Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[Oldgateboatdriver]

What makes you think a "hot" war would pit Russia against China?

 

[Cloud Cover]

I dont think theres much to be done about the design personnel. The yards have construction work for years ahead
Seaspan 15 yrs
Irving 25 yrs
Davie 10 yrs ?

What other ships could we use? Forgetting the construction and manning of them?
Some sort of sealift?
LPD/LHD?
Sub tender?
CMMC/CDC/Kingston replacement?
More AOR? But why not build more of the same?

If it’s the last thing Doug Ford does, in exchange for supporting Carney he’ll have Heddle building a fleet of CVNs that can double as grain carriers.

 

[Maxman1]

I would assume that these two ships are going to be a magnet to every Chinese missile within 500km of there ever was a hot war.

A war between Russia and China? Or are you referring to the Japanese ships? Because a 12,000 ton frigate/destroyer/cruiser isn't the same as the  Yamato.

 

[Czech_pivo]

What makes you think a "hot" war would pit Russia against China?

I was referring to a war with Japan supporting the US in defending Taiwan against China.

 

[calculus]

Some news on the Australian Hunter class construction progress:

Construction advances on Australia's first Hunter-class frigate

The Hunter-class Frigate Program has hit a milestone after the first two machinery units for the first ship were consolidated.

www.navaltoday.com

I found it interesting that these also appear to be limited to 24 MK41 cells. It has been widely reported in "other" forums that the Hunters would have 32. Also interesting the reference to a VLS for Sea Ceptor. That is something I have not seen associated with the Hunters before.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Some news on the Australian Hunter class construction progress:

Construction advances on Australia's first Hunter-class frigate

The Hunter-class Frigate Program has hit a milestone after the first two machinery units for the first ship were consolidated.

www.navaltoday.com

I found it interesting that these also appear to be limited to 24 MK41 cells. It has been widely reported in "other" forums that the Hunters would have 32. Also interesting the reference to a VLS for Sea Ceptor. That is something I have not seen associated with the Hunters before.

If you look at other navaltoday articles like this one back in 2023, they copy and paste basically the same text regarding 24 Mark 41 VLS and Sea Ceptor, so I think its just poorly researched regurgitation of the base UK model.

 

[Underway]

Naval Today is not what I would call a quality site. They don't do any of their own research and just repost other peoples stuff without any checking. I find that they are great in getting the word out, but require some other looking around to find the original articles or information they were drawing from to get the most correct info.

 

[Kirkhill]

The Type 26 frigate programme, once hailed as a beacon of British naval innovation, has stumbled over a series of obstacles. These are not isolated incidents, but indications of wider failure which reveal much about our national industrial capabilities and programme management.

When Britain embarked on the programme, the objective was clear: to build a modern vessel proficient in anti-submarine warfare (ASW) in both the North Atlantic and the Indo-Pacific, and capable of quiet operation. The Royal Navy’s ambition to meet stringent ASW standards required advanced technology, leading to the development, for example, of a highly specialised gearbox derived from submarines.

But ambition soon clashed with industrial reality. Awarded to a company in Huddersfield in 2015, the gearbox project fell foul of Britain’s diminished industrial base. The expertise needed to produce it had atrophied, requiring the manufacturers to relearn skills and increase capacity. The initial gearbox was delivered late and failed to meet standards, resulting in costly modifications to HMS Glasgow and adding £233 million to the programme.

Poor communications have also hampered procurement. The Ministry of Defence was not informed of the gearbox failure until 20 months after the problem was identified. This delay was later confirmed during a Defence Select Committee hearing in November 2022, underscoring clear issues in transparency and management.

The Type 26 programme is emblematic of a deeper issue: the dissonance between Britain’s advanced defence ambitions and the current state of our industrial base.

Innovation often outpaces the readiness of our supply chains which can derail entire projects. In this case, the decision to rely on a bespoke gearbox, without viable commercial alternatives, created a single point of failure that jeopardised the project’s timeline, cost, and credibility.

The Type 26 frigate serves as a cautionary tale about our Navy

Slashing taxes and regulations for businesses and lowering energy prices would help boost our flagging defence capabilities

www.telegraph.co.uk

So? Are we relying on the same gearbox? The Aussies?

The Brits only need 5, excluding spares. Between us we and the Aussies need 24, plus spares.

....

Also the Brits seem to be struggling with drive line issues generally.

The Royal Navy's HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier: Just a Giant Design Flaw?

In February 2024 it was reported that propeller issues on the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier would leave the vessel incapable of participating in an important NATO exercise.

www.19fortyfive.com

HMS Prince of Wales – Shaft failure investigation results

Ministry of Defence letter sheds light on the cause of HMS Prince of Wales' shaft failure, discussing operational impacts and ongoing rectification efforts.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Type 45 Destroyer has spent most of its life in maintenance

HMS Daring, the Royal Navy's first Type 45 destroyer, has now spent more time in maintenance and refits than in active service.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Slow, leaky, rusty: Britain's £10bn submarine beset by design flaws

Exclusive: the 'most sophisticated submarine ever built' has 'a V8 engine with a Morris Minor gear box'

www.theguardian.com

From the 2012 article

The Royal Navy's new multibillion pound hunter-killer submarine, HMS Astute, has been beset by design and construction flaws that have raised doubts about its performance and potential safety.

The Guardian can reveal that Astute, the first of seven new submarines costing £9.75bn, has been unable to reach its intended top speed.

At the moment, the boat, heralded as the most sophisticated submarine ever built for the navy, cannot sprint to emergencies or away from an attack – an essential requirement for a hunter-killer boat.

It would also be incapable of keeping pace with the Royal Navy's new aircraft carriers, which will be able to travel at more than 30 knots and need the submarines to protect them. One source told the Guardian the boat had a "V8 engine with a Morris Minor gearbox".

Since that article the RN has commissioned another four hulls in the intervening 12 years. One gearbox every three years. Was this the gearbox that the Type 26 was planning on using as a template?

6 of the 7 Astutes are complete with one still building.

 

[Underway]

The Type 26 frigate serves as a cautionary tale about our Navy

Slashing taxes and regulations for businesses and lowering energy prices would help boost our flagging defence capabilities

www.telegraph.co.uk

So? Are we relying on the same gearbox? The Aussies?

The Brits only need 5, excluding spares. Between us we and the Aussies need 24, plus spares.

....

Also the Brits seem to be struggling with drive line issues generally.

The Royal Navy's HMS Queen Elizabeth Aircraft Carrier: Just a Giant Design Flaw?

In February 2024 it was reported that propeller issues on the HMS Queen Elizabeth aircraft carrier would leave the vessel incapable of participating in an important NATO exercise.

www.19fortyfive.com

HMS Prince of Wales – Shaft failure investigation results

Ministry of Defence letter sheds light on the cause of HMS Prince of Wales' shaft failure, discussing operational impacts and ongoing rectification efforts.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Type 45 Destroyer has spent most of its life in maintenance

HMS Daring, the Royal Navy's first Type 45 destroyer, has now spent more time in maintenance and refits than in active service.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

Slow, leaky, rusty: Britain's £10bn submarine beset by design flaws

Exclusive: the 'most sophisticated submarine ever built' has 'a V8 engine with a Morris Minor gear box'

www.theguardian.com

From the 2012 article



Since that article the RN has commissioned another four hulls in the intervening 12 years. One gearbox every three years. Was this the gearbox that the Type 26 was planning on using as a template?

6 of the 7 Astutes are complete with one still building.

Yes we are using the same one. Given the timelines though, we are abotu 6 years behind the UK, so they will have worked out the kinks ideally by the time they get to us.

This is one of the reasons this ship was selected. Because the UK is de-risking it ahead of us as we go.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes we are using the same one. Given the timelines though, we are abotu 6 years behind the UK, so they will have worked out the kinks ideally by the time they get to us.

This is one of the reasons this ship was selected. Because the UK is de-risking it ahead of us as we go.

Emphasis on ideally. Which really means hopefully, in this case. Hope, is always a COA.

You have a lot of faith in the UK. I hope your position is eventually proven founded.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Emphasis on ideally. Which really means hopefully, in this case. Hope, is always a COA.

You have a lot of faith in the UK. I hope your position is eventually proven founded.

TBF, they have much higher standards then we do for equipment (in some cases, we don't have any coherent standards), and generally a lot more people/expertise on the equipment side, because they invest in/support that capability. Both us and the Aussies buying the same gearing is great for all of us, in terms of shared equipment maintenance, as well as obsolescence management.

Also, we're taking an ASW gearbox (which doesn't have controllable reversible propellors (CRP), so you have to actually stop and reverse the gearing), and putting it on a destroyer so gearbox noise is less critical. They aren't talking about full loss of gearbox development, just some of the very specialized black magic that goes into things like ultra quiet gearing design, that only fully meshes under full power.

Some things on the platform are a step back on system integration and automation on the battle damage side, but generally it's a really well designed ship with a lot of redundancy so as long as we minimize redesigns of things due to lack of understanding from the operators in requirements, it'll be a great platform.

As someone who spent a lot of time in ASBs, my favourite thing is that there is already a full set of DC/FF equipment at the alternate location, so you don't need to do the panicked grab and go to relocate for something like emergency flying stations.

 

[Halifax Tar]

TBF, they have much higher standards then we do for equipment (in some cases, we don't have any coherent standards), and generally a lot more people/expertise on the equipment side, because they invest in/support that capability. Both us and the Aussies buying the same gearing is great for all of us, in terms of shared equipment maintenance, as well as obsolescence management.

Also, we're taking an ASW gearbox (which doesn't have controllable reversible propellors (CRP), so you have to actually stop and reverse the gearing), and putting it on a destroyer so gearbox noise is less critical. They aren't talking about full loss of gearbox development, just some of the very specialized black magic that goes into things like ultra quiet gearing design, that only fully meshes under full power.

Some things on the platform are a step back on system integration and automation on the battle damage side, but generally it's a really well designed ship with a lot of redundancy so as long as we minimize redesigns of things due to lack of understanding from the operators in requirements, it'll be a great platform.

As someone who spent a lot of time in ASBs, my favourite thing is that there is already a full set of DC/FF equipment at the alternate location, so you don't need to do the panicked grab and go to relocate for something like emergency flying stations.

Words words words.

I have no doubts it has the potential to be a great ship class for Canada.

I think my post was pretty clear.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Australia teams with Japan for 11 frigates.

When did Australia cut their number of Hunter class ships down to 6 from 9?

Australia picks Japan to build $10b frigates after fierce contest

Japanese shipbuilder Mitsubishi Heavy Industries wins a fierce contest to build the Australian navy's new fleet of warships, beating a bid from German rival ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems.

www.abc.net.au

Australia picks Japan to build $10b frigates after fierce contest​

Australia set to buy Japanese Mogami-class frigates - Navy Lookout

Australia looks likely to become the first customer for a Japanese-built warship since before the Second World War. The Nikkei Asia reports that the Royal Australian Navy is poised to acquire up to 11 of the enhanced FFM version of the Mogami-class frigates. The RAN’s Surface Combatant Fleet...

www.navylookout.com

Australia set to buy Japanese Mogami-class frigates​

The RAN’s Surface Combatant Fleet Review, which was published in 2024, recommended a rapid procurement of warships to replace the ageing ANZAC-class, which have been in service since the mid-1990s. The Type 26-based Hunter class ASW frigates programme remains the Tier 1 combatant capability but the review recognised they would not be delivered fast enough, and a Tier-2 option was needed to increase hull numbers and in a shorter time scale.

Sounds a bit similar to us, doesn't it? The Australians moved pretty fast to make a decision and to move to close the gap.

Mitsubishi’s production line is already delivering two frigates per year to the JMSDF and expects to scale up to three annually. The company will provide full intellectual property rights and long-term support for the Australian variant, enabling local sustainment over the ship’s projected 40-year lifespan.

 

[calculus]

Australia teams with Japan for 11 frigates.

When did Australia cut their number of Hunter class ships down to 6 from 9?

I think they made that decision a couple of years ago now. My fear is some senior bureaucrat in Ottawa will push the RCN to do the same.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I think they made that decision a couple of years ago now. My fear is some senior bureaucrat in Ottawa will push the RCN to do the same.

True - but at least they are swapping it out with a 5/6,000 ton actual frigate not some 1,600-1,800 Corvette….
The new Australian frigates are just as capable, if not more with a 127mm main gun, as our Halifax’s. They will be considered tier 1 warships by the Australians.

 

[Maxman1]

The specs on those sound similar to Type 31, but with a 127 instead of a 57.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The specs on those sound similar to Type 31, but with a 127 instead of a 57.

How does the Type 31 stack up against a Halifax?

 

[Czech_pivo]

How does the Type 31 stack up against a Halifax?

I answered myself - AI is wonderful, lol.

Here's a more detailed comparison:
Type 31 Frigate:

• General Purpose: Designed for a wide range of missions, including constabulary duties, disaster relief, and combat operations.
  
  
• Modern Design: Features a mission bay for accommodating various mission modules, offering flexibility for different tasks.
  
  
• Displacement: Around 5,700 to 7,000 tons.
  
  
• Length: 138.7 meters (455 ft 1 in).
  
  
• Armament: Includes a medium-caliber gun, Naval Strike Missile launchers, and potentially other missile systems.
  
  
• Radar: Features a modern radar system mounted on a tall mast.
  
  
• Missile System: Uses the RIM-116 Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) for point defense.
  

Halifax-Class Frigate:

• Multi-Role: Designed for anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, with capabilities for fisheries patrol and surveillance.
  
  
• Older Design: While upgraded, it is based on an older design from the 1980s.
  
  
• Displacement: Around 4,700 tons.
  
  
• Armament: Includes Harpoon missiles, ESSM missiles, a Bofors 57mm gun, and a Phalanx CIWS.
  
  
• Radar: Uses a radar system that has been upgraded but may not be as advanced as the Type 31's.
  
  
• Missile System: Uses the RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM).
  

Key Differences:

• Mission Focus:
  The Type 31 is more focused on general-purpose missions, while the Halifax-class has a stronger anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare focus.
  
  
• Modernization:
  The Type 31 is a newer design with more modern features and capabilities, while the Halifax-class has been upgraded with new systems and weapons.
  
  
• Cost:
  The Type 31 is expected to be a more cost-effective option compared to the Halifax-class replacement program.
  
  
• Size:
  The Type 31 is slightly larger than the Halifax-class in terms of displacement and length.

 

[k.numbers]

How does the Type 31 stack up against a Halifax?

Very different roles. The Type 31 does not have an ASW sonar system (though it could likely equip a towed array with minor modifications) or torpedeo tubes. The Halifax has a hull mounted sonar, a towed array, a sonar bouy processing system, and torpedeo tubes.

The Type 31 has (or will eventually have) a much larger missile load out with 32 mk 41 vls cells. Vs the Halifax with the smaller deck lauchers for just 16 ESSMs (which can be quad-packed in the mk 41).

For air defence, surface strike, or just being a missile magazine in general: the Type 31 is miles ahead of the Halifax. It also has half the crew size and more room for systems for seconday missions.

The Halifax is a very good ASW platform, but much more limited in other roles. Beyond tonnage, they're hard to compare. The type 26 is more like the Halifax than the 31 (in role, the type26 is a substantial upgrade).

 

[Navy_Pete]

Words words words.

I have no doubts it has the potential to be a great ship class for Canada.

I think my post was pretty clear.

I've been matrixed in and been able to see a lot of the design as well as do things like some combat recoverability table tops where we did a virtual torture test of the DC systems and crewing concept.

From that perspective, every time we've asked a question, there have been some really good design features, as well as equipment selection and placement logic that made a lot of sense, and a lot of the really stupid things with the CPF design that they don't have.

Not that we can't take a working design and make it worse through Canadianization, but BAE has been good at politely telling us something is a stupid idea and why it would be a bad design decision.

A lot of this is in things most people will never notice, and equipment/SOPs that people will only ever try out in training and never actually have to do (like DC with a damaged hull in CBRN conditions), but from my decade or so of doing 2nd/3rd line work as well as all my time sailing on every class of heavy we've ran the baseline T26 design is solid with a lot of really good combat recoverability features built in, and because we crew/operate everything the same (outside the ops room, which will need total change to adopt to AEGIS) actually works for us.

Even the best USN design won't work for us (or really any other major Navy) because no one else does crewing like they do.