Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread

[NavyShooter]

Well, the R/C version modification to the 3D print files is now underway....things I do when I have time off over the holidays...

 

[Good2Golf]

Well, the R/C version modification to the 3D print files is now underway....things I do when I have time off over the holidays...

View attachment 97400

Look like the back fell off…

 

[Underway]

Look like the back fell off…

A design feature not a flaw.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I honestly don't know anything, just suppositions though. @Oldgateboatdriver probably has the reference for how we do hull numbers. I couldn't find it online as Canada doesn't fallow the NATO numbering system.
000 series - Carriers (Warrior 20, Magnificent 21, Bonaventure 22)
100 series - no clue
200 series - Destroyers
300 series - Frigates
400 series - Patrol Vessels
500 series - Supply/Support ships
600 serires - no clue
700 series - Minesweepers
800 series - Submarines

To say that we have a system, @Underway, would be putting too much strain on the word system from an epistemological point of view.

Until the HAL's and the MCDV, not much thought had gone into the numbering system, if any, of the RCN.

You say the 0-99 series is for carriers? (P.S. Warrior was 31, not 20, keeping its British number, but losing the "R" designation for the American "CVL" one) Then what about QUEBEC (C66), ONTARIO (C53), PRINCE's DAVID, HENRY and ROBERT (F89, F70 and F56, respectively). MAGNIFICENT was CVL (instead of "R") 21 because she was R21 in the RN, so we then used 22 for BONAVENTURE. That's the only reason.

But all the original RCN destroyers were also in that series:

SAGUENAY D79, SKEENA D59, ASSINIBOINE I18, CHAUDIERE H99, FRASER H48, etc. etc.

Even the original Tribal class were in the 0-99 range originally, until they were turned into DDE's, which is why HAIDA was G63 during the war but became DDE 215 after her refit into a DDE. The time at which refits into DDE's were made is what determined that destroyers would have pennant numbers in the 200, but that is because all the lower numbers in the 0 to about 200 had already been used by WWII vessels of all sorts - be they frigates, destroyers or corvettes.

Another P.S. here If you were to start the new RCD where we left off with ALGONQUIN (II), staring then at 284, you get 298 for the last RCD - still in the 200's.

The WWII corvettes/frigates were all over the place: All of them had a three digit pennant number, staring at K101 for NANAIMO, all the way up to K685 for BUCKINGHAM. Again, it is only when some of the River class frigates of WWII were turned into the PRESTONIAN ocean escorts that someone decided to use numbers starting at 301 for PRESTONIAN herself. No specific reason was given. Somehow, the numbering stuck with "frigates" thereafter, yet they had ceased to be referred to as frigates, but were simply called "ocean escorts" at that point.

As for the 100 series after the war, it was a grab bag: The Bay class minesweepers were in that range (143 to164), so were the Gate Vessels (180 to 186), the various ex-RCMP patrol vessels of the naval reserve (104,140, then 193 to 199) or the old R-class coast guard vessels (141 and 142)

The YAG's were in the 300 series, but were definitely not frigates.

The only logic to the assignment of pennant numbers in the RCN that can be discerned are probably the following ones:

Up to and inclusive of the beginning of the Korean war, our vessels were of British designs and we flew the White Ensign. Therefore, we took our numbering from the Brits so as to avoid duplication that would have made identification impossible. In other words, it was the RN that determined our pennant numbers.

Starting somewhere around the Korean war, we started to designate our ships using, generally, the American ship's type designation system (which is why the SAINT-LAURENTS were "Destroyer Escorts" instead of "frigates"), but without the American practice of starting at "1" for the first ship of a given type, then continuing the series for all subsequent ships of such type. Instead we sort of decided on numbering as we went along, probably just to avoid confusion with the Americans, such as the PRESTONIAN starting at 301 and the Destroyer Escorts staring (why?) at 213 with NOOTKA. The AOR's started at 508. Why? Again, probably on a whim at the time.

I think the first true attempt at setting a system in place occurred with the HAL's, starting at 330 , and the MCDV, staring at 700.

If there is an actual "system" in place now, I don't know about it, or under what publication it is issued, and, unless classified (that would be weird), I would love to be directed to it.

 

[NavyShooter]

OK, so, draft 1 is complete - I'm going to have to see how it looks when printed which will take a week or so.

In the background...what good is a VLS capable ship that doesn't have a VLS? So....a bit of google-fu later, we have the rocket dimensions for a 1/2A Estes rocket motor and the VLS pack will fit 3 of them in the footprint for a 24 cell VLS system. We'll see how this goes. Now to figure out the hatch hinge mechanism.

 

[Rainbow1910]

True, but at this point, it's the only official source of information (if we rule out Wikipedia, which, incidentally, also indicates the main gun is the Leonardo). I have yet to see anything other that idle chatter on this site indicating a switch back to the BAE gun. Not saying it isn't true, but there's not a hint of it in the public forums.

Almost nothing regarding the program is being transmitted to the public through official channels, so don't be surprised when it comes out unofficially. This program has been frankly ludicrous when it comes to transparent public updates in basically every single metric, Irving is awful for this.

 

[Underway]

Almost nothing regarding the program is being transmitted to the public through official channels, so don't be surprised when it comes out unofficially. This program has been frankly ludicrous when it comes to transparent public updates in basically every single metric, Irving is awful for this.

Irving isn't the prime. LMC is the prime. And ADM Mat offices are responsible for any press release of information.

I tapped some sources regarding the gun change. It might not be a done deal. There is more to it than integration ease.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Supplemental to my post above @Underway , re: submarines.

Again here, the "system" if any, makes little sense.

Ignoring the subs without names (CC-1 and CC-2), our post WWII submarines pennants were in the 70's: starting at S71 for Grilse and ending at S75 for Rainbow, with the "O" boats in between with S72, S73 and S74.

Now come the Victoria class, and someone decides to use the 800 series. Fine! But you would then expect the first one to be 800, or 801. But, no! For reasons unknown, they had to somehow pair the old system with the new system: we were at 75 in the old system, so now, the first VIC has to be S876!!!! And all the way to S879.

So what is going to happen with the next submarines (12 of them, hopefully)? Are they going to start at S880, or start back at 800?

 

[GR66]

To say that we have a system, @Underway, would be putting too much strain on the word system from an epistemological point of view.

Until the HAL's and the MCDV, not much thought had gone into the numbering system, if any, of the RCN.

You say the 0-99 series is for carriers? (P.S. Warrior was 31, not 20, keeping its British number, but losing the "R" designation for the American "CVL" one) Then what about QUEBEC (C66), ONTARIO (C53), PRINCE's DAVID, HENRY and ROBERT (F89, F70 and F56, respectively). MAGNIFICENT was CVL (instead of "R") 21 because she was R21 in the RN, so we then used 22 for BONAVENTURE. That's the only reason.

But all the original RCN destroyers were also in that series:

SAGUENAY D79, SKEENA D59, ASSINIBOINE I18, CHAUDIERE H99, FRASER H48, etc. etc.

Even the original Tribal class were in the 0-99 range originally, until they were turned into DDE's, which is why HAIDA was G63 during the war but became DDE 215 after her refit into a DDE. The time at which refits into DDE's were made is what determined that destroyers would have pennant numbers in the 200, but that is because all the lower numbers in the 0 to about 200 had already been used by WWII vessels of all sorts - be they frigates, destroyers or corvettes.

Another P.S. here If you were to start the new RCD where we left off with ALGONQUIN (II), staring then at 284, you get 298 for the last RCD - still in the 200's.

The WWII corvettes/frigates were all over the place: All of them had a three digit pennant number, staring at K101 for NANAIMO, all the way up to K685 for BUCKINGHAM. Again, it is only when some of the River class frigates of WWII were turned into the PRESTONIAN ocean escorts that someone decided to use numbers starting at 301 for PRESTONIAN herself. No specific reason was given. Somehow, the numbering stuck with "frigates" thereafter, yet they had ceased to be referred to as frigates, but were simply called "ocean escorts" at that point.

As for the 100 series after the war, it was a grab bag: The Bay class minesweepers were in that range (143 to164), so were the Gate Vessels (180 to 186), the various ex-RCMP patrol vessels of the naval reserve (104,140, then 193 to 199) or the old R-class coast guard vessels (141 and 142)

The YAG's were in the 300 series, but were definitely not frigates.

The only logic to the assignment of pennant numbers in the RCN that can be discerned are probably the following ones:

Up to and inclusive of the beginning of the Korean war, our vessels were of British designs and we flew the White Ensign. Therefore, we took our numbering from the Brits so as to avoid duplication that would have made identification impossible. In other words, it was the RN that determined our pennant numbers.

Starting somewhere around the Korean war, we started to designate our ships using, generally, the American ship's type designation system (which is why the SAINT-LAURENTS were "Destroyer Escorts" instead of "frigates"), but without the American practice of starting at "1" for the first ship of a given type, then continuing the series for all subsequent ships of such type. Instead we sort of decided on numbering as we went along, probably just to avoid confusion with the Americans, such as the PRESTONIAN starting at 301 and the Destroyer Escorts staring (why?) at 213 with NOOTKA. The AOR's started at 508. Why? Again, probably on a whim at the time.

I think the first true attempt at setting a system in place occurred with the HAL's, starting at 330 , and the MCDV, staring at 700.

If there is an actual "system" in place now, I don't know about it, or under what publication it is issued, and, unless classified (that would be weird), I would love to be directed to it.

That's what I love about this site...every time you log in be prepared for a history lesson!

 

[Lumber]

Irving isn't the prime. LMC is the prime. And ADM Mat offices are responsible for any press release of information.

I tapped some sources regarding the gun change. It might not be a done deal. There is more to it than integration ease.

Backwards. Irving is the prime and LMC is the lead designer and integrator.

 

[Underway]

Backwards. Irving is the prime and LMC is the lead designer and integrator.

Fair enough. Either way, Irving doesn't get to announce project information. ADM Mat does that. That's where the infographics come from etc...

I think they aren't talking right now because there is still a lot of design change going on. And staffing. There is one person in the project who does this stuff and its a secondary duty.

 

[Underway]

Supplemental to my post above @Underway , re: submarines.

Again here, the "system" if any, makes little sense.

Ignoring the subs without names (CC-1 and CC-2), our post WWII submarines pennants were in the 70's: starting at S71 for Grilse and ending at S75 for Rainbow, with the "O" boats in between with S72, S73 and S74.

Now come the Victoria class, and someone decides to use the 800 series. Fine! But you would then expect the first one to be 800, or 801. But, no! For reasons unknown, they had to somehow pair the old system with the new system: we were at 75 in the old system, so now, the first VIC has to be S876!!!! And all the way to S879.

So what is going to happen with the next submarines (12 of them, hopefully)? Are they going to start at S880, or start back at 800?

So my take was that all those numbers from WW2 basically mean nothing because they dropped the G, K, CC's etc prefix from the numbers in the designations when we switched to NATO desig's.

So for example Haida was originally G63 and renumbered to 215. You could just reuse 063 at any time, as the G prefix is part of the hull number. But perhaps I'm digging to much.

I agree that you could start the RCD's at 284 if you wanted to. However usually the new classes seem to start with 10's. So the new Protecteur is 520 not 511 (which was one higher than Preservers 510).

Edit: My google-fu has come up with some answers...

Ship type nomenclature

navalmarinearchive.com

In here we have the CFAO which discusses how to properly name ships. Its probably either canceled or superseded somewhere.

 

[Underway]

I like this part of the documents...

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Even though they screwed up the latest batch of submarines: None of those towns are fish or marine creatures.

 

[Underway]

Even though they screwed up the latest batch of submarines: None of those towns are fish or marine creatures.

"Many exceptions..." lol

Even the O boats were exceptions. Subs just kinda get named whatever I guess.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Yep. Rules that you follow???? That's for losers.


Welcome to the RCN.

 

[Underway]

Yep. Rules that you follow???? That's for losers.


Welcome to the RCN.

I mean with the O boats the Octopus stands out as an O name. Oyster, Oscar (freshwater though), Oceanic White Tip, Oilfish, Ocean Perch, Oarfish, ORCA....

Sorry I used to work in marine biology and I don't get to use those skills very much anymore... lol

 

[Lumber]

Fair enough. Either way, Irving doesn't get to announce project information. ADM Mat does that. That's where the infographics come from etc...

I think they aren't talking right now because there is still a lot of design change going on. And staffing. There is one person in the project who does this stuff and its a secondary duty.

Yep. They literally had to invent an interim design review phase just for this project.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I tapped some sources regarding the gun change. It might not be a done deal. There is more to it than integration ease.

I'm not surprised as it follows the trend of ejecting non-AEGIS integrated equipment wherever possible to seemingly simplify and speed up the design finalization/construction process for atleast the first few vessels. The RCN is desperate to get the River class under construction and in the water in order to start retiring the Halifax class, so it makes sense.

My guess is also that weight and space are potential concerns, as the Italian 5" gun is larger, heavier and has a substantial internal footprint. The 5 inch Mark 45 Mod 4 apparently has a weight of approximately 24,700kg~ in its largest form, while the OTO 127/64 LW has a weight of 33,000kg~ (+ or - 5%). The Italian gun also comes with a multi-drum automatic loading system which seems to take up more space than the BAE equivalent.

I've attached some images of both systems below for folks to compare.









Ultimately given the rumours and ongoing concerns with related Type 26 derivatives having eaten up substantial amounts of reserve weight for future upgrades just to implement the changes required, I am not surprised we are seeing some of the "gold plating" be removed and still good but obviously less capable design. The Italian gun has much more advanced/potent ammunition choices (more costly/complex though) for dealing with a variety of targets (drones), alongside a faster rate of fire and much deeper/versatile ready magazine system. This is definitely a tradeoff however if it can get back weight and space (potentially for more VLS?), it obviously must be important to be giving up important capability.

 

[suffolkowner]

I'm not surprised as it follows the trend of ejecting non-AEGIS integrated equipment wherever possible to seemingly simplify and speed up the design finalization/construction process for atleast the first few vessels. The RCN is desperate to get the River class under construction and in the water in order to start retiring the Halifax class, so it makes sense.

My guess is also that weight and space are potential concerns, as the Italian 5" gun is larger, heavier and has a substantial internal footprint. The 5 inch Mark 45 Mod 4 apparently has a weight of approximately 24,700kg~ in its largest form, while the OTO 127/64 LW has a weight of 33,000kg~ (+ or - 5%). The Italian gun also comes with a multi-drum automatic loading system which seems to take up more space than the BAE equivalent.

I've attached some images of both systems below for folks to compare.

View attachment 97411

View attachment 97412

View attachment 97413

View attachment 97414

Ultimately given the rumours and ongoing concerns with related Type 26 derivatives having eaten up substantial amounts of reserve weight for future upgrades just to implement the changes required, I am not surprised we are seeing some of the "gold plating" be removed and still good but obviously less capable design. The Italian gun has much more advanced/potent ammunition choices (more costly/complex though) for dealing with a variety of targets (drones), alongside a faster rate of fire and much deeper/versatile ready magazine system. This is definitely a tradeoff however if it can get back weight and space (potentially for more VLS?), it obviously must be important to be giving up important capability.

thats good stuff!

The Type 26 Frigate – more than just a submarine hunter - Navy Lookout

At the recent IMarEST conference, the RN outlined some of its thinking about how the Type 26 frigate's Mission Bay could be utilised in service. Here we look at these concepts and progress on the road to delivery. Modularity comes to life In an earlier article, we speculated about what...

www.navylookout.com

"The MBHS, hydraulic doors and reinforced deckhead add about 100 tons of additional top weight to Type 26. To achieve this, there have been some compromises and the rest of the ship is quite densely packed, limiting options for future upgrades. The stability considerations have to factor in the embarkation and disembarkation of containers totalling 150 tonnes. There is just a 455-tonne (approx 6%) In-Service Growth Margin (IGM) for additional weight left to be added during the whole life of the ship. This is relatively low and will have to be managed carefully or require a reduction in mission bay capacity. New technology insertion can be largely achieved through software upgrades, the flexibility of Mk41 VLS to accommodate new weapons and above all, utilising the space in the mission bay."