- Reaction score
- 3,075
- Points
- 1,090
what did we pay for the AOPS? the OFSV?
Continental Defence Corvette
- Thread starter Underway
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 9,182
- Points
- 1,210
Too much. But I suspect it will be worth it.
($4.98 billion for six, $2.1 billion for the two CCG variant costs) Remember accrual accounting, that's not sail away price, its the lifetime costs.
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 2,321
- Points
- 810
There are our program figures to look at however without a substantially detailed breakdown of all of the costs alongside taking into consideration the industrial situation around building the aforementioned vessels, it's basically impossible to get a figure you can use to compare to foreign designs for a "sticker price".
- Reaction score
- 13,233
- Points
- 1,160
And the time factor is still an issue, as it is for our allies. We have a peace time jobs program that benefits the CAF. We don't have a program capable of responding to the needs of conflict. As the RAF's Air Marshall said, 2035 got here faster than expected.
- Reaction score
- 8,298
- Points
- 1,160
Uh, not really, most of that was the costs paid to shipyards for the design, build and delivery, plus sparing, significant IP considerations with the tech data (which isn't cheap) and some other things related to the actual ship. It also included development and delivery of training, infrastructure (schools/jetties) and a number of other things. And 30% contingency.
The ISSC costs will easily exceed that for O&M, and crewing will be another big chunk. Lifetime costs are probably 4-5 times initial capitol costs, and that goes up very quickly again when you start operating past the effective end of life (like the current $1B CPF DWPs).
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 7,404
- Points
- 1,210
Do you think we'll learn from allowing the Cadillac's, then the AOR's, followed by the 280's, and now the CPF's to rot past their BBD before they're replaced?
- Reaction score
- 17,966
- Points
- 1,160
Thankfully, much of the yard capitalization and personal skillsets have been built up during those initial contracts. The CDC program will benefit from an experienced design group and experienced sub-contractors, even if built partly in outside yards.
KevinB
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 30,072
- Points
- 1,260
Well given it’s the RCN, a resounding no
- Reaction score
- 5,427
- Points
- 1,160
Previously the RCN bought some used oil rig supply and support ships and modified them to a specific non-combat use. I guess if there is a genuine urgent need the RCN will find something to adapt and modify. But it won’t be pretty or fancy and won’t be anything beyond marginally not useless.
FSTO
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 7,404
- Points
- 1,210
Given its the GoC, a resounding no.Well given it’s the RCN, a resounding no
- Reaction score
- 13,233
- Points
- 1,160
I'll agree on the pretty or fancy. I'll disagree on the utility.
The rise of UXVs, I believe, has changed all the numbers.
- Reaction score
- 9,987
- Points
- 1,140
I think the RCN would be well served by planning now for UXV/USV mother ships, based on civilian OSVs.
The Turkish approach is interesting, where they combined both a drone carrier and an amphibious assault warship: TCG Anadolu - Wikipedia
At 27,500 tons thou, it is much larger than the wiki 8,000 tons speculation: UXV Combatant - Wikipedia.
Perhaps the Portuguese NRP D. João II (constructed by Damen) is of most interest. NRP D. João II - Wikipedia The D. João II is designed from the keel up as a "drone carrier" and is about 7,000 tons displacement. It features a dedicated flight deck for UAVs and I believe a stern ramp/internal bay for launching Unmanned Surface Vehicles (USVs) and Unmanned Underwater Vehicles (UUVs).
There is also speculation around a Chinese UVX: China Builds World's First Dedicated Drone Carrier - Naval News where I have a fuzzy recollection that her tonnage was estimated to be about 10,000 tons. I think it may also be referred to as ( Jiangsu Catamaran ) although i am not certain. Clearly not much known and a lot of speculation. Not to be confused with the Chinese Type-076 landing helicopter deck which is massively larger (at ~50,000 tons). TWZ has a speculative article on this: Chinese 'Mini Drone Carrier' Seen Being Used As Test Ship
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 5,427
- Points
- 1,160
Let me elaborate: it won’t have bells, whistles, decent radars, ESM, layered defences, damage control at a combat ship standard, range, likely lack refuelling gear, etc.
Just a bare bones launch pad connected somehow to a more elaborate and survivable ship. Maybe that’s all they need. Who knows 5 years from now everything will change again and we could go back to being “ Canada” instead of Combat Canada.
When I look at the Portuguese NRP D. João II class UVX, I note it is is 107.6 meters in length. It is a small but quite possibly very capable for its size UVX. Then I took a look at the Harry deWolf class, which is 103.6 meters. They are both around 7,000 tons displacement.
Presumeably for any Canadian UVX, it would be very beneficial to be Arctic waters capable (to the same extent as the Harry deWolf class). Granted - that is a bit of a requirement stretch by me .... Still .... if I may follow up on that ... I think in naval architecture, the "golden rule" is that it is almost always more expensive to engineer ice-strengthening from a warm-water hull (converting NRP D. João II ) to make arctic capable, than it is to engineer complex topsides (such as seen on NRP D. João II class) onto an existing ice-hardened hull (Harry de-Wolf) .
ie. If the RCN wanted to go for a UVX that has limited arctic water capability, modification (perhaps with 5 to 10 meter of hull stretch) of a Harry deWolf design, replacing the upper deck to look similar to a D. João II class UVX could be a less expensive way to go.
At first blush I think that may look strange, but I believe its expensive to modify an existing hull design to be arctic capable.
Still, these ships at 7,000 tons are small.
Ideally, so to provide better protection against inclimate arctic weather it is beneficial to be able to maintain and store UAVs in a lower deck which likely means an elevator. But if only one elevator, then that risks a single point of failure. Putting two elevators in a 7,000 to 10,000 ton UVX may not be feasible in terms of too much space consumed by elevator machinery in the hanger deck (ie the deck below the flight deck). Possibly a work around would be one elevator (aft), with midships an 'emegency crane hatch' where a crane could lift up the UAV if the elevator had a failue. The Harry de-Wolf class has a large crane although if a redesign to a UVX was to be considered the crane would possibly require minor relocation to be consistent with the entire upper deck redesign to be closer to a NRP D. João II class UVX.
Obviously massive speculatioin by me.
PrairieFella
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 4,111
- Points
- 1,110
In your opinion if we had an AOPS-sized drone carrier supporting normal AOPS patrolling that are capable of launching and guiding LUCAS-style drones or ISTAR drones that could be beneficial to navy operations, especially in the North?
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,011
- Points
- 1,010
Tonnage doesn't make it "small" or "large". It's tonnage in relation to function of the ship.
An icebreaker, at 7,000 tons, is a medium icebreaker. A corvette at 7, 000 tons is large, huge even, while a frigate at 7,000 tons is large while a cruiser would be small, an Aircraft carrier at 7,000 tons is small, actually almost insignificantly small.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 5,011
- Points
- 1,010
If you wanted to, the AOPS can already operate both ISTAR and LUCAS drones, and since you don't usually carry a helicopter, you can stow quite a few in the hangar. After that, it becomes a matter of numbers, not improved coverage. Do you need one hundred LUCAS if you only expect to meet one or two enemy icebreakers? And how many ISTAR drones do you need to maintain coverage?
Singapore has an interesting design ... perhaps not a full up UVX, but it has interesting capabilities.
www.navalnews.com
Its also a big ship, at 150 meters length ..
It is unlikey to fit in to a $5-ibillion Cdn budget ( if that represents lifetime costs when thinking of the Continenal Corvette budget number thrown about ) - and further, clearly - this is NO corvette. It is an entirely different procurment approach. Also, the Singapore warship is likely built for the hot/humid South East Asian weather, and not for the cold arctic.
Singapore lays keel of Second Victory-class MRCV - Naval News
On January 27, 2026, Singapore’s shipbuilder ST Engineering held the keel-laying ceremony of the second Multi-Role Combat Vessel (MRCV) for the Republic of Singapore Navy.
www.navalnews.com
Its also a big ship, at 150 meters length ..
It is unlikey to fit in to a $5-ibillion Cdn budget ( if that represents lifetime costs when thinking of the Continenal Corvette budget number thrown about ) - and further, clearly - this is NO corvette. It is an entirely different procurment approach. Also, the Singapore warship is likely built for the hot/humid South East Asian weather, and not for the cold arctic.
