 »
In regards to...CSC naming?

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,290
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1477 on: April 06, 2019, 11:23:53 »
So I just saw......drum roll please....

It's the River Class.

Where did you see that?

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 340
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1478 on: April 06, 2019, 12:28:28 »
Niagara 360
Fraser 361
Annapolis  362
Niagara 363
St Croix 364
St Laurent 365
Mackenzie 366
Columbia 367
Sagueway 368
Sheena 369
Ottawa 370
Yukon 371
Margaree 372
Saskatchewan 373
Terra Nova 374

Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1479 on: April 06, 2019, 12:52:46 »
Niagara 360
Fraser 361
Annapolis  362
Niagara 363
St Croix 364
St Laurent 365
Mackenzie 366
Columbia 367
Sagueway 368
Sheena 369
Ottawa 370
Yukon 371
Margaree 372
Saskatchewan 373
Terra Nova 374

That's not accurate, the ships haven't been named yet. Thats what a former sailor would like to have them named, not true.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 340
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1480 on: April 06, 2019, 19:41:30 »
Sorry saw it on the those interwebs

The source sounded true.  I guess I'm not getting than million from the Nigerian politician

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 145,210
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,290
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1481 on: April 06, 2019, 22:38:00 »
I would also note that Niagara is listed twice and "Sheena" is woman, not a river.

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 47,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,735
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1482 on: April 07, 2019, 10:12:12 »
Either Tribals or Rivers would be great!

Here's a thought. The 3 or 4 C4 AAW ships are the tribals and the rest can be either Rivers or Provinces/Territories.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,014
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1483 on: April 07, 2019, 10:46:06 »
Current gov: Flower or Peace class.  Prev Gov’t: obscure battle class.  FordNation: Slogan Class.  NDP: Oppression or Protest class.  PPC: Duke class.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2019, 10:48:50 by Cloud Cover »
Living the lean life.

Offline PuckChaser

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 919,200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,163
    • Peacekeeper's Homepage
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1484 on: April 07, 2019, 10:51:43 »
Current gov: Flower or Peace class.  Prev Gov’t: obscure battle class.  FordNation: Slogan Class.  NDP: Oppression or Protest class. Project Cancelled  PPC: Duke class.

FTFY

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,014
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1485 on: April 07, 2019, 11:01:38 »
Interesting choice. I would have thought the Khmer Orange’ would need something to defend Venezuela.
Living the lean life.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 139,385
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,618
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1486 on: April 07, 2019, 12:30:04 »
Niagara never was really a "river" class of Canada. The name belonged to one of the American four stackers gotten in the British "destroyer for bases" deal of WWII and handed over to the RCN. It was actually named after the town of Niagara, not the river.

Also, for multicultural reasons ( ;D ), I would tend to stay away from saints these days. So X-nay on the St. Croix and St-Laurent.

But that's fine, tons of other proper river names that can be used: Kootenay, Gatineau, Chaudiere, Qu'appelle or Nipigon come to mind.

« Last Edit: April 07, 2019, 12:32:53 by Oldgateboatdriver »

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,685
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,587
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1487 on: April 07, 2019, 17:28:51 »
How about HMCS Old Man (river) *sarcasm*
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,014
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1488 on: April 07, 2019, 18:12:06 »
Also, for multicultural reasons ( ;D ), I would tend to stay away from saints these days. So X-nay on the St. Croix and St-Laurent.

To even things out, we could be open to a ship named Achmed! SILENCE!!! Would make for some interesting turret artwork on the 5".
Living the lean life.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 70,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,427
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1489 on: April 07, 2019, 19:33:09 »
In any event there still is, for lord knows how many more years, CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent (in service 1969, half a century ago):


https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels/vessel-details/81

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,014
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1490 on: April 08, 2019, 10:29:49 »
It was, and still is, a graceful looking ship.  As a place of modern work and capability, maybe not so much anymore.
Living the lean life.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 242
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1491 on: April 18, 2019, 08:06:41 »
Contract signed for CDN Type 26 Integrated Bridge Design

Good news, it seems that the peanut is still slowly being pushed up the hill.

OSI Maritime Systems announced the contract signing with Lockheed Martin Canada to design the integrated bridge and navigation bridge for the Royal Canadian Navy’s Type 26-based Canadian Surface Combatant vessels.

The CSC project, which is part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, will replace both the Iroquois Class destroyers and the Halifax Class multi-role patrol frigates with a single class of ship capable of meeting multiple threats on both the open ocean and the highly complex coastal environment.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/3909-contract-signed-to-design-integrated-bridge-for-canadian-type-26-frigates

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,324
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 70,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,427
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1493 on: April 24, 2019, 15:24:57 »
Compare costs and timeline for USN's 20 new FFG(X)s with RCN's 15 (maybe) CSCs--'tis to weep:
Quote
Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Frigate FFG(X) Program

The following is the April 4, 2019 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress.

From the report

The FFG(X) programis a Navy program to build a class of 20 guided-missile frigates(FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X)in FY2020, the next 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2021-FY2029, and the 20thin FY2030. The Navy’s proposed FY2020 budget requests $1,281.2 million for the procurement of the first FFG(X). The Navy’s FY2020 budget submission shows that subsequent ships in the class are estimated by the Navy to cost roughly $900 million each in then-year dollars.

The Navy intends to build the FFG(X) to a modified version of an existing ship design—an approach called the parent-design approach. The parent design could be a U.S. ship design or a foreign ship design.At least five industry teams are reportedly competing for the FFG(X) program. Two of these teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are modified versions of the two Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)designs that the Navy has procured in prior years. The other three industry teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are based on other existing ship designs. One of these three other industry teams is proposing to build its design at one of the LCS shipyards. The Navy plans to announce the outcome of the FFG(X) competition in July 2020. The LCSprogram is covered in detail in another CRS report.

The FFG(X) program presents several potential oversight issues for Congress, including the following:

    whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s FY2020funding request for the program;whether the Navy has appropriately defined the cost, capabilities, and growth margin of the FFG(X);

    the Navy’s intent to use a parent-design approach for the FFG(X) program rather than develop an entirely new (i.e., clean-sheet) design for the ship;

    cost, schedule, and technical risk in the FFG(X) program;

    whether any additional LCSs should be procured in FY2020 as a hedge against potential delays in the FFG(X) program;

    the potential industrial-base impacts of the Navy’s plan to shift in FY2020 from procuring LCSs to procuring FFG(X)s;

    whether to build FFG(X)s at a single shipyard, as the Navy’s baseline plan calls for, or at two or three shipyards;and

    the potential impact of the FFG(X) program required numbers or capabilities of U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers...
https://news.usni.org/2019/04/24/report-to-congress-on-u-s-navy-frigate-ffgx-program

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,875
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 745
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1494 on: April 24, 2019, 16:33:56 »
I believe that when I looked their cost estimate process a few years ago, they don't include a number of things that we do, so can't compare.  Off the top of my head the actual ammunition wasn't in there (so at millions/missile adds up quick) and some of the weapon systems are also covered under other programs (like the ESSM development program).  I think they had a baseline ship that could sail, navigate, operate a helo and have some very basic self defence, but wasn't fully kitted out at that cost.

Of course, our entire CSC project is a rounding error on their defence budget, but still hard to compare apples to apples without going through the line by line to see what they roll up, and our cost estimates tend to have a lot more stuff in them than any other country, and includes a healthy contingency.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,245
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 242
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1495 on: May 01, 2019, 08:04:15 »
I've looked over some of the specs that are available regarding the new Type 26's that we have selected to replace the Halifax's/Iroquois's and see that the type 26's have listed a Complement of 118.  Is this number correct?  Does anyone know if this includes the air detachment?

With the Halifax's having a listed Complement of 225, including the air attachment, does this mean that we'll have a reduction of roughly 100 personnel per new CSC when they come online?  If that's correct, it means a roughly 1,000 personnel reduction needed to man the 15 CSC's when compared against the 12 Halifax's.  Is this correct? 


Offline Chief Engineer

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 740,742
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,976
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1496 on: May 01, 2019, 10:44:00 »
I've looked over some of the specs that are available regarding the new Type 26's that we have selected to replace the Halifax's/Iroquois's and see that the type 26's have listed a Complement of 118.  Is this number correct?  Does anyone know if this includes the air detachment?

With the Halifax's having a listed Complement of 225, including the air attachment, does this mean that we'll have a reduction of roughly 100 personnel per new CSC when they come online?  If that's correct, it means a roughly 1,000 personnel reduction needed to man the 15 CSC's when compared against the 12 Halifax's.  Is this correct?

Until its released officially you won't know. Given new technology and automation it makes sense that the crew compliment will be less.
"When your draught exceeds your depth, you are most assuredly aground"

All opinions stated are not official policy of the CF and of a private individual

كافر

Offline OceanBonfire

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,735
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 119
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1497 on: May 01, 2019, 16:05:47 »
Quote
Representatives from the @RoyalNavy, @Australian_Navy & RAdm Donovan and Cmdre Carosielli from Canada signed a Charter, formally acknowledging our involvement in the Global Combat Ship Users Group, in support of the Canadian Surface Combatant Project in Portsmouth, UK today.

https://twitter.com/RCN_MRC/status/1123568151604662277

Recruiting Center: Montreal
Regular/Reserve: Regular Force
Officer/NCM: Officer (DEO)
Occupation choice: Logistics Officer
Current application: March 28, 2017
CFAT: Previously completed in November 2011
Interview: July 11, 2017
Medical: August 2017
Competition list: October/November 2017
Position Offered: May 25, 2018
Swearing In: August 21, 2018
BMOQ: August 25, 2018
BMOQ Graduation: November 16, 2018

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 36,840
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,014
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1498 on: May 02, 2019, 16:01:23 »
Figures we send 2 FO to operate a pen.

Living the lean life.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 139,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,324
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1499 on: May 02, 2019, 23:46:09 »
Good though if we can have people on the ground floor watching the construction and perhaps even posted to one of the new RN Type 26's. Then those lessons can be passed on while we are still building ours.