- Reaction score
- 15,464
- Points
- 1,160
I did the approvals for A & B years ago.And jetty replacement at Esquimalt plods along …..
New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy
- Thread starter GAP
- Start date
Am I correct in understanding that A Jetty design is being reviewed by the navy for lessons learned from B and also original spec was based upon 2 Halifax class @ 134m vs 2 River class @151m ?
- Reaction score
- 4,625
- Points
- 1,260
Well that’s a 17m potential problem.
- Reaction score
- 15,464
- Points
- 1,160
That I could not tell you. My job was to review it under the NWPA/NPA Acts and the effect on navigation, both for the dock operation and construction. Most of my review was on the construction methodology and use of explosive.
It was up to the navy and PW to ensure it was fit for purpose. That being said, applying lessons learned from the other portion of the project is not uncommon. Either for the construction or the layout. For a dock something like the placement of Bollard is actually quite important and not a design element easily moved. I have fought battles on commercial docks in regard to fendering. The dock operator wants the minimal fendering required. But the pilots order the tugs size/power by the size of ship, weather and the type and quality of the fendering. But it's the ships agent who pays for the tugs, not the dock operator.
It was up to the navy and PW to ensure it was fit for purpose. That being said, applying lessons learned from the other portion of the project is not uncommon. Either for the construction or the layout. For a dock something like the placement of Bollard is actually quite important and not a design element easily moved. I have fought battles on commercial docks in regard to fendering. The dock operator wants the minimal fendering required. But the pilots order the tugs size/power by the size of ship, weather and the type and quality of the fendering. But it's the ships agent who pays for the tugs, not the dock operator.
- Reaction score
- 7,982
- Points
- 1,210
I was in those meetings a long time ago, as far as I remember the design for A jetty accounted for River class. Lessons learned for B jetty is pretty standard. A jetty was to nest River class anyways, so there would be two of them. A lot more nesting is going to happen as the RCN gets bigger with all the subs, destroyers, AOR's and AOPS taking up realestate.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,669
- Points
- 1,010
You forgot the corvettes, Underway.
Another question here: When the RCN decided to replace the 5 Glen tugs and 2 fireboats with four - because the new tugs would be all capable of firefighting - that was premised on 2 AOR, 4 subs, 15 RCD's and 5 AOPS. Now that we are going to 12 subs and possibly up to 12 corvettes on top of that, and considering the tugs secondary functions (such as towing targets and sometimes operating in the approaches in support of the fleet, is 4 going to be enough, or do the numbers have to go up to, perhaps, 3 per coast?
Another question here: When the RCN decided to replace the 5 Glen tugs and 2 fireboats with four - because the new tugs would be all capable of firefighting - that was premised on 2 AOR, 4 subs, 15 RCD's and 5 AOPS. Now that we are going to 12 subs and possibly up to 12 corvettes on top of that, and considering the tugs secondary functions (such as towing targets and sometimes operating in the approaches in support of the fleet, is 4 going to be enough, or do the numbers have to go up to, perhaps, 3 per coast?
6 AOPS . Up to 12 subs. I would even say the announcement of 15 River class is subject to change.
The question I have is; are the new tugs suitable for handling submarines given the different hull profiles?
Rainbow1910
Sr. Member
- Reaction score
- 1,530
- Points
- 810
Given how much the corvettes has basically ballooned into a bespoke, all Canadian PC6 rated miniature Halifax class frigate, either the River class is going to see its production numbers cut or these corvettes will be purchased in very small numbers (4-6).
- Reaction score
- 4,625
- Points
- 1,260
I was wondering if the Rivers got moved down to 6 and these new Corvettes get to be around 12-15 of them.
The original plan for the Halifax's was to be 18 but the final block of 6 got cut because of the attempt to get us a dozen nuclear subs. Building 15 Corvettes and 6 Rivers would take us to what we would have had previously - 18 Halifax's and the 3 Iroquois for 21 capital warships.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,669
- Points
- 1,010
They ought to be. When they were designed and purchased, the VIC's were still expected to be around for a good deal of time.
Maxman1
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,461
- Points
- 1,160
Sounds like the LVM project. The replacement has a higher load capacity, so that justifies buying less of it.
- Reaction score
- 10,887
- Points
- 1,160
The horizon is still only 15 miles away.
How much can you see from one platform?
Unless you are going to rely on comms and a network of remote sensors.
- Reaction score
- 7,982
- Points
- 1,210
The current idea is up to 6 CPC and still 15 Rivers. The Rivers are expeditionary, and the CPC are going to plug into the continental defence grid/matrix/plan. Along with the submarines who will probably be mostly continental with a little bit of expeditionary.
Absolutely nothing has changed with the Rivers. We need continuous build and cancelling them would not be continuous.
Last edited:
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 3,669
- Points
- 1,010
Question for people in Esquimalt, since I've never seen it in person to make that determination: When the MCDV's are retired, can "Y" jetty accommodate either the CPC's or the new submarines, at least when they are not in a short work period?
- Reaction score
- 7,982
- Points
- 1,210
Not the subs based on the jetty plan, maybe CPC, depending on the draught. There certainly is enough space for it.
Not to mention, the projections I've seen show it will be difficult to spend that 3.5% anyway. I have it on pretty good authority that staff are looking at shortening LCM to 20 years on major assets such as ships and aircraft just to meet the 2% continuous spend, let alone 3.5%. Going to 3.5% has Canada adding entirely new capabilities (or reawakening them - see Expeditionary Bde Gp). In other words, there are no fiscal reasons to reduce the Rivers to pay for a new class of Corvettes. That could change of course, but at this time money is not a problem!
- Reaction score
- 4,625
- Points
- 1,260
I hope that you are right. It’s makes the most sense and certainly allows us to have a real blue water fleet going forward, especially if we get 12 subs.
- Reaction score
- 2,679
- Points
- 1,090
No. There is only 16 to 19 feet of water
Similar threads
