- Reaction score
- 2,975
- Points
- 1,090
I think the Canadian government thinks it can manage our own "frigate gap" much like the UK and RN and is willing to endure what may happen over the next 20 years as we replace the Halifax fleet
Canadian River Class Destroyer Megathread
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 12,830
- Points
- 1,160
And we all keep our fingers crossed.
- Reaction score
- 2,975
- Points
- 1,090
It seems an incredibly risky plan to expect or rely on the Halifax class to carry on for another 8 years for the first of its replacements and 20 for the last. As well as maybe expensive?
- Reaction score
- 5,019
- Points
- 1,160
The fleet of surface combatants like destroyers and frigates will almost certainly shrink before/if it recovers to planned numbers.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,721
- Points
- 1,010
Unless someone decides to get on with the Topshee CDC .... like....NOW!
- Reaction score
- 2,975
- Points
- 1,090
realistically how quick can that happen?
choose a yard
choose a design
build out
first of class delivered same time as HMCS Fraser?
one a year after?
- Reaction score
- 7,139
- Points
- 1,260
Is the question not, can we build a CDC hull in 6ish yrs but can get a propulsion system dropped in it in 6yrs, can we get armaments dropped on it in 6yrs? Do we ‘lift and shift’ the weapons from a Halifax onto the new hull as a stop gap measure while retiring that Halifax? With the longer term plan of replacing all the 57’s in a timely fashion but using the existing ones for now? Same with the other weapons systems. Brings down initial costs and timelines.
- Reaction score
- 1,816
- Points
- 1,160
Right now we're still determining capability and discussions are happening on crewing. Around 100 with 20 training bunks and 15 to 20 mission specialists possibly. I saw some discussions on that. Basically they want a lot of capability with not enough crew. We'll need to throw out the normal crewing paradigms and think outside the box on this platform.
I would say 6 to 8 years before we see a hull in the water and the timelines I have saw more aggressive than that. We'll see.
- Reaction score
- 12,830
- Points
- 1,160
Start by getting hulls in the water to keep crews. Add the weaponry as the opportunity presents itself. They will be good enough for drug runners and shadow tankers. More kit than a Kingston.
Take a look at that Kongsberg package of modules.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 4,721
- Points
- 1,010
If you make this a priority and add "RFN" spirit to it now, you can have one in the water in four years and one every 8 months after that. It's a government call.
The Brits started building corvettes as an emergency program 6 months before WWII, and had about 40 built before the war really broke out (i.e. the end of the phony war).
The Brits started building corvettes as an emergency program 6 months before WWII, and had about 40 built before the war really broke out (i.e. the end of the phony war).
so you are getting 1 1/2 a year instead of the 1/2, Go for it
Aren't those issues that can be resolved whilst the welders are at work? Choosing the hull should have been underway for at least a couple of years now so they should be able to finalize that real quick. Figure out staffing as you go along and keep the first 3 basic so you have no elaborate Canadianization to slow you down
- Reaction score
- 5,019
- Points
- 1,160
Or maybe .. hear me out … maybe they take the opportunity to build up the shore and support establishment for the new and emerging Navy.
