Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
- Thread starter jmt18325
- Start date
I would like to point now to the "collateral" sides of the future award.
Lets consider that Australia has managed to get support for the disputes on the South China Sea, ... I mean, got from France the commitment to deploy vessels for the Freedom of navigation operations at the time of the Shortfin Barracuda being awarded. Similarly got from UK similar commitments (plus other military agreements for selling militar material to UK) on the Freedom of navigation patrolling ops. recently, when Type 26 has been awarded for the Sea 5000 project.
Would/should Canada take the chance to negotiate with UK for their SSNKs to patrol Arctic waters? I think the structured bidding process and transparency will not allow for that, but would not it be a great opportunity to seize? This could be done with some kind of agreement for canadian staff to be deployed in the submarines, gaining in training and cooperatoin with other submarine forces, of course.
Lets consider that Australia has managed to get support for the disputes on the South China Sea, ... I mean, got from France the commitment to deploy vessels for the Freedom of navigation operations at the time of the Shortfin Barracuda being awarded. Similarly got from UK similar commitments (plus other military agreements for selling militar material to UK) on the Freedom of navigation patrolling ops. recently, when Type 26 has been awarded for the Sea 5000 project.
Would/should Canada take the chance to negotiate with UK for their SSNKs to patrol Arctic waters? I think the structured bidding process and transparency will not allow for that, but would not it be a great opportunity to seize? This could be done with some kind of agreement for canadian staff to be deployed in the submarines, gaining in training and cooperatoin with other submarine forces, of course.
Only if Canada is serious about acquiring nuclear-powered attack submarines. For this to happen, there must be two major problems to be overcome: do all the political parties support acquiring nuclear submarines, and will the Americans allow Canada to buy British nuclear-powered submarines? At the very least, the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP must be unwavering in their support.JMCanada said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#Opposition_to_program
Well, we all know this is not going to happen... for some years ahead. However within 4-5 years, longer endurance fuel cell AIP submarines will be ready, either the german-dutch one (with methanol) or the spanish one (with bio-ethanol), may be even the improvement on Li-ion batteries will be sufficient for 30-40 days inmersion periods without snort. Then will be probably the momentum to start the purchasing of new submarines for the RCN.
Meanwhile, the option to patrol the Arctic with british SSNKs could close the gap, don't you see it like a feasible option?
Meanwhile, the option to patrol the Arctic with british SSNKs could close the gap, don't you see it like a feasible option?
- Reaction score
- 16
- Points
- 180
JMCanada said:
Euhm,Swedish-Dutch one.
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
Royal Navy no longer operates SSKs (we got the last four, the Upholder-class)--now all are nuclear-powered SSNs, SSBNs:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.7249/j.ctt3fgzx8.9.pdf
Mark
Ottawa
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.7249/j.ctt3fgzx8.9.pdf
Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 146
- Points
- 710
JMCanada--not trying to be snarky, just, er. astute .
Mark
Ottawa
.Mark
Ottawa
- Reaction score
- 6,685
- Points
- 1,140
Ashkan08 said:
We don't operate warships in ice now, why would we change that? We have AOPS for ice operations (which no other blue water navy does either).
The type 26 as of right now looks like the most upgradeable ship on offer, why limit ourselves to the older continental AAW ship designs?
I just hope whatever we buy we configure to work in the norther oceans, as well as the equatorial regions. We spend far more time deployed to tropical/equatorial waters than we spend in the ice.
Oldgateboatdriver
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 2,267
- Points
- 1,010
I would have phrased that a little differently, and would have said, they are fully mature designs - from a construction point of view - with the kinks worked out.
As far as being "proven" design, we are currently in a bit of a lull similar to the one that followed the battle of Trafalgar and lasted until the arrival on the scene of HMS DREADNAUGHT.
At that time, the various navies of the world switched from sailing ships to steel/mechanized ones during a period of peace at sea (Pax Britannia) and many designs were tried - but mostly various navies just followed the lead of France and the UK, which built relatively similar warships (Admiral Popov's round battleship being a famous, or infamous, exception ;D). None of them were ever "proven" in combat, and then Dreadnaught arrived on the scene throwing everything into chaos.
So, now, we are in a similar situation: The last lessons in warship design were learned as result of the Falkland war, more than 30 years ago, and none of the current warship designs have been tested in naval combat, and thus are all unproven designs. For all we know, someone will come up with a new "genius" idea in warship design in a few years and make all current design obsolete. You just never know.
As far as being "proven" design, we are currently in a bit of a lull similar to the one that followed the battle of Trafalgar and lasted until the arrival on the scene of HMS DREADNAUGHT.
At that time, the various navies of the world switched from sailing ships to steel/mechanized ones during a period of peace at sea (Pax Britannia) and many designs were tried - but mostly various navies just followed the lead of France and the UK, which built relatively similar warships (Admiral Popov's round battleship being a famous, or infamous, exception ;D). None of them were ever "proven" in combat, and then Dreadnaught arrived on the scene throwing everything into chaos.
So, now, we are in a similar situation: The last lessons in warship design were learned as result of the Falkland war, more than 30 years ago, and none of the current warship designs have been tested in naval combat, and thus are all unproven designs. For all we know, someone will come up with a new "genius" idea in warship design in a few years and make all current design obsolete. You just never know.
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,190
Oldgateboatdriver said:
You need a blue water navy to operate across the globe as Canada does; but, in my opinion, a blue water navy would have a very bad day in battle against a green-water navy comprised of dozens of small attack craft carrying numerous modern anti-ship missiles. It always blows me away when I compare a CPF/Tico/Arleigh which weigh between 5000- and 10,000 tons, and carry only 8 Anti-ship missiles, against a a Type-22/Skjold/Comabttante II missile boats which also all carry 8 anti-ship missiles, but which only weigh 250 tons. You can produce, crew and replace far more missile boats than you can full size warships. A swarm of these ships could fire more missiels at a task group than any task group could possibly defend against.
We don't need a ship to be able to counter this threat, because we don't have any real expectation of having to get into real combat, and we don't have the money or willpower to try and really prepare ourselves for that eventuality. Either we are going to avoid that conflict all together, or are we are going to expect the USN Air Wings to obliterate these vessels before they even get in range of our ships.
So, we don't need a ships that's optimized for modern combat, and there does not yet exist an HMS Dreadnought that has fundamentally altered the face of naval warfare (although I have a few design ideas in my head); what we need are vessels that can continue to dot the kinds of missions that we have been conducting (and conducting admirably I might add), and therefore, the tried and true DZP is, I think, the way to go.
If we go with the Type 26, we might, eventually, get a a more capable combat platform, but we will spend so many years working out the kinks that we'll have to skip out, for a few years, an all the overseas deployments and exercises that we're known for.
.
.
.
I also haven't had coffee yet today, so take this all with a grain of salt.
- Reaction score
- 2,849
- Points
- 940
??? Does this not beg the question of why taxpayers should even fund a Canadian military -- investing instead in the Coast Guard and a merchant marine? :dunno:Lumber said:
- Reaction score
- 2,479
- Points
- 1,190
Journeyman said:
Yes, but the answer is simply; a show of making an effort in defence and security (and we're making far more than a minimum effort) helps to build healthy relationships with our international partners which leads to reciprocity in international diplomacy and trade.
