Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[JMCanada]

Probably because the design will not be ready.  Strictly speaking, it is not the Type 26, but a modification of the Type 26.
(...) the Canadian version of the Type 26, if built, is much more like a clean-sheet-of-paper design than a modified off-the-shelf design. 

Even if they were identical to the british type 26... has anybody seen one afloat?
Strictly speaking (IMHO) it is not an off-the-shelf vessel since none has been yet commissioned nor launched.

EDITED: That is the other side of betting for the newest design on the race.

The best part is that the process (to start production) has gone one step forward.

 

[STONEY]

Remember this is just the first step. Everyone wants things to move swiftly but this just cannot happen. For example the main diesel engines its manufacturer might have a 2-3 year order book so we will go to the back of the line , then it has to be built, tested and shipped and arrive in Canada at the right time to be installed in the engine room module at the proper time in the build process. The complete power system of the ship will have to be redone, remember a Canadian lightbulb does not work in a British lamp so millions of parts of the ship have to be planned ordered and arrive on time, and this takes years of planning.
    Cheers ;D

 

[Kirkhill]

Even if they were identical to the british type 26... has anybody seen one afloat?
Strictly speaking (IMHO) it is not an off-the-shelf vessel since none has been yet commissioned nor launched.

EDITED: That is the other side of betting for the newest design on the race.

The best part is that the process (to start production) has gone one step forward.

Not afloat - construction as of Jan 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIZk8UWuMP0

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Even if they are variants for the different countries at issue (Aus/UK/Can), it remains that, with a proposed line of 37 ships (9/13/15, in the order of nations I used at the beginning) the type 26 will automatically become a major class of warship by the power of sheer number.

Since the UK has not exactly been known to develop second rate warship for its own needs, we can confidently say that the Type 26 is about to become a major player on the naval scene.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Do you have any, actual, first hand knowledge of Canada's submarine program?

I do.

The most difficult class of Submarine that I have ever worked against is the Victoria Class. Period, full stop.

Serious question;  that was with a SeaKing.  How would that outcome have differed with a Cylone?

I've flown on quite a few subs - the most challenging for us wasn't the Victoria.  We have a pretty good toolbag to use compared to a Seaking though...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Probably because the design will not be ready.  Strictly speaking, it is not the Type 26, but a modification of the Type 26.  But we are not talking about a few very trivial modifications.  I think, because the modifications are likely to be many and major, the Canadian version of the Type 26, if built, is much more like a clean-sheet-of-paper design than a modified off-the-shelf design.

Non-navy type here...I see ships on my sensors, and haven't sailed.

What would some examples of possible/probable minor and/or major modifications be? 

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Serious question;  that was with a SeaKing.  How would that outcome have differed with a Cylone?

I've flown on quite a few subs - the most challenging for us wasn't the Victoria.  We have a pretty good toolbag to use compared to a Seaking though...

Based on what I have heard/observed, the outcome would have been significantly different. The Cyclone has a much bigger tool bag than a Sea King, obviously.

With that said, my point stands. I have had relatively easy days vs othe classes of submarines, even in a Sea King. I have never, ever had an easy day against a Victoria.

 

[Sub_Guy]

Oh man the Victoria.  The passive ranges I’ve gotten from that thing (all hulls) on battery would blow your mind..  It blew my mind. 

Even on Block II tracking it was relatively simple.

I’m looking forward to seeing the T26 out there.  I just hope the costs don’t escalate to the point where we end up with fewer than 15. 

 

[Uzlu]

What would some examples of possible/probable minor and/or major modifications be?

Major: combat system and hull.

Underestimating the effort required to make changes to an existing warship design is not surprising when given some thought. Warships are not like ice breakers or patrol ships; they are very dense with complicated interactions among all the systems.

The word “dense” in this context refers to how jam-packed the ship is with equipment, cabling, redundancy requirements, water and smoke tight compartments, and extra layers of protection. Warships don’t generally have extra space to easily add stuff, though a good ship design does provide some displacement margin to add equipment during the lifetime of the ship.

Nevertheless, the effort to make a design change to a warship is not linear: changing one item, function or feature will necessarily have multiple knock-on changes multiplying the cost and effort of the change. This is a risk that is often underestimated when making changes to the design that Canada eventually selects.

Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer

 

[Dale Denton]

Any rumours over naming the class?

Anyone have any good suggestions?

I hope they go with something other than geographic. Why not after WW2 RCN Destroyers, continuing after Haida since she's the ceremonial flagship?

Or after accomplished ships from the RN (with Canadian ties) and RCN? HMS Ajax, HMS Dominion, any Tribals?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

If DND put out an offer to name the ships after FN tribes and used the names of those that agreed, it might be a useful reconciliation effort. Particularity nations with a history of warfighting.

 

[ringo]

IMHO CSC will be Province class. 10 Provinces 10 ships, maybe 2 more Yukon and Labrador but I doubt more than 10 will be built, indeed it might be wise to go with Province class as government would certainly look bad building less than 10 ships.

 

[Gorgo]

Let it be done this way:

P FFG-342 HMCS ONTARIO
A FFG-343 NCSM QUÉBEC
A FFG-344 NCSM NEW BRUNSWICK
A FFG-345 HMCS NOVA SCOTIA
P FFG-346 NCSM MANITOBA
P FFG-347 HMCS BRITISH COLUMBIA
A FFG-348 HMCS PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
P FFG-349 HMCS ALBERTA
P FFG-350 HMCS SASKATCHEWAN
A FFG-351 HMCS NEWFOUNDLAND
P FFG-352 HMCS YUKON
A FFG-353 HMCS LABRADOR

 

[NavyShooter]

But....that's only 12....we need more than that...

 

[ringo]

HMCS Northwest Territories and HMCS Nunavut would be next, but IMHO navy will be lucky to get 10 ships.
Halifax class was to have had a third batch of 6 ships, IIRC Mulroney cancel third batch.

 

[Lumber]

I'd put dollars to donuts that they name the AA variants IRO, ATH, and ALG... maybe even a HUR....

 

[Czech_pivo]

For my 2 cents (or 1.3 cents USD).  I'd love to see a HMCS Tecumseh and a HMCS Joseph Brant, along with Haida, Huron, Iroquois, Cree, etc, etc. I'm calling out Tecumseh and Brant because those two personally contributed so much to the early years of pre-Canadian history.

 

[kratz]

Under our Naval naming conventions two of the suggested names are not possible, without serious disruption.
Two ships can not hold the same name while in service.

- HMCS HADIA, recently designated our national flagship, would have to be decommissioned and paid off.
Losing the designation and recent protection that came with the title.

- HMCS TECHUMSE, Naval Reserve in Calgary, would have to be decommissioned and paid off.
Losing this NRD reduces the RCN's inland community presence, contributing to an increase in Canadian's Maritime blindness.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Non-navy type here...I see ships on my sensors, and haven't sailed.

What would some examples of possible/probable minor and/or major modifications be?

Hull itself won't change; equipment selection may result in different structural reinforments being required, but that's about it.

Some obvious examples are the hotel power loads; if the RN uses 220V 50Hz in the base design that needs changed. That's relatively straightforward, but changes all the associated cable runs, breakers, plugs etc, so goes everywhere.  That's probably major because of the scope, but generally those systems are straightforward, so not really complicated, and it's effectively stand alone, (after you get past the step down transformers), but does also effect all the equipment selection for stuff like fridges, laundry etc.

If we were to do something dumb like use a different steering system, main engine or other base component that would be a major change. Also, you end up losing the advantage of having other uses of the same equipment (for through life maintainability and part support issues).

Assuming we'll have our own combat suite fitted with a Canadian CCS, but all of that is big enough it will be a single lead doing the integration, and is a major effort anyway.

Minor is relative, but could be something as simple as changing the paint scheme to use our colours.  Depends how they define it I guess (cost?). Even moving a light switch or a handle is a minor change, and for simple stuff like that it could be twenty minutes of blue colour labour to actually do the work and hours of white colour labour to document it. Seems dumb, until you spend ten times that years later when you go to install something and find a light switch in the way.

 

[YZT580]

For information, why not leave the power system alone?  Everything from computers to TVs and washingmachines are available in either voltage and would completely standardise the build internationally.  The cost of re-design would exceed the price of supplying every crew member with a personal 220 kit and still leave money in the bank.