• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Steamers

Baz

Sr. Member
Donor
Reaction score
559
Points
810
Did a search, there is not a generic thread on the steamers…

I was reading an old Crowsnest issue (the magazine of the RCN) and it said the six MacKenzies would be built as DDEs and then all 6 converted to DDHs. As it turned out the last two were built as DDHs and then all other 4 never converted. Why not?
 
Did a search, there is not a generic thread on the steamers…

I was reading an old Crowsnest issue (the magazine of the RCN) and it said the six MacKenzies would be built as DDEs and then all 6 converted to DDHs. As it turned out the last two were built as DDHs and then all other 4 never converted. Why not?
Money?
 
That’s the obvious, but was it that simple?

It was weird the amount of optimism they seemed to have. It was an issue from around 1964, I wonder if they had any idea what the future held…
If I had to guess it likely was a sacrifice of unification. The navy lost the newly refurbished aircraft carriers due to unification, losing those would likely be a minor issue in comparison.
 
If I had to guess it likely was a sacrifice of unification. The navy lost the newly refurbished aircraft carriers due to unification, losing those would likely be a minor issue in comparison.
I guess that’s what I’m wondering. When they lost the Bonnie, you would think they’d want more small decks. It wasn’t the impending arrival of the 280s, since that was already planned.

Or maybe without the Bonnie they didn’t need as many escorts, so they relegated the NacKenzie’s to the training role?

I wonder, was the Bonnie the heart of an ASW Action Group, or did they intend her to escort convoys? If the latter, they’d still need the escorts.

My understanding is the yard did Bonnie no favours in the refit… she didn’t come out in very good shape. The retirement wasn’t as simple as some would think. Navy shooter, what do you know?
 
I remember as a kid touring the Limber well and gun turrets, absolutely marvelling over the mortars. Wonder also why they did not make the 3"/70 common through the fleet for forward guns? I remember them being referred to as 50,000 parts sometimes working together.

They were such gorgeous ships.
 
Bt
I guess that’s what I’m wondering. When they lost the Bonnie, you would think they’d want more small decks. It wasn’t the impending arrival of the 280s, since that was already planned.

Or maybe without the Bonnie they didn’t need as many escorts, so they relegated the NacKenzie’s to the training role?

I wonder, was the Bonnie the heart of an ASW Action Group, or did they intend her to escort convoys? If the latter, they’d still need the escorts.

My understanding is the yard did Bonnie no favours in the refit… she didn’t come out in very good shape. The retirement wasn’t as simple as some would think. Navy shooter, what do you know?
between the Annapolis class and the DDH 280 class is the missing General Purpose Frigates. That could be the answer to why the Mackenzies were never converted.
 
Bt
between the Annapolis class and the DDH 280 class is the missing General Purpose Frigates. That could be the answer to why the Mackenzies were never converted.
Possibly, but weren’t the GPFs the initial plan that actually became the 280s? I don’t think the design of the 280’s resulted from either not modifying the MacKenzie’s or getting rid of Bonnie.

What I’ve read is that in the early ‘60s a balanced fleet was view as ASROC on some ships and helos on others, but then a lengthy discussion was had about whether they needed balanced ASS forces or balanced general purpose forces.
 
It is more complicated than that.

First, the Mackenzie were not a 6 ships buy - they were a four ship buy.

Second, you have to remember that all St. Laurent were originally built as DDE's of the same pattern as the Mackenzie, but were later modified to a DDH pattern, after Assiniboine's trials as helicopter carrying destroyers (she was the test bed - not St. Laurent contrary to popular belief) if on the East Coast, or as IRE (Improved Restigouche class) if on the West Coast, because the money to convert them into DDH just wasn't there. For similar fiscal reasons, the Mackenzie's were not brought up at all from the original design as they were built while these "upgrades" to St Laurent's and Restigouche's were being made by way of refits. However, the last two ships ordered under this line of vessels, the Annapolis and Nipigon, were started after the St Laurent's mod to DDH and therefore, were built from the start as full blown DDH's (they were the only ones done that way - from the beginning and never refitted into the DDH class).

The article that puts them in the Mackenzie class are incorrect. Mackenzie was never envisaged as a 6 ships class.
 
It is more complicated than that.

First, the Mackenzie were not a 6 ships buy - they were a four ship buy.

Second, you have to remember that all St. Laurent were originally built as DDE's of the same pattern as the Mackenzie, but were later modified to a DDH pattern, after Assiniboine's trials as helicopter carrying destroyers (she was the test bed - not St. Laurent contrary to popular belief) if on the East Coast, or as IRE (Improved Restigouche class) if on the West Coast, because the money to convert them into DDH just wasn't there. For similar fiscal reasons, the Mackenzie's were not brought up at all from the original design as they were built while these "upgrades" to St Laurent's and Restigouche's were being made by way of refits. However, the last two ships ordered under this line of vessels, the Annapolis and Nipigon, were started after the St Laurent's mod to DDH and therefore, were built from the start as full blown DDH's (they were the only ones done that way - from the beginning and never refitted into the DDH class).

The article that puts them in the Mackenzie class are incorrect. Mackenzie was never envisaged as a 6 ships class.
I dunno…multiple sources say that there were supposed to be 6 Mackenzies, but the last two became Annapolis class, which then were based on the St Laurent design, to save money.
 
I dunno…multiple sources say that there were supposed to be 6 Mackenzies, but the last two became Annapolis class, which then were based on the St Laurent design, to save money.
I’m pretty sure the Crowsnest I was reading, circa 1964, said a 6 ship buy, and they were being built at that time. I know for certain it said conversion after delivery.

I found all the Crownest’s at the Esquimalt museum online. I’ll see if I can find the right issue again.

I am starting to think Hellyer stirred the pot more than just unification and getting rid of Bonnie…
 
In 1961 the plan was certainly to have 6 MacKenzies, the last two built as DDHs and the remaining four converted afterwards. The Crowsnest Vol. 13 No. 8 Our Navy June 1961: "A progressive conversion program to the Crusader and the seven St. Laurent class DDEs with helicopter platforms is expected to get under way in 1961-62." "Also to be equipped with helicopter platforms and VDS are the last two of the six Mackenzie class DDEs now under construction. Eventually all ships of this class will be similarly equipped."

Byu 1963 the reference to the MAcKenzie conversion has been dropped. The Crowsnest Vol. 15 No. 4 April 1963 "The other five ships of the St. Laurent class will be similarly converted over the next couple of years. The last two ships of the Mackenzie class, the Nipigon and the Annapolis, under construction, are having the new facilities built in before they commission in 1964."

The balanced fleet was considered to need non-ASW ships: "This is an artist's conception of th e proposed General Purpose Frigate . Construction on the first of eight of these frigates will begin in 1964 and all are scheduled for completion by 1970. The ships will carry two missile systems for anti-aircraft and anti-missile defence and will be fully equipped with anti-submarine detection and attack facilities . Armament will include a twin five-inch gun mount. The ships will be capable of transporting a company of combat troops , complete with equipment , landing the and supporting operations ashore . A utility helicopter , carried on board , will be of tactical value to Army operations ashore ."

It seemed in 1964 they were confusing "the last two ships of the MacKenzie class" and the "Annapolis class." Crowsnest Vol. 16 No 3-4 Our Navy Issue March-April, 1964, page ten, stated "The last two ships of the Annapolis class, the Nipigon and Annapolis, slid down the ways with helicopter decks and variable depth sonar as original equipment."

By 1965 the idea that a balanced force meant a balanced ASW force was prevalent, and the future 280s were defined: The Crowsnest Vol. 17 No. 1 January 1965

"Four helicopter-equipped destroyers (DOH) will be built under the five-year equipment program announced on Dec. 22. The new. ships will be slightly larger than the Annapolis class destroyer escorts, will have the latest anti-submarine detection equipment and will carry CHSS2 Sea King anti-submarine helicopters. They will have a' five-inch gun for shore bombardment and surface action, and provision will be made for later installation of a missile defence system. (CN-6857)"

"COMMENCING NEXT YEAR, the seven Restigouche class destroyer escorts will progressively undergo conversions involving the installation of variable depth sonar and other equipment which will significantly improve their submarine-detection capability. They will also be equipped with a rocket~assistedhoming torpedo deliver system, known as Asroc, whichhas a much greater range than the present anti-submarine weapons in these ships. Procurement of Sea King helicopters will continue with a further order of 12. These helicopters will operate from the aircraft carrier Bonaventure, the converted St. Laurent class destroyers, the two Annapolis class ships and the four new helicopter-destroyers. When these programs are completed, there will be a desirable mix of helicopter and Asroc anti-submarine weapon systems in the fleet."
 
My gut feel is the MacKenzie conversions were given up to support the GP Frigate (cost and political will). Hellyer then intervened and siad the NATO ASW bill was too high for the GP Frigate, and more ASW forces were needed. Rather than spend capital on the MacKenzie's, the Navy negotiated the 8 GPs to 4 ASW Frigates, which morphed into the 280s, and snuck the Sea Sparrow in.

That made the MacKenzies not needed for the main effort but an excellent training platform.

Of note, around 1960 the Restigoucehes were on the east coast (being newer) and the St Laurants west. As the St Laurents converted and the MacKenzie's came on line they swapped, putting the better ASW platforms east.

The number of DESRONs in the early sizties was impressive, with the Prestonians still retiring and the steamers already coming on line.
 
The ships will be capable of transporting a company of combat troops , complete with equipment , landing the and supporting operations ashore . A utility helicopter , carried on board , will be of tactical value to Army operations ashore ."
The grandfather of the Big Honking Ship bastard red headed step child.
 
^^
The Army has never been interested in amphibious operations and the only reason the RCN brings it up is to get a larger piece of the defence budget.
 
Back
Top