New replacements for HMCS Iroquois, HMCS Algonquin and HMCS Athabaskan?

[PointZero]

Hi,
I heard that the Canadian Destroyers are going to be decommissioned in 2010. I haven't heard anything on replacement ships though. Is there any plans for new Destroyers? Or does the Cf just going to rely on the Frigates and not bother making or having Area Defense Destroyers?






Edit title title for spelling.

 

[Occam]

You heard wrong.

 

[PointZero]

When will they be decommissioned then?

 

[Occam]

That's a good question.  I'll wager a guess and say "not until there are replacements in the water, and operational", based on our history of decommissioning warships.

 

[Franko]

Hi,
I heard that the Canadian Destroyers are going to be decommissioned in 2010. I haven't heard anything on replacement ships though. Is there any plans for new Destroyers? Or does the Cf just going to rely on the Frigates and not bother making or having Area Defense Destroyers?

Ahhhh RUMINT

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I am curious though (and a tad concerned) where you heard that. There is lots of speculation on replacement ideas but these seem to change with the political climate. It is too early to say when and with what when it comes to the IROQUOIS class. There are those who see them looking pretty right after a docking and then there are those who have sailed on them their entire careers who know first hand what happens when you drive something 'like it is stolen' for 30 + years!
In all honesty, they probably should have been replaced already but having said that, they (and their crews) are still capable of performing the duties they are required to.

 

[Newt]

A quick search of Google tells me that Wikipedia may be the culprit. In the section of the article that discusses TRUMP it's mentioned that the intended decommissioning[sic] was around 2010. There is no citation for the 2010 date though.

 

[dapaterson]

For the future of Canada's surface combatants,, you could start reading at:

http://www.cdnmilitary.ca/index.php?p=16

and then look for further details on SCSC.

 

[GK .Dundas]

If we have to replace the Tribal s  I've grown rather fond of the Gibbs& Cox submission to Australia's AWD competition .It lost on cost and I suspect the Spanish give them a slightly better deal on the LHD  they  bought as part of the package.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I think SCSC has already fallen away and been replaced by yet another "project" for an 'all-in-one' destroyer/frigate/Command platform. As for TRIBALs (semantics here), that was a class of 21 destroyers (excellent ships by the way) of  WWII vintage, British designed and built for the Navies of Great Britain, Canada and Australia of which HAIDA berthed in Hamilton, ON is the only one remaining. Canada had eight:
ATHABASKAN I - Lost 28/29 Apr 44 off Brittany coast
HURON
HAIDA
IROQUOIS
Though built during the war years, too late to see service (in WW II) were:
ATHABASKAN II
NOOTKA II
MICMAC
CAYUGA
All but MICMAC (and of course ATHABASKAN I) served in Korean waters also (as did the 3 Australian TRIBALs)

Yes, even the placard on the display at the Maritime Museum in Halifax is in error.
IRO, ATH, HUR and ALG were actually never 'officially' referred to as TRIBALs though their crews adopted the moniker.

Anyway, I suspect the SCSC concept will be maintained but then that was last envisioned for KINGSTON class (interchangeable payloads mission dependent) but never really seemed to pan out. It will be interesting to see what is floating out in the harbour 5 years from now but in all honesty, I suspect there won't be any major additions (AOPs-type maybe???) My take only.

 

[dapaterson]

The Canadian Single Combatant is still on the books.  But flash to bang, as with any multi-billion dollar project, takes a long time.

 

[Pat in Halifax]

I thought I read somewhere that it was shelved for the time being though I guess not. What I was thinking (which has been tossed) was the thought of converting a couple HALs into Area Air Defence vessels or building a couple based on the HAL hull.
Again, time will tell.
As for the IRO class being replaced in 2010, you are correct - every civilian source seems to say that!
I do know that CMs are screaming for senior NCMs in Ottawa for "Projects" so there must be a few things on the books. Once again though, as I keep telling him (every ^%#@* time he asks), There is no NAVY in Ottawa!
So far, so good (knock wood)

 

[Radar114]

Re-building he CPFs into area defence with the SM2 fit is what they had planned for the last 6 frigates, Provincial Class or something they were going to call them.  Had we kept going with that plan, the 280s would probably be gone by now.

 

[canuck101]

You may want to take a look at the below link:
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/defencewatch/default.aspx

Four of the Halifax Class Frigates will be getting new gear so they can act as Command and Control ships. Look for the Title:THALES CANADA AWARDED CONTRACT TO PROVIDE CANADIAN NAVY WITH SATCOM ANTENNAS

 

[Occam]

Interesting.  UHF satcom antennae are but a small part of what would be required to turn a CPF into a command platform.  I wonder if anyone has given any thought into which members of the crew are going to have to be landed in order to make bunk space for staff?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

You may want to take a look at the below link:
http://communities.canada.com/OTTAWACITIZEN/blogs/defencewatch/default.aspx

Four of the Halifax Class Frigates will be getting new gear so they can act as Command and Control ships. Look for the Title:THALES CANADA AWARDED CONTRACT TO PROVIDE CANADIAN NAVY WITH SATCOM ANTENNAS

Command and Control yes but still no AAD capability.

 

[a_majoor]

I read it is also possible to rebuild the Halifax class frigate with a hull "plug" increasing the hull length and internal volume (although my Google fu seems weak tonight, I can't seem to find the reference). This might be faster and cheaper than building new ships from scratch (although it would probably be even better to simply have built more Halifax class ships in the first place...) and provide the hull volume for air defense weapons or command facilities, depending on what is needed or desired.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

All well and good but then you will be forcing the Navy to rely on 35-40 year old hulls in the not so distant future with no replacement in sight like we are doing with the 280s and the AORs now again with no replacement in sight.

 

[Lumber]

Who would build these anyways?

 

[Occam]

I read it is also possible to rebuild the Halifax class frigate with a hull "plug" increasing the hull length and internal volume (although my Google fu seems weak tonight, I can't seem to find the reference). This might be faster and cheaper than building new ships from scratch (although it would probably be even better to simply have built more Halifax class ships in the first place...) and provide the hull volume for air defense weapons or command facilities, depending on what is needed or desired.

While the CPFs were built with a modular design, I think the ability to vary the number of modules was supposed to be done during the construction process, and not as an afterthought 20 years after they hit the water.  The sheer number of wiring, cabling, plumbing, and ventilation connections that would have to be lined up (or completely rerun) with a new module would be staggering.  I'm sure it's technically possible, but the costs would be prohibitive.