The quiet death of the Royal Canadian Navy

Here's an industry news site with more information about the T-26 as it will be used in Canada.
Canada Officially Selects Design for CSC - Canadian Defence Review | Canadian Defence Review
The essentials are:
  • BAE Systems, will contribute its Type 26 Global Combat Ship design, for which first vessel is currently in production in the UK.
  • CAE will provide an integrated training system that aligns with the Future Naval Training Strategy.
  • Lockheed Martin will provide the Canadian-developed combat management system, CMS 330.
  • L3 Technologies will provide the Integrated Platform Management System, Integrated Communication Systems, electro-optical infrared (EO/IR) sensors, weapons stowage and torpedo handling systems and helicopter hangar doors.
  • MDA will lead the Electronic Warfare system integration, build an advanced radar system, partner with L3 WESCAM to build a Laser Warning and Countermeasures System and partner with Lockheed Martin Canada to develop an advanced Electronic Warfare jamming subsystem.
  • Ultra Electronics will be lead the Underwater Warfare component for the Frigate
  • The team also secured several additional partners, including Rolls-Royce with its Canadian-designed and manufactured Mission Bay Handling System that will enable adaptability for the ships' operations.

The CMS 330 system mentioned above is used in the upgraded Halifax frigates. It has also been sold to New Zealand and Chile to upgrade their Meko frigates. it is compatible with ESSM and Sea Ceptor (used by New Zealand).
 
Here's information on what Ultra Electronics will be providing for the new frigates.
Ultra Electronics Signs Sub-Contract with Lockheed Martin Canada for CSC Program - Canadian Defence Review | Canadian Defence Review
Ultra, as the ASW lead, will provide a low-frequency active and passive towed sonar system paired with its next-generation hull-mounted sonar, and will lead the integration of these world-leading sensors with sonobuoys and other capabilities for wide-area underwater battlespace surveillance to meet Canada’s future strategic needs.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Oh no, impossible, T23 and T26 have/will have the best TAS in the world, how dare Ultra gain say the claim!

Yours
Disgusted of Plymouth!
Foolish post.
 
The headline talks about submarine survival suits, but the real news is with regards to the submarines themselves.
DND extends life of submarine escape suits beyond expiry date as fleet shows its age | CBC News
Just to dispose of the survival suits issue, they are being tested and recertified to have their life extended. I don't know enough about submarine survival suits to comment further on them.
A spokeswoman for the Defence Department said a decision was made to extend the life of suits while the federal government procures new ones — a process that is ongoing.
There is no threat to safety, said Jessica Lamirande.
"The service life extension was approved based on successful, rigorous testing at the Naval Engineering Test Establishment on a representative sample of suits that had passed their intended service lives," said Lamirande, in a recent email.
"Testing consisted of detailed visual inspection, leakage tests, and functional testing."
To go on to the submarines themselves, the current plan is to modernise them and keep them operating until 2040. These are the submarines which Canada bought from the UK a while ago.
But defence experts say it is a small project that speaks volumes about the Liberal government's plan to modernize and keep operating the four submarines until 2040, a proposal that was articulated in the latest defence policy.
The House of Commons and Senate committees have recommended that the government look into replacing them sooner.
The Senate and House of Commons defence committees have recommended the government begin exploring options now for the replacement of the submarines, which took years to formally bring into service after they were purchased.
The government's response to that was that the RCN had its hands full at this time replacing the surface fleet.
The government, in its response to a committee report last fall, argued it is already fully engaged building Arctic patrol ships and replacements for frigates and supply ships.
Canada has never built submarines, and the story author notes that this means that any new submarines would need to be built abroad.
Since Canada does not have the technology, nor has it ever constructed its own submarines, the federal government would be required to go overseas to countries such as Germany or Sweden to get them built.
My own impression of the issue is that nobody is thinking too deeply on the matter at this time and the 2040 date is notional. I can imagine good reasons for putting any decision off for a while yet as conventional submarines seem to be going through technological change involving improved battery and other propulsion technologies and it might pay to wait a bit and see how these work out.

Canada is unlikely to buy nuclear submarines any time soon, due to the cost of setting up the training and infrastructure needed to maintain them. Doing so would require a major change in long term defence plans, and no government in the past couple of decades has shown any interest in doing so. There were plans in the 1980s to buy nuclear submarines from the UK, but the US vetoed that (the Americans owned the reactor design) because they didn't want Canada to have nuclear submarines (this was related to US-Canada disputes in the Arctic, still ongoing today).

The submarine branch of the RCN had for some years after the end of the Cold War been hanging on by their fingertips to avoid being cut altogether. The latest defence policy (previously discussed in this thread) from a couple of years ago however has confirmed that the submarines will continue to be part of the RCN, but didn't go much beyond that.
 
The new resupply ships that will be built in Vancouver were originally supposed to be named HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay, after key battles in the War of 1812. The names were picked by PM Harper personally. After the departure of Harper those names were hastily ditched and the names HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver revived - the names used in the previous class. Navy deep-sixed Conservative plan to name naval vessels after War of 1812 battles | CBC News
The reason behind this change has now come out, and it is as was long suspected, the navy simply didn't like the idea of naming navy ships after army victories.
"Although themes drawn from the War of 1812 were deemed viable, the naming of warships after historically significant land battles has not proven to resonate well with Canadians and is not consistent with Royal Canadian Navy practice," the country's top military commander, Gen. Jonathan Vance, told Sajjan on Aug. 26, 2016.

Vance may have been putting it diplomatically. Naval historian Marc Milner said he heard the criticism from within the military almost immediately after the new ship names were announced.

"The navy was very upset that they would start naming warships after army victories," said the University of New Brunswick academic, wondering aloud whether the army would start naming its bases after famous admirals.

The problem was simple. The Conservatives wanted to honour the legacy of the War of 1812, a key moment in Canada's evolution from a collection of colonies to a modern nation. But very few of the naval battles between 1812 and 1814 directly involved combatants from the colonies that would someday become Canada.
As we can see, the RCN have continued to fight tenaciously against their oldest and most bitter enemy, the Canadian army.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
The new resupply ships that will be built in Vancouver were originally supposed to be named HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay, after key battles in the War of 1812. The names were picked by PM Harper personally. After the departure of Harper those names were hastily ditched and the names HMCS Protecteur and HMCS Preserver revived - the names used in the previous class. Navy deep-sixed Conservative plan to name naval vessels after War of 1812 battles | CBC News
The reason behind this change has now come out, and it is as was long suspected, the navy simply didn't like the idea of naming navy ships after army victories.


As we can see, the RCN have continued to fight tenaciously against their oldest and most bitter enemy, the Canadian army.
Surely that's the Treasury, the Army is just the enemy of convenience
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
@terminal any substantial info on the Arctic Patrol Vessel "leak", seems to be a little scandal brewing between the Canadian Press, MoD and the Shipyard after a journalist phoned the MoD regarding rumours about welding issues on the new vessels only to receive threatening phone calls barely an hour later from the Shipyard?
 
Surely that's the Treasury, the Army is just the enemy of convenience
The RCN has been touchy about stuff like this, some are still bitter about the loss of their aviation capabilities to the RCAF, and most weren’t even born when it happened......Can’t really blame them though, they were forced to have the bird and anchor for decades as their command badge from unification until 2017 when it went back to solely an anchor.
 
I meant kicking the can down the road - in terms of making decisions and having a coherent future strategy. The issue with Mil systems is you can't just rock up and say, alright I want this and expect it to be delivered by the end of the week.
Who's doing that? The "coherent future strategy" in the published defence plan, which has been discussed on this thread and on the one for new jets, and which extends out past 2030. What exactly is being handled with "alright I want this and expect it to be delivered by the end of the week"?

There are new AOPVs, frigates, supply vessels, jet fighters, maritime patrol aircraft, ASW helicopters, SAR aircraft, and loads of other kit on the way, being contracted for, or being negotiated for. You're going to have to give us a bit of a clue as to exactly what you're on about as I can't figure out what you mean.
 
Who's doing that? The "coherent future strategy" in the published defence plan, which has been discussed on this thread and on the one for new jets, and which extends out past 2030. What exactly is being handled with "alright I want this and expect it to be delivered by the end of the week"?

There are new AOPVs, frigates, supply vessels, jet fighters, maritime patrol aircraft, ASW helicopters, SAR aircraft, and loads of other kit on the way, being contracted for, or being negotiated for. You're going to have to give us a bit of a clue as to exactly what you're on about as I can't figure out what you mean.
Fair point. I was just guesstimating and talking out of my ass, having heard the constant stream of negative publicity from the last couple of years and everything being delayed or being mired in controversy due to some specific individuals. I am on a phone with poor connection so really can't do much Google search and post links here. Again, this is from my pure hearsay, so I very well could be completely wrong - but that's the impression I got.

And "new" FJs? When did this happen? And what are they?
 
@terminal any substantial info on the Arctic Patrol Vessel "leak", seems to be a little scandal brewing between the Canadian Press, MoD and the Shipyard after a journalist phoned the MoD regarding rumours about welding issues on the new vessels only to receive threatening phone calls barely an hour later from the Shipyard?
This story? Federal ministries investigate after officials provide Irving Shipbuilding with information about Postmedia journalist
I would take it with a grain of salt, given who is writing about it. The complaint appears to be that the journo in question asked the DND and Public Procurement about an alleged welding problem. They in turn apparently asked the Irving shipyard if they knew anything about the matter. Irving then rang up the journo and said there were no major problems and that if he claimed there were they would regard this as "false and defamatory". The journo then cried "boo hoo, my story is ruined".

I can't find reference to the story in the rest of the press, so I'm going to be sceptical about whether there are any welding problems without further proof.

As for how Irving knew that this specific journo was asking about it, if the DND called Irving to ask if there were any welding problems that the DND should know about (which is a reasonable thing to do), it wouldn't be hard to guess who the journo was. I hadn't heard about it until you asked the question, and I was pretty sure who it was you were asking about. I'm going to take a guess that the "reporter’s personal information" was his name. We haven't seen any proof that the DND told Irving that yet, and as I said above it wouldn't take a genius to guess who was asking the questions.

The journo in question seems to have an agenda which is to stop the T26 by any means necessary. He regularly publishes rumours from "industry sources" (e.g. one or more competitors) about how crap the T26 is, how it doesn't meet specifications, how a different ship would be only half the price, how it should have been disqualified as the design isn't in service in the UK yet and so amounts to a "paper ship", etc., etc. The T26 is just bad, bad, bad. And Irving shipyard are bad, bad, bad, and are manipulating the bid process to favour their bestest friend, BAE, and this is how the T26 got selected instead of some other more deserving ship, etc. It's one story after another challenging the honesty and integrity of the bid process and the results. Implying that Irving would not be able to build the ships would fit in with that pattern.

You will notice that he didn't make the story be about the supposed welding scandal. Instead he made it be about an alleged leak from Ottawa to Irving and used that as a reason to mention the welding indirectly. He, doesn't, or should I say his editor doesn't, seem to be confident to publish it as a stand alone story, when it should surely be more significant. He also took the opportunity to pull in as much irrelevant mud to sling at the DND as he could find.

I don't know if there are any unannounced welding problems with the AOPVs. Given his general line of reporting however, I would want to see a report from another news organisation before deciding that there is something there rather than it being just another attempt at discrediting the T26 by attacking the shipyard (who are involved in the evaluation from a technical and financial perspective). Final contract negotiations are at a critical stage, and this may be the last chance to stop the T26.
 
Fair point. I was just guesstimating and talking out of my ass, having heard the constant stream of negative publicity from the last couple of years and everything being delayed or being mired in controversy due to some specific individuals. I am on a phone with poor connection so really can't do much Google search and post links here. Again, this is from my pure hearsay, so I very well could be completely wrong - but that's the impression I got.

And "new" FJs? When did this happen? And what are they?
There's a whole thread on it here: https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threads/new-fast-jets-for-canada.264879/
Currently the status is the tender documents are being finalised after consultation with suppliers. Tender documents will be released this spring and suppliers will submit their responses by the end of the year. Delivery and initial operating capability is to start by the middle of the 2020s.

The four competitors are Airbus Typhoon, Boeing Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, and Saab Gripen. Dassault (Rafale) dropped out a few months ago.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top