Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Spencer100]

Opportunity for Canada?

Increased demand



Existing capacity



If the Poles, and others, want the Type 31s faster then is it possible that the Brits could lay off some of the Type 26 work to Canadian or Aussie yards? Would that encourage ISY and its supply chain to work faster and could that have a knock on effect on the Canadian NSS plan?

And thinking of opportunities - "hot production lines" in Canada obviously include GDLSC LAVs (LAV II,III and 6) as well as GDOTC Ammunition and Colt Canada.

How cold is the Magellan Bristol Aerospace CRV-7 line? Could that be spooled up? Could Winnipeg become a Canadian centre of missile excellence?

The British-made weapons helping Eastern Europe prepare for a new Cold War

BAE Systems is expecting a flood of new orders from countries preparing for the return of industrial war

www.telegraph.co.uk

I know jumping on opportunity is not the Canadian Way ....

The T-26 and T-31 are different ship yards. The UK is doing their own NSS plan with shipyards. Very little for Irving to help. Plus Irving is not even ready for our T-26's.

GDLS-C could build more LAV's as the production is on going. I think the ones we have given to them will be replaced at the end of the current build (But I don't bet on it)
Colt can build more but would the new owners not want to build in Europe and order from there?

I have no idea about Bristol.

And Yes the Canadian is way is never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

 

[Spencer100]

Just an interesting graphic for comparison

 

[Underway]

Is that HMS Belfast? IIRC she's a WW2 light cruiser.

 

[Gorgo]

Is that HMS Belfast? IIRC she's a WW2 light cruiser.

That's her.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Is that HMS Belfast? IIRC she's a WW2 light cruiser.

At about 7,000 tons the Type 26 is edging up to the displacement of Canada's last cruiser, HMCS Ontario (8,800 tons).

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Uganda and Belfast were very similar, with Uganda being shy one turret aft.

 

[Spencer100]

Uganda and Belfast were very similar, with Uganda being shy one turret aft.

interesting the growth of different classes. Frigates the size of WWII light cruisers. Destroyers even bigger. The new USN destroyers will be even larger than the current cruisers. And it all the way down too. They came up with OPS to replace corvettes as the smallest combatants (some will say their are not combatants) Corvettes are the size of frigates. Etc.

I do understand the type of ship is named more on the role. OPS is a constabulary patrol ship. Corvette smallest combatant, Frigate is a ASW or escort ship. Destroyer is a AAW ship or all around combatant. Cruisers are AAW ships with command and control. Plus many country play with the names depending on the politics of their country and/or the politics of there adversaries.

One more thought. The RCN wants ships to be a jack of trades plus long endurance with better crew quarters than most at the time. So it then seems like the RCN ships are underarmed for size. Example is the Israeli navy SAAR 5/6 vs our frigates.

 

[TacticalTea]

interesting the growth of different classes. Frigates the size of WWII light cruisers. Destroyers even bigger. The new USN destroyers will be even larger than the current cruisers. And it all the way down too. They came up with OPS to replace corvettes as the smallest combatants (some will say their are not combatants) Corvettes are the size of frigates. Etc.

I do understand the type of ship is named more on the role. OPS is a constabulary patrol ship. Corvette smallest combatant, Frigate is a ASW or escort ship. Destroyer is a AAW ship or all around combatant. Cruisers are AAW ships with command and control. Plus many country play with the names depending on the politics of their country and/or the politics of there adversaries.

One more thought. The RCN wants ships to be a jack of trades plus long endurance with better crew quarters than most at the time. So it then seems like the RCN ships are underarmed for size. Example is the Israeli navy SAAR 5/6 vs our frigates.

Right off the bat, any comparison with the Israeli navy brings to mind some radical differences in purpose.

Single, hot body of water VS a navy and cabinet with blue water ambitions including the Arctic.

One of the shortest coastlines in the world VS literally the longest one.

High threat environment where the motherland defends itself alone against multiple threats and types of threats VS principally diplomatic missions or operations in allied task group contexts.

Etc.

So without even looking into the details, the comparison seems off.

Not saying there isn't any value in this thought exercise, just that it may not be the best first example to bring up.

 

[Spencer100]

Right off the bat, any comparison with the Israeli navy brings to mind some radical differences in purpose.

Single, hot body of water VS a navy and cabinet with blue water ambitions including the Arctic.

One of the shortest coastlines in the world VS literally the longest one.

High threat environment where the motherland defends itself alone against multiple threats and types of threats VS principally diplomatic missions or operations in allied task group contexts.

Etc.

So without even looking into the details, the comparison seems off.

Not saying there isn't any value in this thought exercise, just that it may not be the best first example to bring up.

I think you made my point off the bat. That the two ships are very different and the Canadian one seem under armed to the Israeli. That was my point different needs create different outcomes. But you see all the time look how great the SAAR6 is.....our ships have nothing etc. (I see this in RN and USN chats)

 

[TacticalTea]

I think you made my point off the bat. That the two ships are very different and the Canadian one seem under armed to the Israeli. That was my point different needs create different outcomes. But you see all the time look how great the SAAR6 is.....our ships have nothing etc. (I see this in RN and USN chats)

I might've misunderstood the intent of your comment, then. My apoplexies.

 

[Navy_Pete]

interesting the growth of different classes. Frigates the size of WWII light cruisers. Destroyers even bigger. The new USN destroyers will be even larger than the current cruisers. And it all the way down too. They came up with OPS to replace corvettes as the smallest combatants (some will say their are not combatants) Corvettes are the size of frigates. Etc.

I do understand the type of ship is named more on the role. OPS is a constabulary patrol ship. Corvette smallest combatant, Frigate is a ASW or escort ship. Destroyer is a AAW ship or all around combatant. Cruisers are AAW ships with command and control. Plus many country play with the names depending on the politics of their country and/or the politics of there adversaries.

One more thought. The RCN wants ships to be a jack of trades plus long endurance with better crew quarters than most at the time. So it then seems like the RCN ships are underarmed for size. Example is the Israeli navy SAAR 5/6 vs our frigates.

A lot of the growth is to support things like the big ass radar sitting up 10 stories on the mast; you need a much larger base for that to stay stable. Does give you room for things like extra missiles etc, but also means you need larger generators, more powerful propulsion etc etc unless you start cutting things like top speed.

When you start doing the math it's crazy how much ballast you need to offset a ton of top weight when it's that high up the mast.

 

[dapaterson]

When you start doing the math it's crazy how much ballast you need to offset a ton of top weight when it's that high up the mast.

Isn't that what POs are for?

 

[Navy_Pete]

Isn't that what POs are for?

Funny story, if you suggest that staff officers should be given cabin and office below the center of gravity to at least improve stability and one of them overhears you may end up with extra duties as a junior officer. I guess implying someone is mobile top weight might be offensive to some.

 

[dapaterson]

Q: What's the difference between a Hobbit and a Petty Officer?

A: Hobbits only have two breakfasts.

 

[NavyShooter]

Hey there...be nice.

There's always room for more breakfast at sea!

 

[FSTO]

Funny story, if you suggest that staff officers should be given cabin and office below the center of gravity to at least improve stability and one of them overhears you may end up with extra duties as a junior officer. I guess implying someone is mobile top weight might be offensive to some.

Halfkenny?

 

[Good2Golf]

I had a fleet air arm type tell me (a green aviator) that I was a ‘Triple Duffer with a luckily high metabolism’…is that a bad thing or something to be proud of?

 

[FSTO]

I had a fleet air arm type tell me (a green aviator) that I was a ‘Triple Duffer with a luckily high metabolism’…is that a bad thing or something to be proud of?

You’re a unicorn!

 

[Good2Golf]

You’re a unicorn!

Although in fairness to me, I categorize by type, so three Nanaimo bars is a single Duff, right?

 

[FSTO]

Although in fairness to me, I categorize by type, so three Nanaimo bars is a single Duff, right?

Whatever allows you to sleep at night! So by that metric you could hit the tirfecta of 3xNanaimo Bars/Lemon Squares/Chocolate Brownies!!!