• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

Could any of the new icebreaker designs be tweaked up to actual naval standards to give the RCN a true armed-icebreaker capability….and would it be worth doing??
 
Could any of the new icebreaker designs be tweaked up to actual naval standards to give the RCN a true armed-icebreaker capability….and would it be worth doing??

Here We Go Again GIF
 
Just a point of discussion….not n any particular order of importance 1) to keep the design and development guys in work until the next major project, 2) to be able to open the ice for our frigates/destroyers during ice-season 3) to augment the CCG/RCMP patrols in the arctic during ice-season.
 
The transfer of all cost risk from the shipyards to the GoC is an abject failure of contracting and contract management.

Venetian Arsenal sez that that system is not new.

Opened in 1107. Produced ships until 1797.

The Royal Dockyards tell a similar tale.

Even this "capitalist" will admit that not all problems are solved by "the market".
 
has Irving developed the same type of design expertise? Because if they haven't, even though Seaspan is the non-combatant specialist it doesn't mean the design team can't broaden their horizons and work on the future combatant designs or does it?

It doesn't. Irving got their design for the AOPS by way of West Coast designers. For that matter so did Norway.

Polar Design Associates - Kvaerner - Wartsila - Masa - Aker - STX - Fincantieri - Vard.

The convoluted name/ownership stream tells you all you need to know about the profitability of building ships.

...

Forgot to mention that BMT got their fingers in the pie as well.
 
Could any of the new icebreaker designs be tweaked up to actual naval standards to give the RCN a true armed-icebreaker capability….and would it be worth doing??
There is a fundamental disconnect in the roles and required traits of icebreakers and combatants that make them incompatible, you will end up with a bloated, costly and complex vessel that won't be satisfactory for either purpose.
 
There is a fundamental disconnect in the roles and required traits of icebreakers and combatants that make them incompatible, you will end up with a bloated, costly and complex vessel that won't be satisfactory for either purpose.
which, if I recall a comment from further upstream correctly, the AOP class is a patrol/constabulary vessel and not a warship although with the advent of bolt on systems I think they could serve as pickets by adding a can or two.
 
which, if I recall a comment from further upstream correctly, the AOP class is a patrol/constabulary vessel and not a warship although with the advent of bolt on systems I think they could serve as pickets by adding a can or two.
Not sure if I would call a ship with a relatively poor sensor suite, unclassified CMS and a few seacan spaces a picket in the modern sense. Fire ship might be more apt as how things would go.

 
Just a point of discussion….not n any particular order of importance 1) to keep the design and development guys in work until the next major project, 2) to be able to open the ice for our frigates/destroyers during ice-season 3) to augment the CCG/RCMP patrols in the arctic during ice-season.
Once again why? Our warships are not designed to enter any ice. And why would you put a warship whose main defence is maneuverability within an ice pack. Its like making your infantry trying to fight in quicksand.
 
Hopefully the Ice Breaker idea morphs into say an ice belted Karl Doorman class. Something the Navy (maybe the RCAF as well)
can find a use for and some dog and Pony stuff up to an Ice edge. Fly off some Chinooks with BV-206's dangling for the camera's and the Whitehouse see's us doing something.
 
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?
 
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?

How do other design houses keep their teams together?

BMT. OMT. Hyundai. Navantia. Damen. Fincantieri etc.

Most vessels out there seem to conform to a limited number of design principles. There are few revolutionary hulls.

I can think of a couple recently

1747784245168.png1747784311627.png




It seems to me that most naval architects and marine engineers will spend most of their working lives like their landlubber versions working on delivering existing designs and project management.
 
A submarine rescue ship would be useful, especially considering the history of our sub fleet. And an oceanographic survey ship is a capability we lost when  Quest was scrapped.
Oceanographic survey is a CCG job, and and also not a specialized ship anymore. You can have a UUV and offshore work ship do it no problems.
 
Back
Top