Continental Defence Corvette

[dapaterson]

Yah but its a good reference design.

But then we have to Canadianize the hell out of it. See also: AOPS, JSS, RCD...

 

[Kirkhill]

We are not quite yet at the 'perfect is the enemy of the good enough' point....or are we?

We should have been at that point years ago.

I'd rather have an imperfect something than a perfect nothing.

 

[Underway]

But then we have to Canadianize the hell out of it. See also: AOPS, JSS, RCD...

Reference design more like "oh cool I like what they did here" as opposed to take the design and modify it. I'm pretty sure there is a different terminology but it escapes me at the moment.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Reference design more like "oh cool I like what they did here" as opposed to take the design and modify it. I'm pretty sure there is a different terminology but it escapes me at the moment.

I've heard 'particularized design' for minor changes, but we tend to make massive and significant changes, as well as minor ones. Slapping a giant radar on top of the mast for example, and changing an ASW platform to AAW come to mind.

Bunch of weird ones in JSS, like taking out a connecting structure between the two RAS posts for 'visibility', designing out the deck crane that enabled the containerized hospital setup, and extending the loading rail to both sides (vice just one) all had major structural implications.

You can also have code update type changes, if you use an older design, but given that we voluntarily comply to SOLAS anyway, we do have the option of not doing that if it's something significant. Generally actual warships exceed the SOLAS performance baselines anyway, so usually just updating equipment selection for different things does the job.

'Canadianizing' is probably a good catch all for taking a working, funcitonal design, trying to get it to do something radically different, changning all the components so you have to redesign the connection points, supporting structure and electrical/cooling systems, and randomly changing compartments around just because. T26 is a really solid base design, so we're relatively safe, but all the tradeoffs for adding massive weight up high is pretty interesting, and sure will cost us an absolute fortune and a lot of downtime as some of the exotic disimilar metals rust out in terrible to repair spots, but are required to cut weight.

 

[Underway]

Bunch of weird ones in JSS, like taking out a connecting structure between the two RAS posts for 'visibility', designing out the deck crane that enabled the containerized hospital setup, and extending the loading rail to both sides (vice just one) all had major structural implications.

RAS post change was partially because we got different RAS posts, which didn't need the connecting structure for stability anymore. And the loading rail change was based on the German recommendation to do that as they found it very irritating that you could only use it when the ship was port(?) side to and would have to flip ship when stbd side to (might have my port/stbd backwords but you get the idea). That crane change I'm unsure of why... I can think of 5 reasonable and 5 unreasonable ways that might have happened.

 

[Rainbow1910]

It’s a tall order to design, consult, line up suppliers and set up logistics chains, send a package out to potential builders, review the feedback, award a contract, cut steel, assemble, fit out and sea trial, send back to the builder for corrections, sea trial again and accept into the Navy in 5 years…

Topshee seems to want to keep the design talent we've generated in Canada sharp, so that seems to be something they are willing to put up with atleast to some degree.

For the SK's to build some hulls and spend them over to us means, I assume, sending them somewhere in BC as I can't see us putting them on some ship transport and have them sailed through the Panama Canal and then up to Davie or into the great lakes to Ontario Shipyards because that would be the only other options.

This sort of thing fundamentally isn't going to happen without a huge pivot away from the National Shipbuilding Strategy, it undermines the very purpose of the strategy. Davie has weaselled one of the Polar icebreakers into being primarily constructed in Finland and later sent to Canada for finishing, but they’ve done a lot of work to hide this fact from parliament and much of the public. They wanted to get into the NSS so bad, but their shipyard seems entirely unable to actually build much of anything right now.

Yah but its a good reference design.

Potentially, but it does seem that the interested and most likely successful parties already have their own reference designs to use.

 

[Czech_pivo]

This sort of thing fundamentally isn't going to happen without a huge pivot away from the National Shipbuilding Strategy, it undermines the very purpose of the strategy. Davie has weaselled one of the Polar icebreakers into being primarily constructed in Finland and later sent to Canada for finishing, but they’ve done a lot of work to hide this fact from parliament and much of the public. They wanted to get into the NSS so bad, but their shipyard seems entirely unable to actually build much of anything right now.

I understand and I agree with you.

There is no path forward, currently, to address Topshee's goal of creating the CDC's here in Canada. The only way to address this, under the current scheme, with the current 2 NSS players, is to delay the construction of the Rivers. Everything else is a fantasy, a dream.

When the talk pivots over to Irving somehow shoehorning CDC's onto their current footprint or even their yet to be fully defined or completed 'expansion', the argument fails to address the need to add hundreds of trained workers to the shop floor in order to even have a chance of this occurring. Where are these 400, 500, 800, 1,000 workers going to come from? Without a massive add to staff, Irving will fail to meet both the River timelines and the added CDC timelines.

The other path forward, which so many on here say is a 'non-starter' is to break the existing NSS or to create an addendum to it and allow for a 4th shipyard, of which there seems to be only 1 currently saying that they could even begin to be at the table, Ontario Shipyards, to start building the CDC's. But that path is one which is littered with dangers, to the point that its most likely not even an option worth exploring.

From what I can gather, Topshee is looking to basically 'take off' the entire weapons systems on the CPF and merely 'drop them' onto the CDC's. I get the feelingly that he's looking to reuse as high of a % of whatever is on the CPF's and to buy 'net-new' as little as possible. The hulls and the engines will be new, the rest will be recycled as much as possible. A hurdle to over come is the fact that the hulls will need to be Polar Class 6 and they will need to be built to naval standards, not commercial. Only 1 yard in Canada today has the ability to build a hull to a Polar Class standard and NO yard has yet to build anything to a naval standard (though I guess Seaspan might qualify as the JSS1 is in the water now - assuming that it was built to a naval standard and not a commercial one).

 

[Rainbow1910]

From what I can gather, Topshee is looking to basically 'take off' the entire weapons systems on the CPF and merely 'drop them' onto the CDC's. I get the feelingly that he's looking to reuse as high of a % of whatever is on the CPF's and to buy 'net-new' as little as possible. The hulls and the engines will be new, the rest will be recycled as much as possible. A hurdle to over come is the fact that the hulls will need to be Polar Class 6 and they will need to be built to naval standards, not commercial. Only 1 yard in Canada today has the ability to build a hull to a Polar Class standard and NO yard has yet to build anything to a naval standard (though I guess Seaspan might qualify as the JSS1 is in the water now - assuming that it was built to a naval standard and not a commercial one).

I’m not sure where you are getting this information or hunch from, but I don’t recall Topshee ever talking about actually reusing equipment from the Halifax class. He’s frequently discussed wanting the CDC to have the capability of the Halifax class in a smaller package, but not actually using the equipment. As people have discussed either here or in other threads on the forum, it seems debatable if the process of refurbishing old equipment is worth the likely minimal cost saving versus buying new equipment and not worrying about issues.

“naval standards” for hull construction and the overall design is also a spectrum, not simply a binary question. You can have mill naval standard but incorporate cost saving measures into the design to simplify things, the Europeans and Asians do this often. Mogami especially is a damage control nightmare given how few crew it has and how the vessel is designed for that minimal manning.

I don’t expect CDC to be built to the standards of a RCD or CPF, more like a middle ground between AOPS and RCD. I don't think it’s plausible or wise to build/design the CDC to a full naval standard. This can assist whatever shipyard who takes them on to have an easier time building them potentially.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Seaspan has built vessels to a Polar 6 standard or close to it. Could they add the CDC to their build schedule with 17 icebreakers to come, not sure? One option would be to Seaspan build a couple of icebreaker, while the CDC hull design is sorted and then alternate with CDC/icebreaker and then move the CDC hull elsewhere for fitting out. Seaspan is on it's 5th ship design, whereas Irving is on 2.5 designs (3.5 if you throw in the Hero class). So far both shipyards are sort of building to naval standards with the AOPs and JSS, Irving is now just going full naval standards with beginning of the RCD build. So I would say the expertise level on both polar and naval standards is roughly the same at both yards.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I’m not sure where you are getting this information or hunch from, but I don’t recall Topshee ever talking about actually reusing equipment from the Halifax class. He’s frequently discussed wanting the CDC to have the capability of the Halifax class in a smaller package, but not actually using the equipment. As people have discussed either here or in other threads on the forum, it seems debatable if the process of refurbishing old equipment is worth the likely minimal cost saving versus buying new equipment and not worrying about issues.

“naval standards” for hull construction and the overall design is also a spectrum, not simply a binary question. You can have mill naval standard but incorporate cost saving measures into the design to simplify things, the Europeans and Asians do this often. Mogami especially is a damage control nightmare given how few crew it has and how the vessel is designed for that minimal manning.

I don’t expect CDC to be built to the standards of a RCD or CPF, more like a middle ground between AOPS and RCD. I don't think it’s plausible or wise to build/design the CDC to a full naval standard. This can assist whatever shipyard who takes them on to have an easier time building them potentially.

Taking a bit of a Type 31 approach?

 

[Kudos17]

CDC quietly feels like the most consequential RCN surface program after CPSP — and arguably already behind given Halifax timelines.

If it slips further, there’s a real risk of a gap as Halifax ages out and Rivers come online in limited numbers.

Curious whether others see value in prioritizing hulls in the water early — even if that means VLS-ready rather than VLS day one — with VLS upgrades added later.

 

[Kirkhill]

I've heard 'particularized design' for minor changes, but we tend to make massive and significant changes, as well as minor ones. Slapping a giant radar on top of the mast for example, and changing an ASW platform to AAW come to mind.

Bunch of weird ones in JSS, like taking out a connecting structure between the two RAS posts for 'visibility', designing out the deck crane that enabled the containerized hospital setup, and extending the loading rail to both sides (vice just one) all had major structural implications.

You can also have code update type changes, if you use an older design, but given that we voluntarily comply to SOLAS anyway, we do have the option of not doing that if it's something significant. Generally actual warships exceed the SOLAS performance baselines anyway, so usually just updating equipment selection for different things does the job.

'Canadianizing' is probably a good catch all for taking a working, funcitonal design, trying to get it to do something radically different, changning all the components so you have to redesign the connection points, supporting structure and electrical/cooling systems, and randomly changing compartments around just because. T26 is a really solid base design, so we're relatively safe, but all the tradeoffs for adding massive weight up high is pretty interesting, and sure will cost us an absolute fortune and a lot of downtime as some of the exotic disimilar metals rust out in terrible to repair spots, but are required to cut weight.

How much money have we spent trying to get one platform to do two jobs in a halfassed fashion when we could have bought two platforms that actually worked?

 

[Rainbow1910]

CDC quietly feels like the most consequential RCN surface program after CPSP — and arguably already behind given Halifax timelines.

If it slips further, there’s a real risk of a gap as Halifax ages out and Rivers come online in limited numbers.

Curious whether others see value in prioritizing hulls in the water early — even if that means VLS-ready rather than VLS day one — with VLS upgrades added later.

CDC is an unfunded and constantly changing program, it could disappear as quickly as it appeared. Don’t expect it to come into fruition anytime soon unless you are fine with disappointment.

There is almost certainly going to be a gap with the CPF’s transitioning to the RCD, there realistically isn’t anything we can do about that without some extreme policy/procurement breaks. It’s just something the RCN needs to adequately manage by adjusting deployment requirements.

VLS really isn’t an especially long lead or difficult item, nor is installing it even. VLS is mostly excluded at launch for some navies due to cost cutting requirements, not due to a rush in time.

 

[suffolkowner]

Seaspan has built vessels to a Polar 6 standard or close to it. Could they add the CDC to their build schedule with 17 icebreakers to come, not sure? One option would be to Seaspan build a couple of icebreaker, while the CDC hull design is sorted and then alternate with CDC/icebreaker and then move the CDC hull elsewhere for fitting out. Seaspan is on it's 5th ship design, whereas Irving is on 2.5 designs (3.5 if you throw in the Hero class). So far both shipyards are sort of building to naval standards with the AOPs and JSS, Irving is now just going full naval standards with beginning of the RCD build. So I would say the expertise level on both polar and naval standards is roughly the same at both yards.

OOSV PC6
OFSV PC7
the Polar Icebreaker will be PC2 and the MPV PC4
Seaspan will have lots of experience with PC standards very soon

 

[Kudos17]

CDC is an unfunded and constantly changing program, it could disappear as quickly as it appeared. Don’t expect it to come into fruition anytime soon unless you are fine with disappointment.

There is almost certainly going to be a gap with the CPF’s transitioning to the RCD, there realistically isn’t anything we can do about that without some extreme policy/procurement breaks. It’s just something the RCN needs to adequately manage by adjusting deployment requirements.

VLS really isn’t an especially long lead or difficult item, nor is installing it even. VLS is mostly excluded at launch for some navies due to cost cutting requirements, not due to a rush in time.

Fair points, and I agree that CDC today is unfunded, fluid, and at risk — and that under current policy constraints a CPF → RCD gap is probably unavoidable.

Where I see CDC as interesting is less as a “Halifax-lite” and more as a minimum-viable combatant: an upgrade over Kingston that gets hulls in the water sooner, keeps crews trained and current, and cuts Canadian steel. If pursued as net-new capacity rather than displacing existing NSS work, it could also reduce single-yard concentration risk.

Even with a narrower initial capability, those gaps are generally easier to close over time than regenerating ships, sailors, and options once they’re gone. Framed that way, CDC looks less like a perfect solution and more like a practical hedge against fleet risk we already know is coming.

 

[Underway]

It's a hedge for sure. Well put. Hedge against HFX rust out and RCD delay. Has its own risks though.

 

[YZT580]

Fair points, and I agree that CDC today is unfunded, fluid, and at risk — and that under current policy constraints a CPF → RCD gap is probably unavoidable.

Where I see CDC as interesting is less as a “Halifax-lite” and more as a minimum-viable combatant: an upgrade over Kingston that gets hulls in the water sooner, keeps crews trained and current, and cuts Canadian steel. If pursued as net-new capacity rather than displacing existing NSS work, it could also reduce single-yard concentration risk.

Even with a narrower initial capability, those gaps are generally easier to close over time than regenerating ships, sailors, and options once they’re gone. Framed that way, CDC looks less like a perfect solution and more like a practical hedge against fleet risk we already know is coming.

The purpose of our NSS programme is to develop and maintain ship-building skills and it was determined that 2 of these would be sufficient which would have been true if we were starting with a viable fleet; we aren't. We are at least 20 years behind in construction and there is no way to use the yards we have licensed and get back to a reasonable starting point for a Canadian fleet. IMHO that leaves 2 choices: go off-shore and have an overseas yard build, let us say 6 of whatever design they have available with minimum modifications and take that design to Irving as the war-fighter firm and tell them to gear up to start building this hull in 4 or 5 years to give them time for tooling or whatever. The other option is to go to Ontario Shipyards and buy into their design but to limit the construction to again 6 or maybe 8 hulls whilst Irving gets its act in gear and prepares to deliver a new design starting after the first few destroyers have been delivered. Option 2 will probably cost more but it does keep the work in Canada.

 

[Czech_pivo]

The purpose of our NSS programme is to develop and maintain ship-building skills and it was determined that 2 of these would be sufficient which would have been true if we were starting with a viable fleet; we aren't. We are at least 20 years behind in construction and there is no way to use the yards we have licensed and get back to a reasonable starting point for a Canadian fleet. IMHO that leaves 2 choices: go off-shore and have an overseas yard build, let us say 6 of whatever design they have available with minimum modifications and take that design to Irving as the war-fighter firm and tell them to gear up to start building this hull in 4 or 5 years to give them time for tooling or whatever. The other option is to go to Ontario Shipyards and buy into their design but to limit the construction to again 6 or maybe 8 hulls whilst Irving gets its act in gear and prepares to deliver a new design starting after the first few destroyers have been delivered. Option 2 will probably cost more but it does keep the work in Canada.

Two shipyards were deemed sufficient over a dozen years ago - things have changed dramatically since then.

 

[Navy_Pete]

The purpose of our NSS programme is to develop and maintain ship-building skills and it was determined that 2 of these would be sufficient which would have been true if we were starting with a viable fleet; we aren't. We are at least 20 years behind in construction and there is no way to use the yards we have licensed and get back to a reasonable starting point for a Canadian fleet. IMHO that leaves 2 choices: go off-shore and have an overseas yard build, let us say 6 of whatever design they have available with minimum modifications and take that design to Irving as the war-fighter firm and tell them to gear up to start building this hull in 4 or 5 years to give them time for tooling or whatever. The other option is to go to Ontario Shipyards and buy into their design but to limit the construction to again 6 or maybe 8 hulls whilst Irving gets its act in gear and prepares to deliver a new design starting after the first few destroyers have been delivered. Option 2 will probably cost more but it does keep the work in Canada.

The key bit to that is DEVELOP, which is a huge undertaking. Both shipyards needed major investment and essentially a total redesign of the process and facilities to support the efficiency you get with doing modular building well. And that was actually the easy part; the hard part that is still a work in progress is getting experienced people that can do the design, production planning, QC, logistics, test planning and all the other complicated things that need coordinated to put it all together.

Davie also would have needed signficant upgrades if they got into NSS (they were evaluated, and finished 3rd, regardless of how many times they whine they were unfairly shut out).

Similarly Ontario Shipyards would need major upgrades and also grow the workforce, which will be a challenge given all the other yards have already had to import expertise after making hundreds of millions in infra changes.

Repair yards going to build yards, is a bit like a mechanic shop trying to turn into a car assembly line. Some of the skills overlap, but they need way more of, others they won't have at all, and it would take you forever to do it in that mechanic shop. Fine for a hobby car, but if you want it fast, and done right, your best bet is buying off the shelf, on an exisitng design, from a yard that has already figured out how to build it, and take that.

A huge portion of the actual money spent on a ship is on repair anyway, not the build, so doesn't mean you wouldn't have economic benefits regardless.

Of course, if they buy foreign, and get it fast, we have no crews to operate them, nowhere to park them and no where to maintain them, so really irrelevant what they want if you consider actual reality.

 

[dapaterson]

A huge portion of the actual money spent on a ship is on repair anyway, not the build, so doesn't mean you wouldn't have economic benefits regardless.

Irving cunningly builds in the defects on day one.