Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[WestIsle]

Who said these were frigates?

Hasn't the RCN already indicated that the new class will be destroyers due to their tonnage and armaments?

 

[Lumber]

Hasn't the RCN already indicated that the new class will be destroyers due to their tonnage and armaments?

That is the scuttlebutt, yes.

 

[Underway]

Hasn't the RCN already indicated that the new class will be destroyers due to their tonnage and armaments?

More like the CRCN just thinks the name sounds cooler. But its not tonnage and armaments that get the classification. Its role and sensors.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Well, lets see then: You are going to have a damn good anti-submarine suite, with Aegis and SM family of missiles you'll have a good area air defense suite, 5 inch gun and land attack missile, not to mention NG anti-ship missile. That's a pretty well rounded general purpose vessel there.

That would make them destroyers, IMHO.

 

[KevinB]

I still think Cruiser is a better name to avoid the inevitable backlash from the Canadian audience on Destroyers.

 

[Navy_Pete]

This has come up a few times at the working level in the NATO WG I'm on; essentially it is up to the country and the 'classification' doesn't really matter anyway as they are a legacy from WW1 and 2.

I think the only given is that there will be someone with hurt feelings regardless of what we call them.

If we call them 'destroyers' hopefully we give them names, mottos and crests that sound like they are coming for a fight. The CPF ones are almost all lame AF.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

I still think Cruiser is a better name to avoid the inevitable backlash from the Canadian audience on Destroyers.

Well, last time we built warships, we called the program the "Canadian Patrol Frigate". Sounds innocuous enough: more like your friendly cop on the beat than soldierly.

This time around, its called the CSC - Canadian Surface Combatant - that's already up in intensity over the last program's name.

So, since we are already calling it a combatant, perhaps there wont be any qualms using a more forceful Destroyer moniker.

 

[Underway]

I still think Cruiser is a better name to avoid the inevitable backlash from the Canadian audience on Destroyers.

There won't be a blacklash. Ships in Canada have never been classified based on political "fear" of sounding to warlike. The CPF's were frigates in role and in name. The Tribals were always destroyers even after their refit. And before that the ships were almost all named destroyers.

Given that Canadians are coming around to more military spending in polls just sounding like you're spending money on the military is probably looking more attractive (then actually doing it).

 

[calculus]

More bad news related to the US Constellation class (delayed another 3 years):

Constellation Frigate Delivery Delayed 3 Years, Says Navy - USNI News

This story has been updated to include comments from Navy officials. THE PENTAGON – The lead ship in a new class of guided-missile frigates for the U.S. Navy may be up to three years late, USNI News has learned. Constellation (FFG-62), under construction at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in...

news.usni.org

 

[Rainbow1910]

More bad news related to the US Constellation class (delayed another 3 years):

Constellation Frigate Delivery Delayed 3 Years, Says Navy - USNI News

This story has been updated to include comments from Navy officials. THE PENTAGON – The lead ship in a new class of guided-missile frigates for the U.S. Navy may be up to three years late, USNI News has learned. Constellation (FFG-62), under construction at Fincantieri Marinette Marine in...

news.usni.org

Ah yes, the reality of North American shipbuilding coming to rear its ugly head. This is why I held many who advocate for the CSC to be replaced by Constellation to be built in the US or even Canada with distain. The Constellation timeline was always incredibly optimistic when considering the bevy of changes made to the design and the specific yard the vessels were being built at. Unlike Canada with the big three yards having a fair amount of sway, Marinette Marine is a smaller yard that would always have been competing against the larger and more important yards for workers. This is before the ongoing worker and skilled shipyard employee shortage ongoing in the US at the moment is mentioned as well.

Regardless to what people might say, the grass isn't particularly greener on the other side.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Yep. Where are all the “experts” now, saying we should cancel CSC and build in the US?

 

[FSTO]

Yep. Where are all the “experts” now, saying we should cancel CSC and build in the US?

 

[quadrapiper]

Ah yes, the reality of North American shipbuilding coming to rear its ugly head. This is why I held many who advocate for the CSC to be replaced by Constellation to be built in the US or even Canada with distain. The Constellation timeline was always incredibly optimistic when considering the bevy of changes made to the design and the specific yard the vessels were being built at. Unlike Canada with the big three yards having a fair amount of sway, Marinette Marine is a smaller yard that would always have been competing against the larger and more important yards for workers. This is before the ongoing worker and skilled shipyard employee shortage ongoing in the US at the moment is mentioned as well.

Regardless to what people might say, the grass isn't particularly greener on the other side.

Compared to the recent run of USN projects, the RCN/CCG rebuild actually seems smooth, especially with the rest of the NSS factored in.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yep. Where are all the “experts” now, saying we should cancel CSC and build in the US?

I'd imagine South Korea would be a great place. I don't care where we build them, just make of good quality for a fair price and delivered on time.

And right now Canadian yards dont have a great reputation in those metrics.

 

[Rainbow1910]

I'd imagine South Korea would be a great place. I don't care where we build them, just make of good quality for a fair price and delivered on time.

And right now Canadian yards dont have a great reputation in those metrics.

The issue people always seem to forget is that a foreign yard and our suppliers would be very likely unwilling to work together on such a project. Italy, Germany, Spain, France, UK, US, South Korea, Japan, etc all have their own shipbuilding companies with their own yards and most importantly, their own ship designs on the market. There are effectively no "open" military shipyards where you show up with design in hand and they build it for you. Using South Korea as an example, Hanwha or Hyundai would not agree to build the CSC in its current form as it is a competitor with their various domestic frigate designs. BAE would also not agree to have a competitor like Hanwha or Hyundai build their vessel as they would have access to their sensitive information present in the design itself and be using an entirely different chain of subcontractors divorced from what BAE/Canada wants.

If you want to build in a nation, the general rule is that you need to pick their design and go from there. You don't just get to drag and drop designs, contractors and sub-contractors between companies and international borders. For all of the reputational issues Canadian yards have, people need to come to terms that for effectively any project minus submarines, everything is going to be done domestically and little will change that.

 

[GK .Dundas]

One of the reasons as I understand it that Australians pulled out of their contract. Was that the French seemed to view actually dealing with their counterparts and customers as offensive.
And went out of their way to ignore them .

 

[Underway]

One of the reasons as I understand it that Australians pulled out of their contract. Was that the French seemed to view actually dealing with their counterparts and customers as offensive.
And went out of their way to ignore them .

It's ok. The shortfin baracuda is going to be a dutch submarine now.

 

[Kirkhill]

I am not really following the track on this discussion.

Much of the shipping industry is now international. Western Europe's traditional builder nations are still at the forefront of design. Manufacturing is parcelled out to yards around the globe. Engines and power plants are supplied by maybe a dozen reputable builders. Technology comes from all over the place and is fitted in yards everywhere. Same goes for weapons fits.

Even the CSC is an international endeavour, as is the Constellation.

Not even the French can go it alone although they like to think they can.

 

[Maxman1]

One of the reasons as I understand it that Australians pulled out of their contract. Was that the French seemed to view actually dealing with their counterparts and customers as offensive.
And went out of their way to ignore them .

I've heard that rumour too. It seems like bullshit made up after the fact to justify canceling so they could go nuclear.

 

[Lumber]

One of the reasons as I understand it that Australians pulled out of their contract. Was that the French seemed to view actually dealing with their counterparts and customers as offensive.
And went out of their way to ignore them .

Like I've said before: stay away from Thales .