New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

[Czech_pivo]

isnt that what Davie is assuming they can start producing ships?

Yes, hopefully. With only the icebreaker on their build list at the moment.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Yes. Over the course of time, we will be refitting ships while ships are being built. The theory of a national shipbuilding strategy is that, starting in 2030(ish), there is a destroyer type vessel being delivered to the fleet every 18 months.

Forever.

No more boom/bust.

While that is going on, the existing fleet needs someplace to go for their 5/10/15 year refits (maybe 20. Maybe not) before being sold on to another country or decommissioned and put in reserve or scrapped.

So would this mean we have 216 months after First RCD to have a replacement in place being built?

Yes, they go in for a docking work period of 6 months every 5 years. No those work periods cost triple and take 12 months. With the new system you're constantly replacing the 20 year old ship with a new one.

The AOPS were never really part of the permanent build for warships plan. I think there is a good possibility of their replacements being jagged into a shedule for someone somewhere, probably after all the MRSV's are completed (16 or so from Seaspan). We'll have to see. There are so many ships needed at this point I think there will be enough work for all the major shipyards for the next 15 years.

No refits now are 4 to 7 years depending on the shape of the ship. It's why we moved to a zero (minimal) crew refit.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

So would this mean we have 216 months after First RCD to have a replacement in place being built?

God! That's going to be tight. Better start working on designing the replacement now!

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

All joking aside, with the CDC needing to be as Canadian as possible, we have an opportunity to re-create the 1950's office of plans and engineering, which was a half civilian, half military bureau of engineers and naval architects that constantly produced and maintained plans "ready-to-go" for ships and also oversaw and developed the upgrades to current ships for their major refits. Their last design was for the IRO's in their original form, in 1972.

The advantage of such a bureau was that the military learned and understood design from the civilian experts and a t the same time, educated the civilian to the specific military needs. Since they produced the plans/designs, there were also very little difficulties in producing "specs" for tender that corresponded to what the Navy wanted.

 

[Maxman1]

God! That's going to be tight. Better start working on designing the replacement now!

Why not just build a new flight, like the US does with the Arleigh Burke?

 

[Underway]

Why not just build a new flight, like the US does with the Arleigh Burke?

Designs reach the end of useful life at some point. You can do both honestly.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The Office I am talking about did both, that is why the Saint-Laurent's were done in four batches (7-7-4 and 2), with major retrofits to the original seven into DDH's, and four of the Restigouche's into IRE's (St, Croix, Columbia and Chaudiere were left out). But they also had plans for the next frigates to start replacing the Saint-Laurent's, incorporating a lot of what the Americans were doing with their Knox class, but these were canned in the lead up to Unification, and ultimately, it was the next follow up class, destroyers, that were built instead - the Iroquois'.

Then, after unification, the bureau was dismantled, all functions centralized in Ottawa - without the industry experts, and we got silence for 15 years.

 

[DBNSG]

I take it hell will freeze over before the old Saint John Shipbuilding yards are given new life? Mind you, I haven’t been to Saint John in years and don’t know whether the yards were ever repurposed…e.g. condos.

The Irving's have left the old Drydock pretty much as it was but the Shipbuilding land facilities do not exist anymore as the site was converted to a Wallboard plant.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I think Seaspan should acquire another Careen sized drydock to be stationed permanently in Esquimalt.

 

[Swampbuggy]

Designs reach the end of useful life at some point. You can do both honestly.

It almost feels like we’re closing on that with T26 based ships, before they’ve ever been built/trialled/deployed. If the rumours of weight constraints are true, it doesn’t sound like there’s much wiggle room for the future or evolving systems.

 

[Kirkhill]

It almost feels like we’re closing on that with T26 based ships, before they’ve ever been built/trialled/deployed. If the rumours of weight constraints are true, it doesn’t sound like there’s much wiggle room for the future or evolving systems.

I sense that fear has played a part in this.

Fear that too few ships will be built.
Fear that they won't be delivered fast enough.

As a result everybody wants everything built in to every ship.

Building different models of the same hull concurrently might give a greater sense of confidence permitting some hulls to be optimized for different roles.

I find it hard to envisage complete task forces when it has taken 15 years to start cutting first steel on a ship designed to replace hulls that are already challenged and that will require 15 more years to deliver the full order by which time the first ships will already be in midlife reworks.

And the threats and environments are gping to necessitate changes.

It would be easier for me go envisage the endstate if entire tssk forces hit the water at the same time.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Italy moves ahead with their DDX program. Evolution and not all new.

Italy’s DDX Destroyer Tender Path Starts Now

In recent hours, Italy has formally set the procurement machinery in motion for two new-generation destroyers—labelled DDG in official language and widely referred to as DDX—by publishing a prior information notice in the EU Official Journal. The notice points to 18 February 2026 as the moment...

www.itamilradar.com

 

[suffolkowner]

Yes, hopefully. With only the icebreaker on their build list at the moment.

well they have the

Polar Icebreaker PC2
6 medium icebreakers PC3
2 Ferries

but seem way behind Seaspan and Irving on getting going

 

[GR66]

I sense that fear has played a part in this.

Fear that too few ships will be built.
Fear that they won't be delivered fast enough.

As a result everybody wants everything built in to every ship.

Building different models of the same hull concurrently might give a greater sense of confidence permitting some hulls to be optimized for different roles.

I find it hard to envisage complete task forces when it has taken 15 years to start cutting first steel on a ship designed to replace hulls that are already challenged and that will require 15 more years to deliver the full order by which time the first ships will already be in midlife reworks.

And the threats and environments are gping to necessitate changes.

It would be easier for me go envisage the endstate if entire tssk forces hit the water at the same time.

As you've noted it will be quite some time before we have the fleet available to do what we want/need it to do. We do however have other assets available to prosecute our most significant potential naval threat - submarines. We have the Aurora's with P-8s and MQ-9b's coming. We have the CPF's with Cyclones. The problem is we have a limited number available of each and a vast maritime domain to cover.

I'd suggest that while we wait for the fleet to be built we put a major focus on domain awareness so that we can better concentrate our limited ASW assets where required. To my mind we should be putting an urgent effort into fielding a substantial fleet of fairly simple UUVs and USVs to create a sensor web to monitor to waters of our EEZ.

Focus on detection...produce in mass and expect them to be expendable...don't allow for mission creep to make exquisite (and expensive) multi-role, cutting edge systems. Have the uncrewed systems detect and let the crewed systems respond.

 

[Czech_pivo]

well they have the

Polar Icebreaker PC2
6 medium icebreakers PC3
2 Ferries

but seem way behind Seaspan and Irving on getting going

Yes I read that, but it doesn’t allow us to address the building of the CDC’s within Canada.
If the CDC’s are going to be brought online by the mid 2030s to address the retiring of the 40yrs old Halifax’s, we will need to identify a shipyard in Canada in 2026/27 or decide to build offshore in the same time frame. By 2035 we should have 1 River accepted by the RCN and if God smiles on us, a second as well.

 

[suffolkowner]

It almost feels like we’re closing on that with T26 based ships, before they’ve ever been built/trialled/deployed. If the rumours of weight constraints are true, it doesn’t sound like there’s much wiggle room for the future or evolving systems.

thats good stuff!

The Type 26 Frigate – more than just a submarine hunter - Navy Lookout

At the recent IMarEST conference, the RN outlined some of its thinking about how the Type 26 frigate's Mission Bay could be utilised in service. Here we look at these concepts and progress on the road to delivery. Modularity comes to life In an earlier article, we speculated about what...

www.navylookout.com

"The MBHS, hydraulic doors and reinforced deckhead add about 100 tons of additional top weight to Type 26. To achieve this, there have been some compromises and the rest of the ship is quite densely packed, limiting options for future upgrades. The stability considerations have to factor in the embarkation and disembarkation of containers totalling 150 tonnes. There is just a 455-tonne (approx 6%) In-Service Growth Margin (IGM) for additional weight left to be added during the whole life of the ship. This is relatively low and will have to be managed carefully or require a reduction in mission bay capacity. New technology insertion can be largely achieved through software upgrades, the flexibility of Mk41 VLS to accommodate new weapons and above all, utilising the space in the mission bay."

navylookout says 455 tonnes plus whatever we have that is heavier.

Main gun is the same now
Im assuming our SPY7 is heavier?
no CIWS but maybe SeaRam or Mk144
no 48 SeaCeptor
mission bay needed on all 15?

 

[Czech_pivo]

As you've noted it will be quite some time before we have the fleet available to do what we want/need it to do. We do however have other assets available to prosecute our most significant potential naval threat - submarines. We have the Aurora's with P-8s and MQ-9b's coming. We have the CPF's with Cyclones. The problem is we have a limited number available of each and a vast maritime domain to cover.

I'd suggest that while we wait for the fleet to be built we put a major focus on domain awareness so that we can better concentrate our limited ASW assets where required. To my mind we should be putting an urgent effort into fielding a substantial fleet of fairly simple UUVs and USVs to create a sensor web to monitor to waters of our EEZ.

Focus on detection...produce in mass and expect them to be expendable...don't allow for mission creep to make exquisite (and expensive) multi-role, cutting edge systems. Have the uncrewed systems detect and let the crewed systems respond.

The reality is that a 3rd and a fourth shipyard is needed, I don’t see anyway around this.

 

[suffolkowner]

The reality is that a 3rd and a fourth shipyard is needed, I don’t see anyway around this.

Seaspan
2 JSS
3 OSFV PC7
1 OOSV PC6

Polar Icebreaker PC2
up to 15 MPIV PC4
JSS #3?

Davie
Polar Icebreaker PC2
6 medium icebreakers PC3
2 Ferries
2 GLAM? PC7?

Irving
8 AOPS PC4/5

15 RCD

need the people too, is there a danger that we spread things to thin?

 

[suffolkowner]

All joking aside, with the CDC needing to be as Canadian as possible, we have an opportunity to re-create the 1950's office of plans and engineering, which was a half civilian, half military bureau of engineers and naval architects that constantly produced and maintained plans "ready-to-go" for ships and also oversaw and developed the upgrades to current ships for their major refits. Their last design was for the IRO's in their original form, in 1972.

The advantage of such a bureau was that the military learned and understood design from the civilian experts and a t the same time, educated the civilian to the specific military needs. Since they produced the plans/designs, there were also very little difficulties in producing "specs" for tender that corresponded to what the Navy wanted.

The Office I am talking about did both, that is why the Saint-Laurent's were done in four batches (7-7-4 and 2), with major retrofits to the original seven into DDH's, and four of the Restigouche's into IRE's (St, Croix, Columbia and Chaudiere were left out). But they also had plans for the next frigates to start replacing the Saint-Laurent's, incorporating a lot of what the Americans were doing with their Knox class, but these were canned in the lead up to Unification, and ultimately, it was the next follow up class, destroyers, that were built instead - the Iroquois'.

Then, after unification, the bureau was dismantled, all functions centralized in Ottawa - without the industry experts, and we got silence for 15 years.

we talked about this before too when it was about that there wasnt enough work for the design engineers at Seaspan.
Maybe they all need to come together under an umbrella organization from Seaspan/Irving/Davie/RCN?