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

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
Regarding the British ships, from what I've learned here, the Brits rarely keep/use a non-capital ship (meaning anything bigger than a frigate/destroyer) longer than around 30yrs. We will be adding another 12-15yrs beyond that.

For example (TYPE 23 frigate):
HMS Argyll was commissioned in 1991 and will be decommissioned in 2023 (had its mid-life upgrade in 2017)
HMS Lancaster was commissioned in 1992 and will be decommissioned in 2024 (had its mid-life upgrade in 2019)

Using our Halifax's as an example

HMCS Halifax was commissioned in 1992 and, if will follow the concept of 'first launched, first decommissioned', then it will be decommissioned in 2033
HMCS Vancouver was commissioned in 1993, decommissioned in 2035?
Ferry runs every for 52 years through the high seas every day. Frigates don’tt do that. Structurally they fine The problem isn’t time but spare parts and hopefully not some piss poor fire procedures and training.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
811
Points
1,010
Same folks who let an oiler go out, unfit sea, that burned.

You'll forgive me if I don't think RCN risk management is up to par
"Unfit sea" is a medical term for people, not an engineering term. The engineering term is "safe at sea" which PRO was.

As stated above by @Stoker there was plenty that went into the PRO fire being so bad that had little to do with the state of the equipment.

If you want the first surface combatant to be delivered as quickly as possible, why start building it in 2026 or 2027? Why not start building it, as currently planned, in 2023 or 2024? Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca

I feel like we've talked about this before. ISI is starting to build CSC in 2023. It takes ~7 years to build the T26, and ~two years for trials. With a new ship coming off the line every 12-18 months (the build for ship two would have started 2019 or so, 18 months after ship one). This timing is in line with both Australia and UK builds.

HMS GLASGOW was laid down 2017 and is expected to the RN ~2023. And their ship is much less complicated than ours from a combat systems perspective and BAE has recently built large warships. Australia is expecting their ships to start 2022 and delivery to be 2031. They just finished building a test block but that's really just a large steel box with nothing inside.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
201
Points
530
You're actually wrong, the last of the Halifax class will be around 51 years old. The fist half dozen after the first one will take around 18 months to build with the rest taking around a year a piece. Options to speed up the process was looked at however it would even add more cost to the project.
We have a whole organization in Ottawa to manage the life extension of the Halifax Class, ships will still go sea and do the business but at a cost.
You without a doubt have substantially more experience than I ever will in this area Stoker, and I respect that but when you look at it detached and standing from afar I just don’t know how it will be accomplished.
 

Czech_pivo

Sr. Member
Reaction score
201
Points
530
"Unfit sea" is a medical term for people, not an engineering term. The engineering term is "safe at sea" which PRO was.

As stated above by @Stoker there was plenty that went into the PRO fire being so bad that had little to do with the state of the equipment.



I feel like we've talked about this before. ISI is starting to build CSC in 2023. It takes ~7 years to build the T26, and ~two years for trials. With a new ship coming off the line every 12-18 months (the build for ship two would have started 2019 or so, 18 months after ship one). This timing is in line with both Australia and UK builds.

HMS GLASGOW was laid down 2017 and is expected to the RN ~2023. And their ship is much less complicated than ours from a combat systems perspective and BAE has recently built large warships. Australia is expecting their ships to start 2022 and delivery to be 2031. They just finished building a test block but that's really just a large steel box with nothing inside.
When looking at the link for HMS Glasgow, I’m trying to understand the timelines. Begun in 2017, to be delivered to RN before end of 2021 and operational in 2023, correct? If correct, 6yrs from beginning to commissioned in the RN.
Our potential timeline line is, potential beginning by ISI in 2023, delivered 8yrs later to RCN in 2031 and finally commissioned in 2033, 10yrs start to finish vs 6yrs from what I’ve read for HMS Glasgow.
So the extra complexity for ours adds 40% to the overall timeline? ISI will have built 6ish AOPS (6 for RCN and possibly 2 for CCG) that are about the same tonnage as the CSC, so they will be an experienced shipyard by this point.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
680
When looking at the link for HMS Glasgow, I’m trying to understand the timelines. Begun in 2017, to be delivered to RN before end of 2021 and operational in 2023, correct? If correct, 6yrs from beginning to commissioned in the RN.
Our potential timeline line is, potential beginning by ISI in 2023, delivered 8yrs later to RCN in 2031 and finally commissioned in 2033, 10yrs start to finish vs 6yrs from what I’ve read for HMS Glasgow.
So the extra complexity for ours adds 40% to the overall timeline? ISI will have built 6ish AOPS (6 for RCN and possibly 2 for CCG) that are about the same tonnage as the CSC, so they will be an experienced shipyard by this point.
Building essentially a civilian standard AOPS and building a warship CSC are totally 2 different things.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,869
Points
910
No offence the oiler burned not because it was old, because of a accident and poor decision making on the timely activation of a fitted system. Risk assessments and mitigations are part of doing business in the RCN or any other Navy.
I have a fairly unique viewpoint on the PRO fire and the lead up to it. Lets just say I will agree to disagree with your opinion on RCN technical risk assessments.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Ferry runs every for 52 years through the high seas every day. Frigates don’tt do that. Structurally they fine The problem isn’t time but spare parts and hopefully not some piss poor fire procedures and training.
Uhhh I'm going to have to disagree. While spare parts are an issue, structure is also a huge issue, including both major auxillar/ancillary systems, as well as the hull itself.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
811
Points
1,010
When looking at the link for HMS Glasgow, I’m trying to understand the timelines. Begun in 2017, to be delivered to RN before end of 2021 and operational in 2023, correct? If correct, 6yrs from beginning to commissioned in the RN.
Our potential timeline line is, potential beginning by ISI in 2023, delivered 8yrs later to RCN in 2031 and finally commissioned in 2033, 10yrs start to finish vs 6yrs from what I’ve read for HMS Glasgow.
So the extra complexity for ours adds 40% to the overall timeline? ISI will have built 6ish AOPS (6 for RCN and possibly 2 for CCG) that are about the same tonnage as the CSC, so they will be an experienced shipyard by this point.
I'm confident that they are not going to be delivering HMS Glasgow this year. Or perhaps even next year. That's a pretty skeletal ship at this point, still needs all the cabling, equipment, lighting, hotel services. Oh and a mast!

When a ship is commissioned is also different than delivery depending on the country. HDW was accepted into the RCN before commissioning and before work was fully complete.

As for ours I expect about a year or two increase in the timeline due to complexity, winter working conditions (something the UK for the most part avoids), BAE being a more experienced yard, BAE using different yards to make blocks concurrently (ISI doesn't have the capacity to do this aside from the bow section).

I could be really wrong. I would have better odds betting in Vegas on the Sabers winning a cup this year. However ~early 2030's is where the RCN expects the CSC to be a fully armed and operational battlestation warship. That doesn't mean it can't do a bunch of jobs before that as it shakes down. HDW is in that situation now, still some things to be worked out but they are for all intents and purposes operational.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
e can agree to disagree a I suppose.
About the hull itself. If there is significant corrosion in the hull, it was designed by monkeys, or built and maintained by untrained idiots. Having said that, I agree with you.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
About the hull itself. If there is significant corrosion in the hull, it was designed by monkeys, or built and maintained by untrained idiots. Having said that, I agree with you.
FYI, I’m a retired 1st class engineer (transport Canada), just so you know point of view, and I assume that most people aren’t idiots. And in the BC Ferry service we had a highly motivated, intelligent group.
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
175
Points
680
I have a fairly unique viewpoint on the PRO fire and the lead up to it. Lets just say I will agree to disagree with your opinion on RCN technical risk assessments.
I talked to plenty who were there and I was Sea Training at the time and read the BOI. Damage Control and Engineering is my bread and butter in my daily job. The AOR was old but it wasn't unsafe for sea, you can do all the risk assessments and mitigations in the world but accidents do happen even to new ships. Was there a risk assessment done on the particular item that failed no there wasn't, and why would it be needed?
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
537
Points
990
Our frigates are fine. They’re ridden hard but less so than the American or British. They receive regular maintenance, including dry dock. They just look like crap. Ferries ride through horrifying seas for fifty years and don’t have their keels weaken.
"Our frigates are fine." I'll simply agree to disagree.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
811
Points
1,010
About the hull itself. If there is significant corrosion in the hull, it was designed by monkeys, or built and maintained by untrained idiots. Having said that, I agree with you.
I think you can do better than this, knowing that many of those who maintain the ships are on this forum. We aren't reddit or twit-er so lets not behave like that here please.

There has been significant corrosion in the East Coast ships, West Coast are doing much better. Some of that is due to climate, some of it is due to more salt being needed on the ship to keep from icing, therefore boots track in that stuff. And some is that West Coast used seamless decks everywhere. Some was due to having to charge hoses for fire exercises which then of course leak on the deck increasing corrosion rates.

Awareness and vigilance of this issue is pretty high ATM. Things are constantly being cut out and replaced to fix problem areas. The ship of Theseus indeed.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
I think you can do better than this, knowing that many of those who maintain the ships are on this forum. We aren't reddit or twit-er so lets not behave like that here please.

There has been significant corrosion in the East Coast ships, West Coast are doing much better. Some of that is due to climate, some of it is due to more salt being needed on the ship to keep from icing, therefore boots track in that stuff. And some is that West Coast used seamless decks everywhere. Some was due to having to charge hoses for fire exercises which then of course leak on the deck increasing corrosion rates.

Awareness and vigilance of this issue is pretty high ATM. Things are constantly being cut out and replaced to fix problem areas. The ship of Theseus indeed.
You’re right, that was uncalled for and I apologize unreservedly. And thank you for the missing piece of why ships are corroding to badly. Hopefully the CSC will take measures to mitigate this problem.
 

NavyShooter

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
537
Points
990
You’re right, that was uncalled for and I apologize unreservedly. And thank you for the missing piece of why ships are corroding to badly. Hopefully the CSC will take measures to mitigate this problem.
A slow steady progression of new ships coming 'online' over the span of 15 years will give the Navy a chance to look ahead past the CSC's and the AOPS and plan for the replacement of the MCDV's (if any) which will give more shipyards work, sustaining the life of the 'yards and their skillset, then replacing more CCG ships, and hopefully, by the time the last CSC rolls onto the launching ship, the Navy will have started looking at the generation of ships that needs to follow that to get them started.

Or maybe not, and we'll have poured our nation's treasure into building up our shipyards and a new fleet, only to have those shipyards die after the CSC's are finished because there isn't any more work coming for another decade after that.

From the perspective of someone who was able to look up into interior compartments from below a keel this year, there's metal work that needs to be done...and there's a lot of reasons for that. I know some of them, and won't bother getting into the minutia here. Suffice to say, there's a lot of metal-work that has needed doing for a long time, and the Navy had a lot of reasons to keep pushing the ships to perform on operations rather than taking the time to fix things properly.
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,701
Points
910
OK having read a lot of your posts, and being infatuated with red crayons, what, in your opinions are the best ship types the RCN should invest in?

MCDV? Frigate? Destroyer?
 
Top