Novascotiaboy
Active Member
The future HMCS Hampton Grey.
So does this mean three ships per coast or are we likely to see 2 west and four east?
So does this mean three ships per coast or are we likely to see 2 west and four east?
I actually found this line a little concerningThis sixth AOPS is more about dragging out the CSC build date and keeping Irving's Workforce employed rather than increasing the RCN’s presence. Nevertheless six is better than five.
It sounds to me like they might be foreshadowing a cutback in frigate numbers ... or maybe I am just being paranoid.A sixth patrol ship will greatly increase the capacity of the Royal Canadian Navy to deploy AOPS simultaneously, at home or abroad. Additionally, a fleet of six AOPS will allow our frigates to focus on further tasks, allowing the RCN to use its fleet more effectively
I dont think it is paranoia but I can see the east coast screaming bloody murder if the frigate purchase size got reduced, I think it is more likely to see a split production between Davie and Irving.I actually found this line a little concerning
It sounds to me like they might be foreshadowing a cutback in frigate numbers ... or maybe I am just being paranoid.
Irving was looking at an 18 month gap between the 5th AOPS and the start of work on the CSC. This fills the gap (along with repair work on the current fleet), thus eliminating the real possibility that the yard would have to start laying off skilled workers before the start of CSC production, which is what ASC is experiencing now in Australia. It was a wise move, in my opinion, as it brings the RCN back to the minimum AOPS requirement (which was 6-8 ships), while keeping the Irving assembly line hot until the first CSC. This wasn't exactly a surprise, I might add, as the press have been predicting this announcement since August.I actually found this line a little concerning
It sounds to me like they might be foreshadowing a cutback in frigate numbers ... or maybe I am just being paranoid.
I don't believe there is any chance Davie will get any part of the CSC program. That ship has sailed, so to speak. They could get some Coast Guard work, however. The CCG is going to need approximately 12 light and medium icebreakers over the next 15-20 years, which are not currently part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, and given both Seaspan and Irving are pretty busy with programs in that time frame, it bodes well for Davie. There is a capacity problem in Canada, and no appetite whatsoever to build offshore, so I would say things are looking pretty positive for Davie in the short to medium term. Not to say the work will be given to them without competition, as there are several other yards that could build some of the smaller vessels, but Davie does have a great deal of ice breaker experience, which should play in their favour when scoring a bid.I dont think it is paranoia but I can see the east coast screaming bloody murder if the frigate purchase size got reduced, I think it is more likely to see a split production between Davie and Irving.
Where did you see anything about paying Irving extra for number 6? I was curious about that as well, but I could find nothing about extra costs in any of the press coverage.Wasn’t #6 to have been costed in the original plan. Here Irving gets paid for the sixth when it should have been paid for through savings in the $3.4 billion.
My god we suck at buying equipment for our military.
The future HMCS Hampton Grey.
So does this mean three ships per coast or are we likely to see 2 west and four east?
So does this mean Canada is going out of the submarine business?Hardly a surprise here, the ruling Liberals have rejected a Commons committee report to replace the Victoria class subs. One more reason to turf junior out of office, as if we needed additional reasons.
Liberals reject committee recommendation to replace Victoria-class subs – no desire for subs with under-ice capability
I think that there is more concern about maintaining the Canadian shipbuilding industry then there is in equipping the navy with ships that they actually need. Probably the only chance of a submarine replacement could be if it were a local build. Once again looking at the Australian experience that would be a very long and hard road. Australia can at least point to its relatively recent experience in building the Collins class ... but Canada hasn't built submarines since WW1.If the Liberals win next year’s election, the additional damage they will inflict on our economy will reduce the defence commitments planned already and the chances for a sub replacement will approach zero IMO.
They appear to be throwing the baby out with the bath water with this court bid, as the article suggests they have to prove what they have tendered during selectionWell it appears the legal fluster cuck has started over the CSC decision. Frankly, I thought Navantia would have been the company launching a protest. Doesn’t matter if it is pipelines, fighters, or frigates, procurement on just about anything in Canada is hopeless. GD disgrace.
Failed warship bidder sues to scuttle deal | The Chronicle Herald