Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

Black Jack Shellac

Black Jack Shellac

Active Member
Further to the CCGS Sir John Franklin.

It is back in Vancouver at Seaspan's alternate yard near Lonsdale Quay in North Vancouver. I checked on the marine traffic page to confirm. I can see it from my office at work, and from the end of the pier at Canada Place (I walk it every day at lunch). It is currently on a floating dry dock beside a damaged ferry and a damaged freighter.

Seems that Seaspan is making some hay fixing damaged ships at that yard.
 
spoz

spoz

The Bunker Group
Verified Defense Pro
Looks like they lost control of the turn, even with a tug in attendance. Suggests it might have been a mechanical, but time will tell, I guess.
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Another interesting article on the Cyclone: Leading the way - Skies Mag

With regards to staff attrition, it is interesting that they attribute the low attrition rate in the Cyclone squadrons to the fact that everyone is excited to work on the new kit. No sh*t! Should be required reading for our political class.

In any case, this bird looks like it provides a significant enhancement to Navy capabilities. Along with all the upgrades, current and planned, the Halifax class look to be relevant for quite some time.
 
Black Jack Shellac

Black Jack Shellac

Active Member
Black Jack Shellac said:
Further to the CCGS Sir John Franklin.

It is back in Vancouver at Seaspan's alternate yard near Lonsdale Quay in North Vancouver. I checked on the marine traffic page to confirm. I can see it from my office at work, and from the end of the pier at Canada Place (I walk it every day at lunch). It is currently on a floating dry dock beside a damaged ferry and a damaged freighter.

Seems that Seaspan is making some hay fixing damaged ships at that yard.
Click to expand...
I saw CCGS Sir John Franklin leave port this morning under its own power. Not sure if this means it is fully repaired, but I think we can assume that it will not interfere with the other ships under construction at Seaspan (at least for now).
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Hopefully all is well. Can’t be pissing around resulting in the AORs being further delayed! Davie is whining for another conversion build so SeaSpan needs to get its $hit together. Despite junior’s failings of late our electorate is stupid enough to give him another mandate and he will cave to Davie pressure.
 
N

Novascotiaboy

Active Member
John the electorate isnt happy with the SNC debacle. Come August the Admiral Normab trial will rip a whole new wound open with the Liberals and the beauracrazies that have truly f#€&ed things up including Wrnick and Brison.

The Liberals are toast .

"Make Trudeau a drama teacher again"
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Novascotiaboy, we can only hope this is the case. The electorate is fickle and $hit happening shorty before voting time is critical. The Norman case could well be the issue that hopefully ends junior. I won’t even bitch about an arts grant that allows him to return to his failed drama role.:D
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Following up on post 1676, the new JSS radars (SAAB Sea Giraffe AMB) are the same as those deployed on the Independence class LCS: Saab to deliver Sea Giraffe radars for US Navy

At one point the RCN had indicated an interest in giving their AORs (now JSS) more than just a token self defence capability, so as to eliminate the requirement for a frigate escort in a low to mid-intensity conflict. The talk was to arm these ships with a CIADS of some type, perhaps RAM. The renderings I have seen only show CIWS, but it does beg the question why such a relatively high-end radar for a supply ship. Also interesting is these ships will have CMS 330.

More on the SAAB Sea Giraffe AMB: Radar Basics - Sea Giraffe AMB
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
I guess the optimistic view on this is an intention for JSS ships to have enhanced protection. The pessimistic view is the Canadian economy will decline during the CSC build resulting in far fewer ships than the 15 planned thus requiring additional defensive capabilities for the JSS vessels. As some reports have eluded to, the combined costs of CSC and the fighter replacement programs really are demanding on the public purse. Add in public apathy wrt defence I can see pollies throwing defence acquisitions under the bus regardless of the October election results.
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
John Fedup said:
If this link is correct in suggesting the sixth AOPS will cost $800 million, more than the unit cost of the already contracted ships, IMHO this doesn't bode well for the chances of seeing 15 CSC being built.

Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship fleet to fully operational in 2025, says DND
Click to expand...
Given who wrote this (David Pugliese), I think we can safely say that the article is largely incorrect, or, at the very least, missing context. He didn't even get the class designation correct. These vessels in RCN service are now referred to as AOPV (Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessel), not AOPS. That alone speak volumes about how much effort this author puts into research.
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Calculus said:
Following up on post 1676, the new JSS radars (SAAB Sea Giraffe AMB) are the same as those deployed on the Independence class LCS: Saab to deliver Sea Giraffe radars for US Navy

At one point the RCN had indicated an interest in giving their AORs (now JSS) more than just a token self defence capability, so as to eliminate the requirement for a frigate escort in a low to mid-intensity conflict. The talk was to arm these ships with a CIADS of some type, perhaps RAM. The renderings I have seen only show CIWS, but it does beg the question why such a relatively high-end radar for a supply ship. Also interesting is these ships will have CMS 330.

More on the SAAB Sea Giraffe AMB: Radar Basics - Sea Giraffe AMB
Click to expand...
This is the same radar that is on the Aussie LHDs: Canberra-class landing helicopter dock - Wikipedia

The RCN clearly has other duties in mind for these ships than straight up replenishment.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Calculus said:
Given who wrote this (David Pugliese), I think we can safely say that the article is largely incorrect, or, at the very least, missing context. He didn't even get the class designation correct. These vessels in RCN service are now referred to as AOPV (Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessel), not AOPS. That alone speak volumes about how much effort this author puts into research.
Click to expand...
Considering the government we have, perhaps the name change is to further confuse the apathetic public. I must admit I never noticed the "S" to "V" change. Any idea why ? Seems to me at 6,400 tons, ship is as reasonable as vessel for a description. It certainly is strange for a 6th of a class to cost so much more during a reasonably short build period (4-5 years?). I guess we will see the numbers eventually.
 
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
John Fedup said:
Considering the government we have, perhaps the name change is to further confuse the apathetic public. I must admit I never noticed the "S" to "V" change. Any idea why ? Seems to me at 6,400 tons, ship is as reasonable as vessel for a description. It certainly is strange for a 6th of a class to cost so much more during a reasonably short build period (4-5 years?). I guess we will see the numbers eventually.
Click to expand...
....or it is because it is due to what I posted in #1690. If the is any truth to the previous comment about the AOPV cost for the sixth copy then perhaps their is an issue with the proposed costs for national ship building program. This is not unique to Irving, SeaSpan will blow past the AOR budget apparently.
 
Black Jack Shellac

Black Jack Shellac

Active Member
John Fedup said:
....or it is because it is due to what I posted in #1690. If the is any truth to the previous comment about the AOPV cost for the sixth copy then perhaps their is an issue with the proposed costs for national ship building program. This is not unique to Irving, SeaSpan will blow past the AOR budget apparently.
Click to expand...
Twice the price and just as nice

Above is an earlier article from David Pugliese that explains the additional cost was to slow down (drag out) construction of the last vessel to prevent a gap in shipbuilding at Irving, thus preventing the cost of layoffs and rehiring. I think they did a trade-off and the additional cost was cheaper than the alternative.

As far as losing some of the frigates - I suspect that is always on the table, but with Irving up JTs nether region, I doubt the liberals would cancel any ships, and I don't think the cons would either - but 10 years from now, who can say.
 
Last edited:
John Fedup

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
Agree, all things are possible 10 years down the road. The economy will dictate what happens, regardless of which party is in power. Annual deficits continue at all government levels. Between the CSC and fighter replacement defence requires almost $100 billion for these two programs alone over the next 20 years. This is a demanding sum even if the existing economic conditions remain more or less the same. Then there is the JSS program and coast guard renewal along with allow other defence needs to consider during the next 20 years. If the economy goes south, there is no question in my mind which department will have to suck it up to make ends meet, again, regardless of which party is in power. With increasing trade tensions, especially wrt the US, tough times may lie head. The USMC trade agreement won't get signed this year IMO and if nothing occurs by early 2020, the US election will eliminate passage in 2020.
 
C

Calculus

Well-Known Member
Additional confirmation that an LM radar, derived from LRDR, was part of the LM CSC bid (at 10:04):

Also confirmation that this will be the same radar on the F110 from Navantia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top