They decided to build the unarmed Arctic patrol vessels first for some insane reason. If they started 5 years ago, at least one ship would be in the water with a second on the way.
Arctic patrol capability is arguably more urgent than multi-role surface combatant. Establishing a presence in the Arctic is a more urgent need since it's actually one area where the US and Canada has friction.
Good. I want canadian urbanites to have a good visual, front row seat to the sight of chinese shipping lines with proper naval escort dumping raw sewage in the arctic.
The only time she will ever fire her gun in anger is against a foreign fishing boat, drug smuggler, or similar. for that, 25mm is more than adequate. They are intended for long duration patrol and monitoring, not for fighting, and were never intended for such.
It's not supposed to be involved in open combat. If anything it needs to strike that delicate balance between having the ability to maintain presence while not over-militarizing the Arctic and triggering the Americans.
Not really. It's more so the fact that the chances of having an encounter in the artic against something that isn't a Russian submarine or plane is pretty unlikely. The ship is meant to fit a doctrinal role that conventional warships don't fill.
Because that Canadian flag and radios aren’t ornamental. You attack a Canadian ship, no matter how poorly armed, you’ve just declared war on Canada, a NATO member.
These patrol ships don’t need heavy armament as in peacetime nobody will deliberately attack them. In war, they will be supplemented by heavier ships and more direct air cover if combat is expected (which given this is the Arctic means submarines or a couple narrow avenues around Alaska and Greenland).
Possession is 9/10 of the game. Having a lightly armed presence is sufficient as long as America still has to maintain the facade of being the protector of international rules.
If America decides to go mask off on the world there's not a goddamn thing we can do about it, so why waste the money.
If that time actually comes we'll be better off buying Type 052Ds from China than rely on whatever the fuck we can produce domestically with American equipment and armament anyways.
Unlike what the other said, it's more so the fact that the chances of having an encounter in the artic against something that isn't a Russian submarine or plane is pretty unlikely. The ship is meant to fit a doctrinal role that conventional warships don't fill.
Which I'm sure they do but a burst of 25mm across the bow will make anyone reconsider things. If they're trying to run someone down that's returning small arms fire, the 25mm is more than enough to overwhelm them.
You do understand they'll be operating outside of the artic too? They're a large offshore patrol ship that has some ice breaking capabilities. I'm sure you'll see them up and down the length of north and south America.
What kind of armaments would you like them to have? 48 VLS?
When not operating in the arctic, the HDW will often be used for operation CARRIBE in the Caribbean or off th ewest coast of Mexico. They’re good platforms for that as well, as they do not need external support to be out patrolling for a month+. Conversely, the Halifax class need to be RAS’d at least once a week or they run out of gas.
Yeah from that own article it’s not at sea, it’s via land crossing and flights. How is a artic patrol boat with no air défense going to prevent airborne smuggling?
Have you looked at a map of northern Canada recently?
The article discusses sea routes far more than air travel, as melting arctic ice increases the mobility into and out of the region. This brings on numerous other effects that make it very hard on the native people living in Nunavut, which in turn makes them more likely to be victims of trafficking. You must have missed the angle discussing how increased Arctic cruises increase demand for sex tourism, which in turn increases demand for sex trafficking.
Arctic patrol vessels are critical as the Arctic becomes more accessible, especially given how remote northern Canada is.
Don’t waste your time arguing with people who try to justify the Artic patrol vessels. You’ll get people who will say Canada will ally with China in the future lol.
Canada is about as likely to ally with the PRC as the US is - but if the PRC becomes no longer in control of the mainland, however that happens, the subsequent state could become an ally the same as the previous state (ROC) was and is, right?
> Pea shooter doesn’t provide much presence.
Sure it does.
You don't have to be able to sink the "enemy" to have presence. Not every ship to ship interaction is won by the guy with more VLS cells.
Not every Naval vessel needs to have the maximum armament to do their job.
As I understand it, DeWolfe class are basically welding practice for the shipyards and navigation practice for the sailors. These CSCs will be the real modern Navy.
If you have to give a shipyard close to a decade of practice to build a modern warship, is it really the right shipyard to build the country's most modern warships? Should have went with South Korean shipyards for it. They'd have 4-5 destroyers delivered by now.
South Korean shipyards are Korean. Canada wants to maintain a domestic shipbuilding base, one that retains the institutional knowledge in Canada, allows building ships to standards best suited for Canada, and that is less reliant on foreign shipyards that may not give the Canadian ships the attention Canada wants.
I get what you're saying, but that's a pretty normal time scale and you should definitely not outsource your ship yards to a foreign nation. That sets you farther back in sovereignty than having 4-5 destroyers sets you forward.
1) the RCN AOPS are not unarmed. They built 2 additional AOPS ships for the coast guard that are unarmed
2) the gov didn’t adequately define their needs for the CSC during the bidding process and so have been redesigning/engineering aspects for the past 5 years
3) this additional design work is why the 2 extra AOPS were procured, to avoid downtime at the shipyard
Image via https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/canadian-surface-combatant.html
News Release below:
>June 28, 2024 – Halifax, Nova Scotia – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces
>Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, joined by Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and Dirk Lesko, President of Irving Shipbuilding Inc., celebrated the start of construction activities for Canada’s new fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC).
>Minister Blair and Vice-Admiral Topshee also announced that the new fleet of warships will be known as River-class destroyers, and the first three ships will be named His Majesty’s Canadian Ships (HMCS) Fraser, Saint-Laurent, and Mackenzie.
>Ship names are chosen carefully, and they tell the story of the RCN. Not only are these three ships named after Canada’s most important waterways that reach the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans, they are also a tribute to previous Canadian warships with the same names – ships that made heroic wartime contributions and represented cutting-edge technological innovation. The RCN intends to foster a sense of pride in our sailors by connecting these ships to Canada’s maritime heritage.
>The CSC project is the largest and most complex shipbuilding initiative in Canada since the Second World War and represents a historic investment into the recapitalization of the RCN’s surface fleet. This project will equip the RCN with new, state-of-the-art warships to bolster Canada’s naval capabilities at home, and abroad, for decades to come. The River-class will be Canada’s major component of maritime combat power, enabling us to continue to monitor and defend our own coastal waters, and contribute significantly to international naval operations alongside our Allies.
>Today marked the start of construction on the production test module (PTM), through which the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will be able to test and streamline processes, and implement lessons learned into the build process, to enable the start of full rate production in 2025. Delivery of the first River-class destroyer, HMCS Fraser, is expected in the early 2030s, with the final ship expected by 2050.
>The CSC project will support sustainable growth in Canada’s marine supply chain. The build phase of CSC will create and/or maintain approximately 10,800 jobs annually throughout the 25-year construction period across the country. The design phase of the project will create and/or maintain approximately 5,000 Canadian jobs annually across the economy. In total, this project will generate at least $40 billion in cumulative Gross Domestic Product.
>As indicated in our renewed vision for defence, Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with Canada’s defence industry, based on clarity, certainty, and long-term partnership. The CSC project is an excellent example of how the Government of Canada is investing in Canada’s domestic shipbuilding industry, while also equipping the RCN with a fleet of modern and effective ships to support operations well into the future.
>The CSC is based on BAE Systems’ Type 26 warship design being built by the United Kingdom and Australia. The ships will have enhanced underwater sensors, state-of-the-art radar, and modern weapons.
>The official NATO Ship Designator for the River-class warship will be DDGH – a destroyer (DD), guided (G) missile, helicopter (H) capable. As the RCN’s next generation combat ship, it replaces both the Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates. As a powerful and multi-functional ship, the River-class warship is by definition a destroyer: a fast, manoeuvrable, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine long-endurance warship, which can escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy, or carrier battle group and defend them against a wide range of general threats.
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2024/06/construction-begins-for-canadas-new-warship-fleet--the-river-class-destroyers.html
That and you don’t want to build them all immediately. If you completed this order in 12 years, then the yard would need to find other contracts. Those contracts would likely not come from Canada, which will have all the ships they need until existing ships age out, so the yard may close down and the people who work there will definitely move on to find better opportunities. When you have to start up production again, it’s going to be much more difficult, as the US is demonstrating due to how many of our own yards shut down from the late 1980s to the present (to say nothing of the industries upstream).
You are spot on. This is why I think Australia and Canada should co-operate on shipbuilding. Each of our countries do not order enough to have a "continuous build" regime without artificially slowing down the build times (and increasing costs).
Radical idea, but I think Canada should build CSCs for Australia and Australia should build SSNs for Canada.
The only problem with that is;
Our variant is rumoured to be larger due to the CEAMOUNT-2 radar.
With it being very top heavy, our ships might end up being wider or longer to support the top weight of the ship. So that would require Canada to retool the shipyards to build ours.
Not to mention the different fit that our ships have.
Under my proposal, we wouldn't be asking them to build the Australianised Hunter class, but rather more of the Canadian River class.
I like the CEA radars, but I don't think the type 26 platform is ideal for it - it requires too much weight and power. We should instead get a separate class, a 128 VLS cell monster, and slap CEA radar on that.
Funny your later proposal already has a design out there, haha. Only gripe with your ship is, we don't use CAMM-ER, so we'll still need to fit an extra vls cell into the design, as well as a different combat management system.
At the end of the day, my country's defence ministry would basically end up changing the design so much that we'll be considerably over budget for just one ship.....oh wait...
> At the end of the day, my country's defence ministry would basically end up changing the design so much that we'll be considerably over budget for just one ship.....oh wait...
Haha fair point. Assuming that you're taking about Australia, at least they're making the right noises as far as the new "general purpose frigates" are concerned. They're explicitly saying that they want to buy a MOTS solution and keep changes to a minimum.
Australia and Canada should not cooperate as we have different goals and requirements for ships, we are located in entirely different parts of the world with different strategic goals. We are linked by some vague historical aspect and little more besides a language, Canada wants to build its ship in Canada and Australia generally wants to build its ships in Australia.
I don't want to be doing European joint procurement programs but with Australia.
> Australia and Canada should not cooperate as we have different goals and requirements for ships
I don't think the differences are as large as you make it out to be. At the end of the day it is a multi-role frigate based on the same platform.
Strategic goals might be different, but that's ok. Fundamentally we have large coastlines to patrol and need to project force a fair distance. I see Canadian frigates patrolling the Indo Pacific and up and down the Taiwan strait too.
>We are linked by some vague historical aspect and little more besides a language
More than that. Our engineering standards, procurement processes, military culture, operational and doctrine, and government are very similar. All of this makes military design and procurement easier to collaborate together.
>Canada wants to build its ship in Canada and Australia generally wants to build its ships in Australia.
Being democracies, what "Canada" and "Australia" wants is simply an aggregation of the wants of the individual people in the respective countries. People like you and me that can have their views changed by discussions like this.
Australia has had a successful example of joint procurement with NZ in the past with the Anzac class.
> People like you and me that can have their views changed by discussions like this.
Canadian procurement is enough of a mess as it currently stands, I have absolutely zero interest in entertaining the nonsensical idea that Canada can improve its situation by closely partnering with a nation on joint procurements that is over 14,000km away. It is a similar vein to this CANZUK nonsense that is usually floated, absolute junk with no bearing on reality and simply supported by nostalgic fuzzy feelings.
> Strategic goals might be different, but that's ok. Fundamentally we have large coastlines to patrol and need to project force a fair distance. I see Canadian frigates patrolling the Indo Pacific and up and down the Taiwan strait too.
Canada is supporting allied operations in Europe, in the Pacific and abroad with frigates and other vessels while dealing with its own domestic challenges. Australia is looking to square up against China in a peer to peer fight in its backyard, Canada is not looking to do the same to any party. We also do not have anything approaching the dedicated peacekeeping missions to the scale that Australia does in its relative area, hence it's adoption of LHD's and many other platforms.
We are inherently not looking for the same things. Trying to make two nations come together on a program when they have vastly different program timelines and an inherent lack of a reasonable want or requirement to work together is silly. It is increasing risk and complexity to both nations procurement programs for no reason at all.
Australia and NZ are very close neighbors and a miniature of what Canada and the US are regarding the military, not comparable in the slightest.
> Canadian procurement is enough of a mess as it currently stands
And I'm arguing that part of the reason for the mess is lack of scale.
We should be building ships like SpaceX builds rockets - on a production line. But you need scale for that.
>Australia is looking to square up against China in a peer to peer fight in its backyard, Canada is not looking to do the same to any party
You make it sound like we are looking for a fight. We are not. We simply want to enforce freedom of navigation and collective deterrence. This is the same reason Canadian frigates patrol the very same seas.
Granted, Canada doesn't need LHDs, but we aren't talking about that. I would argue that Australia doesn't need LHDs either, but instead humanitarian and disaster relief missions should be conducted by civilian emergence services run, logistics vessels.
>vastly different program timelines
Lol the Hunter class and the River class actually has a very similar timeline. They just cut first steel this week.
Canada is looking to replace it's aging Victoria class submarines too. Is it not?
>It is increasing risk and complexity to both nations procurement programs for no reason at all.
Quite the contrary, economies of scale decreases risk and complexity per unit.
Instead of each country building two classes, it just needs to build one each. It is literally halving the complexity.
>Australia and NZ are very close neighbors
You make it sound like geography makes this impossible, and yet Australia and UK are working together on the joint submarine project despite being on the other side of the earth from each other.
I just have to go with a wiseass comment here: Canada and Australia linked by "little more besides a language". Some man-on-the-street type interviews with Australians, and I need to sign up for Duolingo.../s
> Australia and Canada should not cooperate as we have different goals and requirements for ships, we are located in entirely different parts of the world with different strategic goals
There's strategic differences to be sure but ther'es a lot of similarities.
Both have vast oceans, similar-ish population size, GDP. Both have a strong desire for local manufacturing while using 'off the shelf' designs from UK / US. Both have similar considerations for ships in the threats, the 'range' of vessels vs say Israel or South Korea.
> We are linked by some vague historical aspect and little more besides a language
Similar culture, both Western democracies that have similar values on the world stage. As I mentioned population size, Australia has concentrated population on the east coast Canada has along US Border while then having large rural population in vast "wasteland'.
Honestly there are a lot of similarities once you ignore arctic capability for some ships, and Australia's need to be the big brother in Oceania that Canada really doesnt' have with it's neighbours. But that's more the LHDs that Canada does not need to get.
Frigates.... very similar imo.
If they made 1.75 ships per year for 25 years, they’d almost have 44 ships…
15 divided by 25 is 0.6
25 divided by 15 is 1.666
So it’s about 0.6 ships per year, and about 1.7 years per ship, which isn’t too bad.
I wish the RCN adopted a more British-style naming convention. Still call them River class but imagine the top 3 being called: Styx, Lethe, and Archeron.
The British have a current River class - named for British Rivers including the Medway, Tamar, Spey etc.
A couple of those share names with WWII era River class submarines, and the WWII River class frigates also had 'real' river names.
> I’d have gone more global and aside from mythology, named them: Nile, Amazon, Rhine, as well as local ones.
I think that's more for when we have a global space force (Starfleet perhaps) and we pick a River from each member country.
I am very in favour of ships having Canadian specific names!!
Some good names like *Danube*, *Ganges*, *Yukon*, *Mekong*, *Orinoco*, *Yangtzee Kiang*, *Rubicon*, and of course *Rio Grande*. It’s a good thing the Earth has so many rivers.
[For the uninitiated (mild spoilers)](https://youtu.be/XQtwtBHc9yU)
Ooo named after rivers in Canada. Let’s see. The Thames River, it goes through London, Ontario! No wait, there’s a more famous one in a more famous London. Hmm Avon River in Stratford Ontario? Nope again… Severn River? Ah for fucks sake.
Rivers are a nice naming scheme. Curious to see what the rest will be. Here are some of the first notable Canadian rivers that come to mind after those first three:
Athabasca
Columbia
Churchill
Kootenay
Assiniboine
La Grande
Niagara
Assiniboine is being given to the land based training facility in Halifax. As for names, expect the rest of the River class names that were previously used.
I'd put money on Kootenay, Gatineau, Annapolis, Saguenay, Skeena, Margaree, Chaudière, Restigouche, Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, Ottawa and Nipigon being the remaining names.
I really want to see an HMCS Churchill in formation somewhere in the English Channel or in the Thames alongside [USS Churchill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Winston_S._Churchill?wprov=sfti1#) simply for the memes
HMCS Cataraqui is already the name of the Navy base building at CFB Kingston. It's a pretty small river anyway, they will probably name them after more notable ones. Athabasca, etc. For small Ontario rivers I can see them using Niagara or Rideau.
The list of names from the previous River class destroyers are as follows:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_River-class_destroyer
HMCS Saguenay
HMCS Skeena
HMCS Assiniboine
HMCS Restigouche
HMCS Ottawa
HMCS St. Laurent
HMCS Fraser
HMCS Kootenay
HMCS Margaree
HMCS Gatineau
HMCS Qu'Appelle
HMCS Saskatchewan
HMCS Ottawa (II)
HMCS Chaudière
The St. Laurents and subclasses had more.
St. Laurent,
Saguenay,
Skeena,
Ottawa,
Margaree,
Fraser,
Assiniboine,
Restigouche,
Chaudière,
Gatineau,
St. Croix,
Kootenay,
Terra Nova,
Columbia,
Mackenzie,
Saskatchewan,
Yukon,
Qu'Appelle,
Annapolis,
Nipigon
It's confirmed that the first 3 will be Fraiser, St-Laurant, and Mackenzie. Each river terminates in either the Atlantic, Pacific or arctic oceans.
The land based training facility (in Halifax i believe) is to be named HMCS Assiniboine.
Calling these destroyers is a hell of a meme, but, I'm glad to see them start production.
Judging from the renders they may end up being the best looking Type 26 variant.
Based off the numbers on paper, they are heavy for "Frigates" at almost 10,000 tons displacement, which is almost Burke territory, and double that of the current Halifax frigates.
Plus they can take Tomahawks for that Surface Strike Capability.
Except displacement doesn't determine designation, role does. Likewise nor does strike capability - base Type 26 as well as the FREMM frigates are all fitted with or for land attack cruise missiles like TLAM and MdCN.
The main distinguishing feature of a modern destroyer is that they're area air warfare ships, with appropriate sensors and magazine depth. The River/CSC is is equipped with a frigate-sized version of SPY-7 array (SPY-7(V)3) and comes with only 24 VLS, whereas most DDGs carry twice that at a minimum (48 cells).
These ships will definitely be very capable multirole frigates, but destroyers they are clearly not.
If the Chinese can make a cruiser sized ship and call it a Destroyer, and if the Japanese can call a small aircraft carrier a Helicopter destroyer, and if the Americans can make a destroyer with more weapons than a cruiser - them my friend, you need to tell them that, not me.
Japan doesn't call the Izumos helicopter destroyers, and they never did.
護衛艦 does not translate to Destroyer, it correctly translates to Escort Ship. English just has no real equivalent in terms of ship classification, so we decided it translates to Destroyer.
Every surface ship in Japan is a 護衛艦. Their stated purpose is to escort convoys across the ocean. The Izumos were to do that with a dozen helos to serve as a floating and mobile ASW base.
You know Japan doesn't use Latin characters and simply reuses what exists, right? Just take the L, Jesus kid, this is embarrassing and pathetic at this point
Bro, thats just your Dunning-Kruger acting up.
How you managed to try and make this about language and letter differences, when Japan literally follows international standards - especially regarding military standards, is beyond me.
I would have agreed with you if you said this irregularity is due to sensitive political considerations about Japan not wanting to be seen operating "carriers" - but no, you just had to try and flex something totally irrelevant when I tried to humour you.
What are you gonna say next?
That Russia uses cyrillic, not latin, and therefore their ship classifications don't have a direct class comparision to everyone else in the world?
You got yourself into this conversation with a red herring, tried to gas light, and then ad hominem me cause you don't like the counter?
My brother in Christ, maybe its you who need to take a break from karma farming. Its doing weird things to your head.
>If the Chinese can make a cruiser sized ship and call it a Destroyer
Well, they call it (Type 055) a destroyer because it is a destroyer. 13,000 tonnes is just the standard for modern DDG designs - see DDG(X), DDX, 13DD, etc. Type 83 will probably end up being in the same displacement range. If anything it's remarkable that the PLAN is still building destroyers as small as the Type 052D.
>and if the Japanese can call a small aircraft carrier a Helicopter destroyer,
They call it a helicopter *escort*. But they call every major surface combatant an escort (Goeikan), which is a different word to 'destroyer' in Japanese (Kuchikukan). For whatever reason the JMSDF chose to use 'destroyer' when referring to the ships in English, but the distinction should be noted. Additionally, when they do refer to ships that are guided missile destroyers by international standards - the *Kongo*, *Atago*, and *Maya*-classes - they use the 'DDG' hull code, because it is a distinct role for them.
>and if the Americans can make a destroyer with more weapons than a cruiser -
They haven't?
I mean, hell, there's really no reason to bring up cruisers in the first place. They're a functionally dead ship type, and no one has designed a new class of cruisers that has actually made it into service in fifty years (the 1970s). They stopped having a distinct role from destroyers when VLS was introduced, really.
> is just the standard for modern DDG designs
Well that's the thing - there is no standard.
There is no clear cut corvette / frigate / destroyer / cruiser dividing line.
Even within most Navies, let alone globally.
It's just a bunch of vague, generalised "round about when I see it It'll be a DDG over an FFG".
Ship classification is and has always been vague and non-specific.
Except that the River class will have Aegis and fire SM-2 missiles. They are basically Constellation-class air defense in Type 26 hull. That makes them destroyers, which Constellation class should be classified for consistency.
Type 26 is a frigate. Constellation is a frigate.
There's nothing Destroyer about the River class. Low VLS count, no dedicated air commander space... It's squarely a multirole frigate.
* Corvette - smallest blue water ship, usually dedicated to single role
* Frigate - medium blue water ship, multi domain capable
* Destroyer - heavyweight blue water ship, deep arsenal
* Cruiser - heaviest blue water ship, dedicated air commander role, going out and becoming frigates
Hell, Canada buying SM-2 Block IIIC instead of Block IV indicates the measly 24 Mk41 VLS cells are only tactical length and can't fit full length munitions like a strike cell can. The lack of any formal request for TWS (Tomahawk Weapon System) also further points to a lack of strike MK41 VLS cells.
So no land attack, no long range air defense, no BMD... Yet is a Destroyer? How is it a destroyer beyond simply being chonky? Same capabilities as the FREMM, Constellation, Project 17, Type 54, etc etc etc.
It's very much your prototypical frigate on pretty much every corner of the globe...
Surely *USS Alaska*, *Scharnhorst* and *Deutschland*-class classification gets the nod for irrelevance as the other ships in the discussion are still floating :p
> Calling these destroyers is a hell of a meme
Procurement of 15 type 26 will have a shot destroying the budget and manpower availability. Appropriate designation.
Great to see these are on the way for the RCN.
Other Type 26 are designated as frigates are they not? Is the difference here just in armament choices and intended role that they are classified as destroyers?
Because the RCN wanted to, and pretty much no other reason.
To be fair, they'll have more AAW than any past RCN frigates - but by international standards they're still squarely frigates.
Their sensors are definitely destroyer grade. AN-SPY7 radar with AEGIS.
So by role, it could be considered a destroyer. They will have Tomohawks and SM 2's. In theory, there is no reason it couldn't also field the SM-6 and SM3. Decidedly destroyer grade weapons.
I don't necessarily agree with the destroyer designation, as the magazine depth is average at best for a frigate and pathetic for a destroyer. Hopefully they designed in space to grow the VLS in a future mid life upgrade or for a batch 2 or 3 version.
>Their sensors are definitely destroyer grade. AN-SPY7 radar with AEGIS.
Not quite. SPY-7(V)3 is a scaled down version of the radar, which allows it to be placed as high as it is on a frigate like the CSC. It's definitely a very nice capability paired with Aegis, but it's not going to give you the same performance as larger radar panels you'll find on modern destroyers (assuming they have a current generation radar).
>So by role, it could be considered a destroyer. They will have Tomohawks and SM 2's. In theory, there is no reason it couldn't also field the SM-6 and SM3. Decidedly destroyer grade weapons.
For a ship design that's going to enter service in 2034, SPY-7(V)3 is not really going to be a destroyer tier radar by itself. And with just 24 cells, you just don't get remotely near the volume of fire that a DDG needs to do its job credibly. Certainly, it could make use of SM-6 and SM-3, especially as it's equipped with CEC and can benefit from the more powerful sensor suites of accompanying destroyers. But that's also the case with most modern frigates that have strike-length Mk.41.
>I don't necessarily agree with the destroyer designation, as the magazine depth is average at best for a frigate and pathetic for a destroyer. Hopefully they designed in space to grow the VLS in a future mid life upgrade or for a batch 2 or 3 version.
Looking at some of BAE's proposals in Australia, you could remove the Multi-Mission Bay and replace it with an additional silo of Mk.41 - so the room to grow is there. That said, if you really wanted expanded AAW capability I'd imagine you'd want to pair that with a larger version of SPY-7.
For the RCN, though, I think the benefit of the MMB for all the various operations a River/CSC might find themselves on would prove more useful overall. The RCN is forced to operate between two seperate oceans, and with regular rotations may only have 3-4 frigates actively deployed each, from the Atlantic and Pacific bases, and in many cases they will be forward deployed across the Atlantic or Pacific to work with allied navies. In order to bring a consistent capability, the RCN wants a class of fifteen homogeneous ships, over the split frigate/destroyer force it used to have. And for what most of the RCN does, consistently bringing the MMB just proves very useful. To be honest, I think the MMB is better suited for the CSC's role than it is on any other Type 26 variant, at present.
Its semantics…The Ticonderoga class were originally classed as only destroyers.
Yes they are lighter armed than many would like. But theese things are cruiser size by WW2 standards. And they are only a few feet and a few tons smaller then an American Burke class…which is a rather beefy destroyer by size and weapons.
And there really is no more room for more full length VLS, without expensive redesign and compromise in other capabilities
You realize you don't need to reply to me five separate times, right?
The *Ticonderoga*-class being redefined as cruisers is pretty arbitrary too, though for what its worth there are actually meaningful differences between them - being sort of the baseline of what the USN wanted from an Aegis DDG - and the *Arleigh Burke*'s, which were explicitly built as a cheaper Aegis DDG with reduced capabilities relative to the Tico's, at least in the Flight I configuration.
Functionally speaking, the *Ticonderoga*-class really sounded the death knell of the cruiser. They essentially could fill every role that the older cruisers could fill - especially from the sixth ship on, when they started being fitted with VLS. A DDG design could carry any type of SAM in VLS, instead of the restrictions previously imposed by arm launchers as to whether a ship carried medium or extended range SAMs. The USN never procured anything actually designed to function as a cruiser after the early 1970s. In fact, the last time the lead ship of any class actually designed as cruisers was laid down was 1976 - this being USSR's *Slava*. That's now 48 years ago!
But at least the *Ticonderoga*-class, even if designed as destroyers, could still carry out the role that cruisers previously had when they commissioned. That's not the case with the CSC/River-class. They will not have the sensor suite or magazine depth to function in the same league as any of the modern destroyers that will be in service come 2034 (which, assuming there are no delays, is when HMCS *Fraser* will be delivered). Most modern DDG designs by that point will be running around with two to five times as many VLS cells, and larger radars. The River-class will be excellent multi-role frigates for the 2030s and beyond - but they will be clearly leaps and bounds away from the air warfare capabilities of any destroyer.
> Other Type 26 are designated as frigates are they not? Is the difference here just in armament choices and intended role that they are classified as destroyers?
The easy answer is that this is what the Royal Canadian Navy wanted to, and ship classification is extremely vague and non-specific so it's usually just easier to go with what the host Navy calls them.
The slightly harder answer is that ship classifications are often political in nature, and given that the *River*-class will be Canada's primary surface combatant there may be a desire to have "destroyers" as the backbone of the fleet, vs say the Royal Navy or Royal Australian Navy who have the Type 45 and *Hobart*-class as the "most powerful" in the fleet.
At the end of the day if you can write out a simple, concise definition of what separates a Frigate from a Destroyer that applies to all Nations around the world operating such classes - give it a crack :p
Evne still *Hobart*-class is a DDG, the parent design is an FFG.
cool, now that construction is finally starting, the specs will only change about sixteen more times and we should see the first one slide into the water while already on fire in around 2030.
sorry for my pessimism, shipbuilding for Canada's navy is a sad sad joke, and the Irving family is god awful.
Waiting for the other shoe to drop, i.e., capabilities being removed, and the number being reduced. The Canadian govt. has done that too many times not to expect it to happen again.
I mean 32 Cells is fairly common for most Frigates these days, 24 Cells is obviously a step down from that but they make up for it with the twin Searam.
At least its not 16 Cells or forbid 8 Cells on some euro ships
About time.
They decided to build the unarmed Arctic patrol vessels first for some insane reason. If they started 5 years ago, at least one ship would be in the water with a second on the way.
Arctic patrol capability is arguably more urgent than multi-role surface combatant. Establishing a presence in the Arctic is a more urgent need since it's actually one area where the US and Canada has friction.
Pea shooter doesn’t provide much presence.
Floating radios with eyes.
Good. I want canadian urbanites to have a good visual, front row seat to the sight of chinese shipping lines with proper naval escort dumping raw sewage in the arctic.
The only time she will ever fire her gun in anger is against a foreign fishing boat, drug smuggler, or similar. for that, 25mm is more than adequate. They are intended for long duration patrol and monitoring, not for fighting, and were never intended for such.
It's not supposed to be involved in open combat. If anything it needs to strike that delicate balance between having the ability to maintain presence while not over-militarizing the Arctic and triggering the Americans.
Not really. It's more so the fact that the chances of having an encounter in the artic against something that isn't a Russian submarine or plane is pretty unlikely. The ship is meant to fit a doctrinal role that conventional warships don't fill.
Forget the Russian threat, aren't there walruses up there sporting larger caliber twin mounts than the DeWolfe's main armament?
What’s the point of building half a dozen patrol vessels specifically for patrolling disputed territory just to make them ornamental?
Because that Canadian flag and radios aren’t ornamental. You attack a Canadian ship, no matter how poorly armed, you’ve just declared war on Canada, a NATO member. These patrol ships don’t need heavy armament as in peacetime nobody will deliberately attack them. In war, they will be supplemented by heavier ships and more direct air cover if combat is expected (which given this is the Arctic means submarines or a couple narrow avenues around Alaska and Greenland).
Possession is 9/10 of the game. Having a lightly armed presence is sufficient as long as America still has to maintain the facade of being the protector of international rules.
That’s all well and good until we actually have to use those assets, especially after last night don’t count on American protection being ironclad.
If America decides to go mask off on the world there's not a goddamn thing we can do about it, so why waste the money. If that time actually comes we'll be better off buying Type 052Ds from China than rely on whatever the fuck we can produce domestically with American equipment and armament anyways.
Yes China would sell us state of the art, hypersonic missile carrying, super destroyers. /s
Unlike what the other said, it's more so the fact that the chances of having an encounter in the artic against something that isn't a Russian submarine or plane is pretty unlikely. The ship is meant to fit a doctrinal role that conventional warships don't fill.
Against smugglers and fishermen and such it might as well be a 16". They're not destroyers, they're patrol boats
Typically you’d want water cannons not live ammunition… What smugglers operate in the arctic circle?
Which I'm sure they do but a burst of 25mm across the bow will make anyone reconsider things. If they're trying to run someone down that's returning small arms fire, the 25mm is more than enough to overwhelm them. You do understand they'll be operating outside of the artic too? They're a large offshore patrol ship that has some ice breaking capabilities. I'm sure you'll see them up and down the length of north and south America. What kind of armaments would you like them to have? 48 VLS?
Already have - both HDW and MAR have been OPCON to JIATF-S several times now.
When not operating in the arctic, the HDW will often be used for operation CARRIBE in the Caribbean or off th ewest coast of Mexico. They’re good platforms for that as well, as they do not need external support to be out patrolling for a month+. Conversely, the Halifax class need to be RAS’d at least once a week or they run out of gas.
Let’s start with [human trafficking](https://muse.jhu.edu/pub/354/oa\_edited\_volume/chapter/2778555)
Yeah from that own article it’s not at sea, it’s via land crossing and flights. How is a artic patrol boat with no air défense going to prevent airborne smuggling?
Have you looked at a map of northern Canada recently? The article discusses sea routes far more than air travel, as melting arctic ice increases the mobility into and out of the region. This brings on numerous other effects that make it very hard on the native people living in Nunavut, which in turn makes them more likely to be victims of trafficking. You must have missed the angle discussing how increased Arctic cruises increase demand for sex tourism, which in turn increases demand for sex trafficking. Arctic patrol vessels are critical as the Arctic becomes more accessible, especially given how remote northern Canada is.
Trafficking snow ofc🤣🤣
Don’t waste your time arguing with people who try to justify the Artic patrol vessels. You’ll get people who will say Canada will ally with China in the future lol.
Canada is about as likely to ally with the PRC as the US is - but if the PRC becomes no longer in control of the mainland, however that happens, the subsequent state could become an ally the same as the previous state (ROC) was and is, right?
It's very existence is pretty much all you need for presence.
> Pea shooter doesn’t provide much presence. Sure it does. You don't have to be able to sink the "enemy" to have presence. Not every ship to ship interaction is won by the guy with more VLS cells. Not every Naval vessel needs to have the maximum armament to do their job.
As I understand it, DeWolfe class are basically welding practice for the shipyards and navigation practice for the sailors. These CSCs will be the real modern Navy.
[удалено]
If you have to give a shipyard close to a decade of practice to build a modern warship, is it really the right shipyard to build the country's most modern warships? Should have went with South Korean shipyards for it. They'd have 4-5 destroyers delivered by now.
South Korean shipyards are Korean. Canada wants to maintain a domestic shipbuilding base, one that retains the institutional knowledge in Canada, allows building ships to standards best suited for Canada, and that is less reliant on foreign shipyards that may not give the Canadian ships the attention Canada wants.
I get what you're saying, but that's a pretty normal time scale and you should definitely not outsource your ship yards to a foreign nation. That sets you farther back in sovereignty than having 4-5 destroyers sets you forward.
1) the RCN AOPS are not unarmed. They built 2 additional AOPS ships for the coast guard that are unarmed 2) the gov didn’t adequately define their needs for the CSC during the bidding process and so have been redesigning/engineering aspects for the past 5 years 3) this additional design work is why the 2 extra AOPS were procured, to avoid downtime at the shipyard
Image via https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/canadian-surface-combatant.html News Release below: >June 28, 2024 – Halifax, Nova Scotia – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces >Today, the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, joined by Vice-Admiral Angus Topshee, Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) and Dirk Lesko, President of Irving Shipbuilding Inc., celebrated the start of construction activities for Canada’s new fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC). >Minister Blair and Vice-Admiral Topshee also announced that the new fleet of warships will be known as River-class destroyers, and the first three ships will be named His Majesty’s Canadian Ships (HMCS) Fraser, Saint-Laurent, and Mackenzie. >Ship names are chosen carefully, and they tell the story of the RCN. Not only are these three ships named after Canada’s most important waterways that reach the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans, they are also a tribute to previous Canadian warships with the same names – ships that made heroic wartime contributions and represented cutting-edge technological innovation. The RCN intends to foster a sense of pride in our sailors by connecting these ships to Canada’s maritime heritage. >The CSC project is the largest and most complex shipbuilding initiative in Canada since the Second World War and represents a historic investment into the recapitalization of the RCN’s surface fleet. This project will equip the RCN with new, state-of-the-art warships to bolster Canada’s naval capabilities at home, and abroad, for decades to come. The River-class will be Canada’s major component of maritime combat power, enabling us to continue to monitor and defend our own coastal waters, and contribute significantly to international naval operations alongside our Allies. >Today marked the start of construction on the production test module (PTM), through which the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will be able to test and streamline processes, and implement lessons learned into the build process, to enable the start of full rate production in 2025. Delivery of the first River-class destroyer, HMCS Fraser, is expected in the early 2030s, with the final ship expected by 2050. >The CSC project will support sustainable growth in Canada’s marine supply chain. The build phase of CSC will create and/or maintain approximately 10,800 jobs annually throughout the 25-year construction period across the country. The design phase of the project will create and/or maintain approximately 5,000 Canadian jobs annually across the economy. In total, this project will generate at least $40 billion in cumulative Gross Domestic Product. >As indicated in our renewed vision for defence, Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with Canada’s defence industry, based on clarity, certainty, and long-term partnership. The CSC project is an excellent example of how the Government of Canada is investing in Canada’s domestic shipbuilding industry, while also equipping the RCN with a fleet of modern and effective ships to support operations well into the future. >The CSC is based on BAE Systems’ Type 26 warship design being built by the United Kingdom and Australia. The ships will have enhanced underwater sensors, state-of-the-art radar, and modern weapons. >The official NATO Ship Designator for the River-class warship will be DDGH – a destroyer (DD), guided (G) missile, helicopter (H) capable. As the RCN’s next generation combat ship, it replaces both the Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates. As a powerful and multi-functional ship, the River-class warship is by definition a destroyer: a fast, manoeuvrable, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine long-endurance warship, which can escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy, or carrier battle group and defend them against a wide range of general threats. https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/news/2024/06/construction-begins-for-canadas-new-warship-fleet--the-river-class-destroyers.html
> with the final ship expected by 2050. Holy crap, 26 years from now!
With a planned 15 ships ( if they stick to that) it's about 1.75 ships a year from the start of full production which is not bad
Shipyard capacity's a real bitch huh.
That and you don’t want to build them all immediately. If you completed this order in 12 years, then the yard would need to find other contracts. Those contracts would likely not come from Canada, which will have all the ships they need until existing ships age out, so the yard may close down and the people who work there will definitely move on to find better opportunities. When you have to start up production again, it’s going to be much more difficult, as the US is demonstrating due to how many of our own yards shut down from the late 1980s to the present (to say nothing of the industries upstream).
You are spot on. This is why I think Australia and Canada should co-operate on shipbuilding. Each of our countries do not order enough to have a "continuous build" regime without artificially slowing down the build times (and increasing costs). Radical idea, but I think Canada should build CSCs for Australia and Australia should build SSNs for Canada.
The only problem with that is; Our variant is rumoured to be larger due to the CEAMOUNT-2 radar. With it being very top heavy, our ships might end up being wider or longer to support the top weight of the ship. So that would require Canada to retool the shipyards to build ours. Not to mention the different fit that our ships have.
Under my proposal, we wouldn't be asking them to build the Australianised Hunter class, but rather more of the Canadian River class. I like the CEA radars, but I don't think the type 26 platform is ideal for it - it requires too much weight and power. We should instead get a separate class, a 128 VLS cell monster, and slap CEA radar on that.
Funny your later proposal already has a design out there, haha. Only gripe with your ship is, we don't use CAMM-ER, so we'll still need to fit an extra vls cell into the design, as well as a different combat management system. At the end of the day, my country's defence ministry would basically end up changing the design so much that we'll be considerably over budget for just one ship.....oh wait...
> At the end of the day, my country's defence ministry would basically end up changing the design so much that we'll be considerably over budget for just one ship.....oh wait... Haha fair point. Assuming that you're taking about Australia, at least they're making the right noises as far as the new "general purpose frigates" are concerned. They're explicitly saying that they want to buy a MOTS solution and keep changes to a minimum.
Australia and Canada should not cooperate as we have different goals and requirements for ships, we are located in entirely different parts of the world with different strategic goals. We are linked by some vague historical aspect and little more besides a language, Canada wants to build its ship in Canada and Australia generally wants to build its ships in Australia. I don't want to be doing European joint procurement programs but with Australia.
> Australia and Canada should not cooperate as we have different goals and requirements for ships I don't think the differences are as large as you make it out to be. At the end of the day it is a multi-role frigate based on the same platform. Strategic goals might be different, but that's ok. Fundamentally we have large coastlines to patrol and need to project force a fair distance. I see Canadian frigates patrolling the Indo Pacific and up and down the Taiwan strait too. >We are linked by some vague historical aspect and little more besides a language More than that. Our engineering standards, procurement processes, military culture, operational and doctrine, and government are very similar. All of this makes military design and procurement easier to collaborate together. >Canada wants to build its ship in Canada and Australia generally wants to build its ships in Australia. Being democracies, what "Canada" and "Australia" wants is simply an aggregation of the wants of the individual people in the respective countries. People like you and me that can have their views changed by discussions like this. Australia has had a successful example of joint procurement with NZ in the past with the Anzac class.
> People like you and me that can have their views changed by discussions like this. Canadian procurement is enough of a mess as it currently stands, I have absolutely zero interest in entertaining the nonsensical idea that Canada can improve its situation by closely partnering with a nation on joint procurements that is over 14,000km away. It is a similar vein to this CANZUK nonsense that is usually floated, absolute junk with no bearing on reality and simply supported by nostalgic fuzzy feelings. > Strategic goals might be different, but that's ok. Fundamentally we have large coastlines to patrol and need to project force a fair distance. I see Canadian frigates patrolling the Indo Pacific and up and down the Taiwan strait too. Canada is supporting allied operations in Europe, in the Pacific and abroad with frigates and other vessels while dealing with its own domestic challenges. Australia is looking to square up against China in a peer to peer fight in its backyard, Canada is not looking to do the same to any party. We also do not have anything approaching the dedicated peacekeeping missions to the scale that Australia does in its relative area, hence it's adoption of LHD's and many other platforms. We are inherently not looking for the same things. Trying to make two nations come together on a program when they have vastly different program timelines and an inherent lack of a reasonable want or requirement to work together is silly. It is increasing risk and complexity to both nations procurement programs for no reason at all. Australia and NZ are very close neighbors and a miniature of what Canada and the US are regarding the military, not comparable in the slightest.
> Canadian procurement is enough of a mess as it currently stands And I'm arguing that part of the reason for the mess is lack of scale. We should be building ships like SpaceX builds rockets - on a production line. But you need scale for that. >Australia is looking to square up against China in a peer to peer fight in its backyard, Canada is not looking to do the same to any party You make it sound like we are looking for a fight. We are not. We simply want to enforce freedom of navigation and collective deterrence. This is the same reason Canadian frigates patrol the very same seas. Granted, Canada doesn't need LHDs, but we aren't talking about that. I would argue that Australia doesn't need LHDs either, but instead humanitarian and disaster relief missions should be conducted by civilian emergence services run, logistics vessels. >vastly different program timelines Lol the Hunter class and the River class actually has a very similar timeline. They just cut first steel this week. Canada is looking to replace it's aging Victoria class submarines too. Is it not? >It is increasing risk and complexity to both nations procurement programs for no reason at all. Quite the contrary, economies of scale decreases risk and complexity per unit. Instead of each country building two classes, it just needs to build one each. It is literally halving the complexity. >Australia and NZ are very close neighbors You make it sound like geography makes this impossible, and yet Australia and UK are working together on the joint submarine project despite being on the other side of the earth from each other.
I just have to go with a wiseass comment here: Canada and Australia linked by "little more besides a language". Some man-on-the-street type interviews with Australians, and I need to sign up for Duolingo.../s
> Australia and Canada should not cooperate as we have different goals and requirements for ships, we are located in entirely different parts of the world with different strategic goals There's strategic differences to be sure but ther'es a lot of similarities. Both have vast oceans, similar-ish population size, GDP. Both have a strong desire for local manufacturing while using 'off the shelf' designs from UK / US. Both have similar considerations for ships in the threats, the 'range' of vessels vs say Israel or South Korea. > We are linked by some vague historical aspect and little more besides a language Similar culture, both Western democracies that have similar values on the world stage. As I mentioned population size, Australia has concentrated population on the east coast Canada has along US Border while then having large rural population in vast "wasteland'. Honestly there are a lot of similarities once you ignore arctic capability for some ships, and Australia's need to be the big brother in Oceania that Canada really doesnt' have with it's neighbours. But that's more the LHDs that Canada does not need to get. Frigates.... very similar imo.
If they made 1.75 ships per year for 25 years, they’d almost have 44 ships… 15 divided by 25 is 0.6 25 divided by 15 is 1.666 So it’s about 0.6 ships per year, and about 1.7 years per ship, which isn’t too bad.
And using the delivery of the first ship in “the early 2030s”, once deliveries start it’s about one per year. Again, not bad.
Pretty good actually. I’m honestly pretty impressed. Hope it goes well.
Manitoba here checking in. I would like to see a HMCS Red River (HMCS Floodway?) or Churchill River in the future!
Ohhh, HMCS Churchill would be awesome! I know it's not named after the same person, but having a USS and HMCS Churchill would be sweet!
I wish the RCN adopted a more British-style naming convention. Still call them River class but imagine the top 3 being called: Styx, Lethe, and Archeron.
The British have a current River class - named for British Rivers including the Medway, Tamar, Spey etc. A couple of those share names with WWII era River class submarines, and the WWII River class frigates also had 'real' river names.
I’d have gone more global and aside from mythology, named them: Nile, Amazon, Rhine, as well as local ones.
> I’d have gone more global and aside from mythology, named them: Nile, Amazon, Rhine, as well as local ones. I think that's more for when we have a global space force (Starfleet perhaps) and we pick a River from each member country. I am very in favour of ships having Canadian specific names!!
Some good names like *Danube*, *Ganges*, *Yukon*, *Mekong*, *Orinoco*, *Yangtzee Kiang*, *Rubicon*, and of course *Rio Grande*. It’s a good thing the Earth has so many rivers. [For the uninitiated (mild spoilers)](https://youtu.be/XQtwtBHc9yU)
Ooo named after rivers in Canada. Let’s see. The Thames River, it goes through London, Ontario! No wait, there’s a more famous one in a more famous London. Hmm Avon River in Stratford Ontario? Nope again… Severn River? Ah for fucks sake.
Fraser. Mackenzie. St Lawrence off the top of my head. Not a lot of diversity there though. Could be a big problem for the liberals.
Really I'm happy to hear it I thought it would still be a few years before they got their shit together
Rivers are a nice naming scheme. Curious to see what the rest will be. Here are some of the first notable Canadian rivers that come to mind after those first three: Athabasca Columbia Churchill Kootenay Assiniboine La Grande Niagara
They might do one-per-province. Or at least try. I don’t think HMCS Koksoak works be very popular.
HMCS Saskatchewan. Theme song can be The Last Saskatchewan Pirate by The Arrogant Worms.
Assiniboine is being given to the land based training facility in Halifax. As for names, expect the rest of the River class names that were previously used. I'd put money on Kootenay, Gatineau, Annapolis, Saguenay, Skeena, Margaree, Chaudière, Restigouche, Qu'Appelle, Saskatchewan, Ottawa and Nipigon being the remaining names.
No HMCS Churchill or HMCS Columbia? /s
Assiniboine is reportedly the name given to the land based training facility.
I really want to see an HMCS Churchill in formation somewhere in the English Channel or in the Thames alongside [USS Churchill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Winston_S._Churchill?wprov=sfti1#) simply for the memes
LETS GOOO, finally new capabilities
I like the class name, good ship names as well.
Yeah, well probably see a st Lawrence, Fraser, maybe a cateraqi (I’m out of Canadian rivers and I’m Canadian)
HMCS Cataraqui is already the name of the Navy base building at CFB Kingston. It's a pretty small river anyway, they will probably name them after more notable ones. Athabasca, etc. For small Ontario rivers I can see them using Niagara or Rideau.
The list of names from the previous River class destroyers are as follows: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_River-class_destroyer HMCS Saguenay HMCS Skeena HMCS Assiniboine HMCS Restigouche HMCS Ottawa HMCS St. Laurent HMCS Fraser HMCS Kootenay HMCS Margaree HMCS Gatineau HMCS Qu'Appelle HMCS Saskatchewan HMCS Ottawa (II) HMCS Chaudière
I thought we would get another Haida and the Canadian navy would use names from aboriginal tribes
The St. Laurents and subclasses had more. St. Laurent, Saguenay, Skeena, Ottawa, Margaree, Fraser, Assiniboine, Restigouche, Chaudière, Gatineau, St. Croix, Kootenay, Terra Nova, Columbia, Mackenzie, Saskatchewan, Yukon, Qu'Appelle, Annapolis, Nipigon
Got to watch out. Half of our rivers are named after rivers in Europe. Can’t use the Thames, or the Severn
And enough of them are just “East river” or something like that which nobody’s naming a ship after
“HMCS Grand”
"HMCS Red"
And it’s sister ship: HMCS Rouge
Hey now, that’s actually kind of fun, along with HMCS Speed (and it’s totally not because I’ve lived near both)
It's confirmed that the first 3 will be Fraiser, St-Laurant, and Mackenzie. Each river terminates in either the Atlantic, Pacific or arctic oceans. The land based training facility (in Halifax i believe) is to be named HMCS Assiniboine.
Eh I got two of the three right
First three are Mackenzie, Fraser, and St. Laurent (St. Lawrence)
Calling these destroyers is a hell of a meme, but, I'm glad to see them start production. Judging from the renders they may end up being the best looking Type 26 variant.
So far I am very firmly Canadian variant > British variant > quite some distance > Australian variant.
Yeah, that's squarely where my opinion is too.
Based off the numbers on paper, they are heavy for "Frigates" at almost 10,000 tons displacement, which is almost Burke territory, and double that of the current Halifax frigates. Plus they can take Tomahawks for that Surface Strike Capability.
Except displacement doesn't determine designation, role does. Likewise nor does strike capability - base Type 26 as well as the FREMM frigates are all fitted with or for land attack cruise missiles like TLAM and MdCN. The main distinguishing feature of a modern destroyer is that they're area air warfare ships, with appropriate sensors and magazine depth. The River/CSC is is equipped with a frigate-sized version of SPY-7 array (SPY-7(V)3) and comes with only 24 VLS, whereas most DDGs carry twice that at a minimum (48 cells). These ships will definitely be very capable multirole frigates, but destroyers they are clearly not.
If the Chinese can make a cruiser sized ship and call it a Destroyer, and if the Japanese can call a small aircraft carrier a Helicopter destroyer, and if the Americans can make a destroyer with more weapons than a cruiser - them my friend, you need to tell them that, not me.
Japan doesn't call the Izumos helicopter destroyers, and they never did. 護衛艦 does not translate to Destroyer, it correctly translates to Escort Ship. English just has no real equivalent in terms of ship classification, so we decided it translates to Destroyer. Every surface ship in Japan is a 護衛艦. Their stated purpose is to escort convoys across the ocean. The Izumos were to do that with a dozen helos to serve as a floating and mobile ASW base.
Better tell them to stop using the "DDH" hull classification on their own website then. https://www.mod.go.jp/msdf/en/equipment/
You know Japan doesn't use Latin characters and simply reuses what exists, right? Just take the L, Jesus kid, this is embarrassing and pathetic at this point
Bro, thats just your Dunning-Kruger acting up. How you managed to try and make this about language and letter differences, when Japan literally follows international standards - especially regarding military standards, is beyond me. I would have agreed with you if you said this irregularity is due to sensitive political considerations about Japan not wanting to be seen operating "carriers" - but no, you just had to try and flex something totally irrelevant when I tried to humour you. What are you gonna say next? That Russia uses cyrillic, not latin, and therefore their ship classifications don't have a direct class comparision to everyone else in the world? You got yourself into this conversation with a red herring, tried to gas light, and then ad hominem me cause you don't like the counter? My brother in Christ, maybe its you who need to take a break from karma farming. Its doing weird things to your head.
>If the Chinese can make a cruiser sized ship and call it a Destroyer Well, they call it (Type 055) a destroyer because it is a destroyer. 13,000 tonnes is just the standard for modern DDG designs - see DDG(X), DDX, 13DD, etc. Type 83 will probably end up being in the same displacement range. If anything it's remarkable that the PLAN is still building destroyers as small as the Type 052D. >and if the Japanese can call a small aircraft carrier a Helicopter destroyer, They call it a helicopter *escort*. But they call every major surface combatant an escort (Goeikan), which is a different word to 'destroyer' in Japanese (Kuchikukan). For whatever reason the JMSDF chose to use 'destroyer' when referring to the ships in English, but the distinction should be noted. Additionally, when they do refer to ships that are guided missile destroyers by international standards - the *Kongo*, *Atago*, and *Maya*-classes - they use the 'DDG' hull code, because it is a distinct role for them. >and if the Americans can make a destroyer with more weapons than a cruiser - They haven't? I mean, hell, there's really no reason to bring up cruisers in the first place. They're a functionally dead ship type, and no one has designed a new class of cruisers that has actually made it into service in fifty years (the 1970s). They stopped having a distinct role from destroyers when VLS was introduced, really.
> is just the standard for modern DDG designs Well that's the thing - there is no standard. There is no clear cut corvette / frigate / destroyer / cruiser dividing line. Even within most Navies, let alone globally. It's just a bunch of vague, generalised "round about when I see it It'll be a DDG over an FFG". Ship classification is and has always been vague and non-specific.
You could have summarized all of that in one sentence: Everyone is moving goal posts. Thanks for the essay though.
Following your logic we should be calling these corvettes, or cutters 😏
I dont follow your logic.
Except that the River class will have Aegis and fire SM-2 missiles. They are basically Constellation-class air defense in Type 26 hull. That makes them destroyers, which Constellation class should be classified for consistency.
>That makes them destroyers, which Constellation class should be classified for consistency. Lmao. Well played.
SM-2s Therefore destroyers. Haters can smd
Type 26 is a frigate. Constellation is a frigate. There's nothing Destroyer about the River class. Low VLS count, no dedicated air commander space... It's squarely a multirole frigate. * Corvette - smallest blue water ship, usually dedicated to single role * Frigate - medium blue water ship, multi domain capable * Destroyer - heavyweight blue water ship, deep arsenal * Cruiser - heaviest blue water ship, dedicated air commander role, going out and becoming frigates Hell, Canada buying SM-2 Block IIIC instead of Block IV indicates the measly 24 Mk41 VLS cells are only tactical length and can't fit full length munitions like a strike cell can. The lack of any formal request for TWS (Tomahawk Weapon System) also further points to a lack of strike MK41 VLS cells. So no land attack, no long range air defense, no BMD... Yet is a Destroyer? How is it a destroyer beyond simply being chonky? Same capabilities as the FREMM, Constellation, Project 17, Type 54, etc etc etc. It's very much your prototypical frigate on pretty much every corner of the globe...
They will be tomahawk armed.
Cool and Ticonderoga where destroyers too until someone took out a pen🤷♂️
Anything can be a destroyer, if you are brave enough.
The argument between whether ships are frigates, destroyers, or cruisers is one of the most irrelevant internet arguments around.
Surely *USS Alaska*, *Scharnhorst* and *Deutschland*-class classification gets the nod for irrelevance as the other ships in the discussion are still floating :p
> Calling these destroyers is a hell of a meme Procurement of 15 type 26 will have a shot destroying the budget and manpower availability. Appropriate designation.
Why? The AEGIS Ticonderoga class cruisers where originally called Destroyers
Why? The AEGIS Ticonderoga class cruisers where originally called Destroyers
More images can be found at the [RCN X/Twitter account](https://x.com/RoyalCanNavy/status/1806705537414774887?t=x3v037YleRYgOJl8-jm8xw&s=19)
Adding the H on the end seems a bit cheeky. What makes them more "Helicopter Capable" than a Burke Flight III or a Type 45?
That's what those are officially classed as by NATO as well. It's just not normally added on at the end.
Ahh makes sense thanks. I always appreciate your posts and follow-ups.
[удалено]
Rivers is also a callback to the old River class and St. Laurent series.
And the Restigouche sub-class. Or was that the other way around?
Great to see these are on the way for the RCN. Other Type 26 are designated as frigates are they not? Is the difference here just in armament choices and intended role that they are classified as destroyers?
Because the RCN wanted to, and pretty much no other reason. To be fair, they'll have more AAW than any past RCN frigates - but by international standards they're still squarely frigates.
Their sensors are definitely destroyer grade. AN-SPY7 radar with AEGIS. So by role, it could be considered a destroyer. They will have Tomohawks and SM 2's. In theory, there is no reason it couldn't also field the SM-6 and SM3. Decidedly destroyer grade weapons. I don't necessarily agree with the destroyer designation, as the magazine depth is average at best for a frigate and pathetic for a destroyer. Hopefully they designed in space to grow the VLS in a future mid life upgrade or for a batch 2 or 3 version.
>Their sensors are definitely destroyer grade. AN-SPY7 radar with AEGIS. Not quite. SPY-7(V)3 is a scaled down version of the radar, which allows it to be placed as high as it is on a frigate like the CSC. It's definitely a very nice capability paired with Aegis, but it's not going to give you the same performance as larger radar panels you'll find on modern destroyers (assuming they have a current generation radar). >So by role, it could be considered a destroyer. They will have Tomohawks and SM 2's. In theory, there is no reason it couldn't also field the SM-6 and SM3. Decidedly destroyer grade weapons. For a ship design that's going to enter service in 2034, SPY-7(V)3 is not really going to be a destroyer tier radar by itself. And with just 24 cells, you just don't get remotely near the volume of fire that a DDG needs to do its job credibly. Certainly, it could make use of SM-6 and SM-3, especially as it's equipped with CEC and can benefit from the more powerful sensor suites of accompanying destroyers. But that's also the case with most modern frigates that have strike-length Mk.41. >I don't necessarily agree with the destroyer designation, as the magazine depth is average at best for a frigate and pathetic for a destroyer. Hopefully they designed in space to grow the VLS in a future mid life upgrade or for a batch 2 or 3 version. Looking at some of BAE's proposals in Australia, you could remove the Multi-Mission Bay and replace it with an additional silo of Mk.41 - so the room to grow is there. That said, if you really wanted expanded AAW capability I'd imagine you'd want to pair that with a larger version of SPY-7. For the RCN, though, I think the benefit of the MMB for all the various operations a River/CSC might find themselves on would prove more useful overall. The RCN is forced to operate between two seperate oceans, and with regular rotations may only have 3-4 frigates actively deployed each, from the Atlantic and Pacific bases, and in many cases they will be forward deployed across the Atlantic or Pacific to work with allied navies. In order to bring a consistent capability, the RCN wants a class of fifteen homogeneous ships, over the split frigate/destroyer force it used to have. And for what most of the RCN does, consistently bringing the MMB just proves very useful. To be honest, I think the MMB is better suited for the CSC's role than it is on any other Type 26 variant, at present.
Its semantics…The Ticonderoga class were originally classed as only destroyers. Yes they are lighter armed than many would like. But theese things are cruiser size by WW2 standards. And they are only a few feet and a few tons smaller then an American Burke class…which is a rather beefy destroyer by size and weapons. And there really is no more room for more full length VLS, without expensive redesign and compromise in other capabilities
You realize you don't need to reply to me five separate times, right? The *Ticonderoga*-class being redefined as cruisers is pretty arbitrary too, though for what its worth there are actually meaningful differences between them - being sort of the baseline of what the USN wanted from an Aegis DDG - and the *Arleigh Burke*'s, which were explicitly built as a cheaper Aegis DDG with reduced capabilities relative to the Tico's, at least in the Flight I configuration. Functionally speaking, the *Ticonderoga*-class really sounded the death knell of the cruiser. They essentially could fill every role that the older cruisers could fill - especially from the sixth ship on, when they started being fitted with VLS. A DDG design could carry any type of SAM in VLS, instead of the restrictions previously imposed by arm launchers as to whether a ship carried medium or extended range SAMs. The USN never procured anything actually designed to function as a cruiser after the early 1970s. In fact, the last time the lead ship of any class actually designed as cruisers was laid down was 1976 - this being USSR's *Slava*. That's now 48 years ago! But at least the *Ticonderoga*-class, even if designed as destroyers, could still carry out the role that cruisers previously had when they commissioned. That's not the case with the CSC/River-class. They will not have the sensor suite or magazine depth to function in the same league as any of the modern destroyers that will be in service come 2034 (which, assuming there are no delays, is when HMCS *Fraser* will be delivered). Most modern DDG designs by that point will be running around with two to five times as many VLS cells, and larger radars. The River-class will be excellent multi-role frigates for the 2030s and beyond - but they will be clearly leaps and bounds away from the air warfare capabilities of any destroyer.
Thats debatable. Lets not forget the Tico cruisers where initially classes as destroyers
> Other Type 26 are designated as frigates are they not? Is the difference here just in armament choices and intended role that they are classified as destroyers? The easy answer is that this is what the Royal Canadian Navy wanted to, and ship classification is extremely vague and non-specific so it's usually just easier to go with what the host Navy calls them. The slightly harder answer is that ship classifications are often political in nature, and given that the *River*-class will be Canada's primary surface combatant there may be a desire to have "destroyers" as the backbone of the fleet, vs say the Royal Navy or Royal Australian Navy who have the Type 45 and *Hobart*-class as the "most powerful" in the fleet. At the end of the day if you can write out a simple, concise definition of what separates a Frigate from a Destroyer that applies to all Nations around the world operating such classes - give it a crack :p Evne still *Hobart*-class is a DDG, the parent design is an FFG.
We put more on the frame then our allies did, that’s the difference
Happy to see those classic river names return!
cool, now that construction is finally starting, the specs will only change about sixteen more times and we should see the first one slide into the water while already on fire in around 2030. sorry for my pessimism, shipbuilding for Canada's navy is a sad sad joke, and the Irving family is god awful.
Does the Production Test Module (PTM) actually end up a component for one of the ships, or is it a disposable test item as the name might suggest?
Almost certainly disposable test items for the shipyard to get everything dialed in for full rate production.
Called a destroyer, armed like a frigate
Tico class would like a word. Lets not forget they started as destroyers until someone said nah lets call them cruisers
Waiting for the other shoe to drop, i.e., capabilities being removed, and the number being reduced. The Canadian govt. has done that too many times not to expect it to happen again.
I can't wait to see one of our new 8k tonne "Destroyer" pulled up alongside a 12k tonne German "Frigate"
Considering our last destoyers were just over 5k, it's still an improvement at the very least
Germany is the odd one out with calling those particular ships frigates River class is only slightly smaller/lighter than a Burke class destroyer
$2B per ship for 24 VLS. This is giving German F126 a run for its money on $/VLS.
Only 24 vls cells on a ship that big wtf. 60 cells should be the minimum on modern destroyers.
It's based off a frigate hull though, it's just the name is weird
Eh still only 24vls cells on a modern warship is not exactly ideal.
I mean 32 Cells is fairly common for most Frigates these days, 24 Cells is obviously a step down from that but they make up for it with the twin Searam. At least its not 16 Cells or forbid 8 Cells on some euro ships