So its due to politics? Makes sense.
Was just wondering if there was a particular historical reason they chose that name.
Thanks,
Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates
- Thread starter stephen weist
- Start date
Was just wondering if there was a particular historical reason they chose that name.
Thanks,
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Speculation on my part but the original name was Queenston class (after an English victory over the Americans at Queenston Heights during the War of 1812. Imagine the shock for junior’s minions, naming a class of ships after a battle, that was won by English troops in Ontario, and worst of all the name was selected by Steven Harper’s Conservative government.
Can see why someone would want to change the name from the Queenston Class but still don't understand why you would pick the same name as the previous class.
They could have called it the Preserver Class and kept the same names and it would be clear which class you are talking about.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
There simply was no reason to change the Harper government decision, they are different vessels, a new class name was a correct decision. Some Canadians know what junior is, an anatomical part where the sun doesn’t shine.
Public reporting backed up by internal documents shows political virtue signing over the objections of the navy did occur in the JSS naming process, but it was by the previous Conservative government in selecting the Queenston-class name in the first place whereas the subsequent Liberal government changing the JSS name to Protecteur-class was actually done to respect navy preferences and traditions. It seems there was just little interest in the navy for ships to be named after historical land battles. Reusing the names also allows the perpetuation of previous Battle Honours.
Yes, I agree it'd be clearer for it to be the Preserver-class and I have no idea why that wasn't done. Preserver was decommissioned later than Protecteur, but by the time the renaming announcement was made both ships were decommissioned and names available. Moving away from the Queenston-class names wasn't an appeal to Quebec, but perhaps making it the Protecteur-class rather than Preserver-class was.
JSK to Supply Torpedo Launcher System for Canadian Surface Combatant - Naval News
Canadian defence firm JSK Naval Support (JSK) has been selected by Lockheed Martin Canada to supply its Torpedo Launcher System (TLS).
www.navalnews.com
In CSC news, the contracts for the CSC's Torpedo Launcher System has been signed with deliveries starting in 2024. Hopefully that means CSC construction would have started by 2024.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
So if and when the conservatives form a government, the first JSS may not be completed so they can, like junior, rename the class once again. Wasn’t aware there was pork opportunities in naming ships.
Sadly it seems the damage to one of the main ballast tanks on HMCS Corner Brook from a pressure test last year cannot be fully repaired economically leaving "residual risk" even after repairs. The official government response is that the submarine still meets operational requirements with any further details being secret. The Victoria-class subs just can't catch a break and it can't be a good feeling for the submariners on Corner Brook if this leaves lingering doubts about the safety of the emergency blow system. In an ideal world, Canada would limit the scope and budget of the planned Victoria-class modernization in favour of speeding up their replacement, but that seems highly unlikely.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Agree, any quick replacement is very unlikely. There will be hell to pay if any accident occurs. Might be better to use Corner Brook for spare parts.
Well if Corner Brook's accumulating accidents and limitations eventually prevent her from performing safe and effective front-line service, hopefully she can at least be used as a training ship perhaps restricted to the continental shelf where the safety margins are better with shallower depth and more readily available rescue resources.
In CSC news, the latest interview with DND over the weekend doesn't really provide new information, but has the government again saying they are not over budget and are staying the course with the CSC.
I also noticed the latest edition of the RCN Maritime Engineering Journal talks about how they are designing the training program for the CSC and lists extended range guided munitions for the 127-mm gun as one of the capabilities they are planning for. I think this is the first mention of extended range guided rounds associated with the CSC although we'll have to see if planning translates to confirmed purchase.
In the meantime since the Halifax-class frigates look to stick around for another 20 years, the RCN should consider adopting the guided rounds the USN is fielding for the 57 mm Bofors in order to provide a useful capability upgrade as well as allowing initial real-world training and doctrine development in guided rounds which may inform their adoption for the CSC.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Are you aware of the gun selection, BAE or Oto Melara? A positive sign there is no backing down on the T26. Can’t see the Conservatives wanting to derail the CSC...unless they sell their souls to the NDP to form the next government. Suicidal IMHO if they did this.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
With the other four 5eyes partners either operating the MK 45 or soon will(RN) and both the RN and RAN going with the MK 45 on the Type 26, you would think they would go with the MK 45 but this is Canada we are talking about.
I haven't seen anything new about the gun selection yet. Having announced all the other major weapons on the CSC, it'd be interesting if we ever find out why the design team is still undecided on the main gun. I can only speculate that they are busy modelling whether the OTO 127/64's faster rate of fire and faster training/elevation provides a significant capability improvement and trying to estimate the design effort and cost of changing the gun to see whether it overcomes the Mk 45's advantage of already being in the Type 26 design and, as Redlands18 says, being used by the rest of the Five Eyes.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The RCN hasn’t used a 127 mm so looking at some alternatives isn’t unreasonable. The Iroquois class destroyers had 76 mm Oto Melara guns which were well thought of. Lots of different kit being used in the 3 T26 programs so as we have no investment in either 127 mm, both are on the table I guess. If the Oto Melara offers modest advantages at a reasonable extra cost then perhaps this gun should be selected. Personally, considering how Leonardo got shafted on the FWSAR selection, throwing a 127 mm bone in their direction might not be a bad idea, especially if they provided a side deal on Cormorant spares. The Cormorant fleet will need replacement before the CSC program ends. Then there is still some uncertainty about the Cyclone but that’s a RCAF issue, just like the CG’s Cormorants.
John has a good point about the 127 mm gun and IIRC the Leonardo gun offers greater ammo variety than the Mk-45 does, having more advanced rounds available. That does give cause for serious consideration. The only downside would be the inability to tap into the USN fleet train for support for it. I think if both Australia and the UK had gone with the Leonardo gun, then it may have been a different story. IMHO it is the better option considering the advanced ammo alone.
Yep, currently the Mk 45 Mod 4, has no ERGM that I am aware of... Several development options (Naval Excalibur, the future mooted hypersonic 127mm round etc) but nothing in-service or likely to be over the next few years...
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Considering the first CSC won’t be ready until 2030, BAE has at least 9 years to develop some new rounds, probably longer. The other question is whether our government would fund enhanced rounds like Volcano for a Oto Melara 127 mm gun.
The Iroquois (officially the Tribal class) actually completed with an Oto Malara 5”/54 which was replaced in the 80s as part of what I seem to recall was the TRUMP program.... A while ago, I agree but there is probably still some knowledge, and maybe a preference , there.
English?
The commander was from Guernsey. His mother was from an old Guernsey family - therefore French by name, & perhaps still French-speaking back then (most of the population still were). His paternal ancestry was from England - but 200 years earlier, so thoroughly mixed with locals. His deputy was born in Boston - Massachusetts, not Lincolnshire (though that's where his family came from). The next most senior officer was Scottish.
The troops? British regulars from two regiments, one from England & one from Wales, & rather more Canadian militia (including a black company), plus Mohawks (maybe 20-25% of the total).
MBDA Confirms Sea Ceptor Order for Canadian Surface Combatant - Naval News
MBDA has been awarded a contract by Lockheed Martin Canada to equip the Royal Canadian Navy's new Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) with the Sea Ceptor air defence weapon system.
www.navalnews.com
CSC development continues to slowly move along with the contract for CAMM and ExLS now awarded. It'd probably be nice for the RCN to quietly thank the RNZN for derisking the integration of CAMM with CMS330.
Our pleasure. That's three navies using Sea Ceptor and the LM CMS330 now It's also great to finally see Sea Ceptor in ExLS rather than just having it as a concept or a manufacturer's prototype.MBDA Confirms Sea Ceptor Order for Canadian Surface Combatant - Naval News
MBDA has been awarded a contract by Lockheed Martin Canada to equip the Royal Canadian Navy's new Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) with the Sea Ceptor air defence weapon system.
CSC development continues to slowly move along with the contract for CAMM and ExLS now awarded. It'd probably be nice for the RCN to quietly thank the RNZN for derisking the integration of CAMM with CMS330.