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

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Maxman1

Full Member
Reaction score
294
Points
930
CSC likely to be province and perhaps territory names IMHO.

Cruisers were named after provinces, such as HMCS Ontario (formerly HMS Minotaur) and HMCS Quebec (formerly HMCS Uganda, formerly HMS Uganda).
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
1,040
New idea. Name them after Liberal pols and big supporters. That way they get built! I never understand why CAF never uses their hubris for their own good.

HMCS Trudeau
HMCS Copps
HMCS Martin
The important one HMCS Butts
HMCS Desmarais
etc
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,532
Points
1,090
Why not call it the honorary class, then name them after who ever donates the most? Might be a great way to make up for budget issues.

HMCS Scotia bank sounds Okay /sarcasm
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
1,040
Why not call it the honorary class, then name them after who ever donates the most? Might be a great way to make up for budget issues.

HMCS Scotia bank sounds Okay /sarcasm
Funny thing is I remember an editorial in the G&M in the 80's during the nuclear sub debate suggesting just that. Get sponsors and sell naming rights etc. Ok lets go one step further privateers.

USNI Proceedings put it out there.....Letters of marque!

 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
380
USNI Proceedings put it out there.....Letters of marque!

The article is dated in april,... maybe the first? 😀😉

After reading "Deniability versus Utility: China’s Maritime Militia", from the Naval Association of Canada (NAC) here, i bet that they are in a better position for privateering.
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
1,040
The article is dated in april,... maybe the first? 😀😉

After reading "Deniability versus Utility: China’s Maritime Militia", from the Naval Association of Canada (NAC) here, i bet that they are in a better position for privateering.
Damn I didn't think of that...You all most had me, I even went back to double check....I didn't want egg on my face....wouldn't be the first time. Nope even referenced.

Probably true about China and the Maritime Militia. Anyone else get the feeling we are totally getting out maneuvered? Between China, Russia and everyone else?
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,827
Points
1,010
A bit too aggressive for Canadians @Dana381

How about:

HMCS Double Double
HMCS Sorry about that eh
HMCS No Doot Aboot it
HMCS Take 20% Off There Bud
HMCS Lets goferarip

But if you are going for intimidating names maybe we could ask the British if was can use HMS Cockchaffer. I just shudder to think how irritating that ship might be.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,827
Points
1,010
Also something no one is talking aboot... that 3D model of the CSC only has 30 VLS (24 mk 41, 6 ExLS).

ducks for cover
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
49
Points
380
mrmsKIa.jpgType 26 missile silos .jpg
I still can't subscribe it would not be possible to get either one more mk41 VLS (8 cells) or 24 additional CAMM in the fore position like the Hunter-class or the City-class.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,827
Points
1,010
View attachment 68157View attachment 68158
I still can't subscribe it would not be possible to get either one more mk41 VLS (8 cells) or 24 additional CAMM in the fore position like the Hunter-class or the City-class.
I think the australians are having the same difficulty we are with space and margins. The CSC is being jammed full to the brim with gear. They are packing a cruisers worth of equipment in there and are adding capability beyond the UK version.

For example the UK Type 26 doesn't have a ship-launched ASW torpedo tube (which I pointed out three years ago and was dismissed as "that's crazy"). The UK tactics are to exclusively use helicopters and submarines to hunt enemy subs. Which makes sense given their force structure.

We however can't afford an aircraft carrier or nuclear subs to go around with our TG, so need an alternative. Which means someone's mess or a magazine is getting cut in half to cram in two torpedo tubes, racks for the torpedos and two cranes to load it, that the UK doesn't have to worry about.

Which cuts into margins everywhere.
 

Czech_pivo

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,553
Points
1,140
I think the australians are having the same difficulty we are with space and margins. The CSC is being jammed full to the brim with gear. They are packing a cruisers worth of equipment in there and are adding capability beyond the UK version.

For example the UK Type 26 doesn't have a ship-launched ASW torpedo tube (which I pointed out three years ago and was dismissed as "that's crazy"). The UK tactics are to exclusively use helicopters and submarines to hunt enemy subs. Which makes sense given their force structure.

We however can't afford an aircraft carrier or nuclear subs to go around with our TG, so need an alternative. Which means someone's mess or a magazine is getting cut in half to cram in two torpedo tubes, racks for the torpedos and two cranes to load it, that the UK doesn't have to worry about.

Which cuts into margins everywhere.
At 3 metres and 400 tons less than flights 1 and 2 of the Burke class destroyers, how much less (or more?) weaponry will the CSC have than those Burke's? And at those small size differences why are we not calling them destroyers?
 

Spencer100

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
564
Points
1,040
At 3 metres and 400 tons less than flights 1 and 2 of the Burke class destroyers, how much less (or more?) weaponry will the CSC have than those Burke's? And at those small size differences why are we not calling them destroyers?
"Destroyers" I think you can answer that yourself. :) They are "Peacekeeping" floaty things!

Although the terms destroyer, frigate, cruiser, corvette seem to be almost meaningless. The USN new Destroyer design looks to be 14,000 tons. The PLAN 055 are 13,000. The SK and Japanese are over 10,000 tons. Plus Japanese a few destroyers look surprising flat on top. The new Italian design DDX is going to be over 11,000 too. We are seeing OPV/ corvettes over 3000 tons. Frigates are going to 8,000 tons. It is all over the map. And then don't get me on LCS, its a "small" ship at over 3000 tons.

Italian DDX
1642601696222.png
USN DDG(X)
1642601737953.png
PLAN 055
1642601848490.png

So by the CSC is in the water I guess 8000 tons will be "frigate" size.
 
Top