• 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

Two things true here. Yes they can and must be built in Canada (but just not at Irving), and yes it’s just like Canada to drag its feet until the last possible minute.Thus ensuring the 5-6 years it takes to build such a vessel any war will likely and thankfully be long over.
If we end up in another WWII style fight, just like in WWII, most ships will be emergency programme ships that are less complex than what we are building now. We will also surge defence R&D, as well as production so costs and build times will decrease.

We don't operate like that outside of war because its unsustainable. The only countries that can do it are dictatorships and America(for now).

I get that the current thing is too panic about ship numbers, but for longterm things like fleet sustainment and capability sustainment you can't bounce from panic programme to panic programme. When its time to actually panic, then we can do that. Until then, we need a sustainable plan to grow the CAF as a whole.
 
Colin, that has almost certainly already been examined within the RCD production plan. Nobody running a first of class build is sitting there waiting to discover that some modules can be started earlier than others. Sequencing around long lead items, labour loading, module readiness, yard space, subcontractor flow, and critical path work is basic program management 101, not some hidden trick. The problem is not that Irving has failed to notice you can throw more bodies at early modules. The problem is that shipbuilding does not scale cleanly just because Ottawa throws more money at it. You need trained trades, supervisors, planners, QA staff, outfit integration, steel flow, and physical yard capacity to support them. Stuffing extra workers into the system too early can just create congestion, rework, and bottlenecks downstream. And targeted money with strings attached sounds great in theory, but in practice the yard is already under contractual pressure to hit milestones, so if this was an easy acceleration lever it would likely already be in play. The first hull is not slow because nobody thought of prebuilding what they can. It is slow because first of class warships are integration nightmares, and the true choke points are usually design maturity, supply chain friction, skilled labour depth, and production learning curves, not simply a shortage of funded hands on a few steel modules. Other than building a separate yard, production facility or expanding the existing one which is happening there's not much you can do over the short term to get a ship in the water faster.
I don't doubt any of the above, but I also don't doubt that Irving is quite happy to have things go the way most profitable for them. I suspect there is likley more productivity to be squeezed out, if Ottawa leaned a bit harder on them.
 
If we end up in another WWII style fight, just like in WWII, most ships will be emergency programme ships that are less complex than what we are building now. We will also surge defence R&D, as well as production so costs and build times will decrease.

We don't operate like that outside of war because its unsustainable. The only countries that can do it are dictatorships and America(for now).

I get that the current thing is too panic about ship numbers, but for longterm things like fleet sustainment and capability sustainment you can't bounce from panic programme to panic programme. When its time to actually panic, then we can do that. Until then, we need a sustainable plan to grow the CAF as a whole.
Even when we got the corvette plans, they required a lot of redrawing and fleshing out before we could build them, even then our corvettes had to sail to the UK to finish fitting out. If you need/want a emergency build that can be built in time for a conflict, then you need to build at least one hull and heavily document that build before the crisis.
 
I think its way to early to worry about Irvings production schedule. They will still be working things out notwithstanding the 8 AOPS previous. They have the advantage of learning from the UK and starting undercover plus the yard improvements they are working on. There were impressive improvements on production efficiency with the AOPS and with Seaspan. Just got to fight through it
 
The RCN knows that the frigate to destroyer transition will be difficult. It's timing could barely be worse. It also comes at a time where we are facing large personnel challenges, both retention and training ones.

This is a wicked problem, and frankly similar ones are being felt by most 1st world navies, with Europe, Japan and Korea facing brutal demographic challenges even if their ships are generally newer.

The building of the ships honestly is a relatively easy fix overall. We can throw money at that problem and it mitigates it somewhat. The pers issues are much harder to deal with. It takes much longer to build an experienced Petty Officer and Lieutenant than it does to build a ship once that ships production line starts.
 
With all of this, both the ships and the people to man them, the biggest problem is institutional momentum.

A person whose opinion I trust once said to me that the MH community won’t change unless we fail. That is a true statement everywhere, but now large elements of the CF, in my opinion, are failing to meet the current imperative to be ready.

Question 1: do the Canadian people feel that failure, and are the willing to pay the price to fix it?
Question 2: does the CF recognize it as a failure, and are they willing to fix it?

If the answers to both are yes, then there needs to be a period of adjustment. Everyone that is obstructionist, either from empire building, incompetence, or stuck in “that’s not how we do it” needs to be shuffled to somewhere they can’t do damage. Recognizing that what you were doing was failing is the only way to truly implement change; it also incurs a great deal of risk you make the wrong changes…

Once that institutional momentum is overcome, all these things become a little easier.

We used to put entire task groups to see just to train people, and having your ships filled with lots of junior POs and Lts on complex and frequent exercises will build up experience quite quickly. That again comes with some risk… the best way to build experience is learn from your mistakes, and if you’re low on experience more mistakes will happen. If we are truly facing failure then that’s a risk we’ll need to take.

Bottom line: define what the RCN needs to look like, and convince the people of Canada. If they agree, money will flow, and ships will be put in the water. Under those conditions, historically, people who are able to make shit happen will indeed make shit happen.
 
With all of this, both the ships and the people to man them, the biggest problem is institutional momentum.

A person whose opinion I trust once said to me that the MH community won’t change unless we fail. That is a true statement everywhere, but now large elements of the CF, in my opinion, are failing to meet the current imperative to be ready.

Question 1: do the Canadian people feel that failure, and are the willing to pay the price to fix it?
Question 2: does the CF recognize it as a failure, and are they willing to fix it?

If the answers to both are yes, then there needs to be a period of adjustment. Everyone that is obstructionist, either from empire building, incompetence, or stuck in “that’s not how we do it” needs to be shuffled to somewhere they can’t do damage. Recognizing that what you were doing was failing is the only way to truly implement change; it also incurs a great deal of risk you make the wrong changes…

Once that institutional momentum is overcome, all these things become a little easier.

We used to put entire task groups to see just to train people, and having your ships filled with lots of junior POs and Lts on complex and frequent exercises will build up experience quite quickly. That again comes with some risk… the best way to build experience is learn from your mistakes, and if you’re low on experience more mistakes will happen. If we are truly facing failure then that’s a risk we’ll need to take.

Bottom line: define what the RCN needs to look like, and convince the people of Canada. If they agree, money will flow, and ships will be put in the water. Under those conditions, historically, people who are able to make shit happen will indeed make shit happen.
i dont think the Canadian people care until something big breaks. People are too busy living their lives. It also doesnt matter. Carney didnt poll the people to spend more on defence he just won an election and did it
 
i dont think the Canadian people care until something big breaks. People are too busy living their lives. It also doesnt matter. Carney didnt poll the people to spend more on defence he just won an election and did it
It absolutely does matter, for three reasons:
The ethical one: it is their money. They should have a say in the way it’s spent.
The pragmatic one: the whole discussion is on how we rebuild the surface fleet, and by extension the RCN, and indeed the CF has a whole, and the timelines involved. This is going to take more than one election cycle, so in order to make it happen the Canadian people need to be, and remain supportive.
The practical one: the CF is, largely, a cross section of Canadian society. If that society doesn’t support the goals of the CF, it will be more difficult for them to support their sons and daughters joining it.

We got here because Canada as a whole didn’t care; in order to get out of here they need to.
 
With all of this, both the ships and the people to man them, the biggest problem is institutional momentum.

A person whose opinion I trust once said to me that the MH community won’t change unless we fail. That is a true statement everywhere, but now large elements of the CF, in my opinion, are failing to meet the current imperative to be ready.

Question 1: do the Canadian people feel that failure, and are the willing to pay the price to fix it?
Question 2: does the CF recognize it as a failure, and are they willing to fix it?

If the answers to both are yes, then there needs to be a period of adjustment. Everyone that is obstructionist, either from empire building, incompetence, or stuck in “that’s not how we do it” needs to be shuffled to somewhere they can’t do damage. Recognizing that what you were doing was failing is the only way to truly implement change; it also incurs a great deal of risk you make the wrong changes…

Once that institutional momentum is overcome, all these things become a little easier.

We used to put entire task groups to see just to train people, and having your ships filled with lots of junior POs and Lts on complex and frequent exercises will build up experience quite quickly. That again comes with some risk… the best way to build experience is learn from your mistakes, and if you’re low on experience more mistakes will happen. If we are truly facing failure then that’s a risk we’ll need to take.

Bottom line: define what the RCN needs to look like, and convince the people of Canada. If they agree, money will flow, and ships will be put in the water. Under those conditions, historically, people who are able to make shit happen will indeed make shit happen.
One thought: most Canadian citizens don't think about the armed forces and what they do. It isn't important because our governments for decades have told us that every thing is fine thank you very much and here is a free dental programme for you. So being lazy, and selfish, we generally just think of what is in it for me. Thinking 10 years in advance or imagining Russia attacking Ukraine is beyond us. World events have caught our attention. The news from elsewhere has suddenly arrived on our doorstep and we are woefully unprepared. Your first question deserves a response. No we don't feel the failure because our government continues to pretend that everything is AOK. What has to happen is the government of Canada has to go to the people of Canada and say "We fucked up royally". At the same time it has to present a plan to correct their errors and do it in plain English. Until that happens don't expect to see the voters buy in to it. Canada desperately needs honesty and openness and so far, we ain't got it.
 
Maybe we can buy some interim ships from … North Korea.

It’s amazing what a little “we’re all in this together” Marxist type of inspiration can do …

I'll take a clapped out CPF over a new NK ship...

If the last few wars haven't taught people that just because it's new and shiny doesn't meant it's effective, I'm not sure what will... How are the Russian T-14 Armata's working for them? What about the Terminators and S400s?
 
To be fair the T-14 is doing precisely what I suspect it was designed to do. . Separate the the Russian treasury of as much Rubles as humanly possible with out the piffling concerns of it actually working or consequences if it didn't.
 
A person whose opinion I trust once said to me that the MH community won’t change unless we fail. That is a true statement everywhere, but now large elements of the CF, in my opinion, are failing to meet the current imperative to be ready.

A former DNL said the very same thing at a symposium I attended a few years ago, but aimed at Naval Logistics.

I am not singing up to read, but 30 hours sounds like the time fighting, then overhauling/clearing gases/cleaning.

When PRO had it's fire most of the crew in the after house were forced to relocate because of the smoke contamination. People were living all over the ship, to the point that we started using every magnetic surface in the Cox'n's Office to mark where people were living with the magnetic nametapes we had been using for the bunking whiteboard.

We never recovered the spaces because we lost power, but with power and a massive crew, I can see regaining spaces in 30 hours being reasonable.

Dragging this over here for the DC and crewing models aspects.

The crewing composition that I was shown for RCD was bad for both Log and Eng. It will be interesting to see how the RCN manages both casualties and sustained events with the reduced crew in those two focal points.

I will add a caveat that that crewing model is not set in stone, and we are seeing changes on the AOPVs now which gives us hope.
 
Last edited:
A former DNL said the very same thing at a symposium I attended a few years ago, but aimed at Naval Logistics.



Dragging this over here for the DC and crewing models aspects.

The crewing composition that I was shown for RCD was bad for both Log and Eng. It will be interesting to see how the RCN manages both casualties and sustained events with the reduced crew in those two focal points.

I will add a caveat that that crewing model is not set in stone, and we are seeing changes on the AOPVs now which gives us hope.
Have the AOPS crew changes increased the people on board or rearranged duties?
 
If we end up in another WWII style fight, just like in WWII, most ships will be emergency programme ships that are less complex than what we are building now. We will also surge defence R&D, as well as production so costs and build times will decrease.
At the rate we build, that might be 2 more ships in the same timeframe as WWII

The best way would be to retire ships before they are completely worn out and mothball them with removal and storage of critical components, degausing, O2 reduced atmosphere inside, etc to preserve them. Then replace them as the newer vessel age. I doubt it would be worth doing that with the CFP's once the RCD come on line.

Another option is you build some new corvette hulls with machinery, but leave off sensors and weapons and put them into preservation. I suspect the only type of vessels we could build in any sort of volume is something like the River Class Batch II OPV's with some additional armaments. Otherwise we are fleshing out the RCN with large fishing vessels and ocean going tugs/resupply vessels and those are going to be snatched up by every other western nation as well.
 
Back
Top