Royal Canadian Navy Discussions and updates

[John Newman]

I’m struggling to see how the Canadian schedule works for a P-8A acquisition:

• 2021/2022 Start Options Analysis
• 2023/2024 Start Definition
• 2027/2028 Start Implementation
• 2032/2033 Initial Delivery
• 2037/2038 Final Delivery

Initial delivery 10-11 years from now and final delivery 15-16 years from now, potentially with no new Poseidon orders, the line will most likely be shut down a number of years before 2030.

As for Boeing building a few P-8A white tails, I can’t really see that for a number of reasons.

Boeing appears not to be as financial back when the C-17A white tails were built, I think P-8A is a far more specialised and unique capability compared to C-17A which was more appealing to a broader audience.

Anyway, who knows? I just can’t see that happening.

 

[John Fedup]

I’m struggling to see how the Canadian schedule works for a P-8A acquisition:

• 2021/2022 Start Options Analysis
• 2023/2024 Start Definition
• 2027/2028 Start Implementation
• 2032/2033 Initial Delivery
• 2037/2038 Final Delivery

Initial delivery 10-11 years from now and final delivery 15-16 years from now, potentially with no new Poseidon orders, the line will most likely be shut down a number of years before 2030.

As for Boeing building a few P-8A white tails, I can’t really see that for a number of reasons.

Boeing appears not to be as financial back when the C-17A white tails were built, I think P-8A is a far more specialised and unique capability compared to C-17A which was more appealing to a broader audience.

Anyway, who knows? I just can’t see that happening.

I don’t think it will happen. Ten years to figure out how to buy a P-8! Even India didn’t need that period of delay. Just imagine the vast amounts of money wasted on keeping the Auroras flying for another 15-20 years.

 

[Todjaeger]

I’m struggling to see how the Canadian schedule works for a P-8A acquisition:

• 2021/2022 Start Options Analysis
• 2023/2024 Start Definition
• 2027/2028 Start Implementation
• 2032/2033 Initial Delivery
• 2037/2038 Final Delivery

Initial delivery 10-11 years from now and final delivery 15-16 years from now, potentially with no new Poseidon orders, the line will most likely be shut down a number of years before 2030.

As for Boeing building a few P-8A white tails, I can’t really see that for a number of reasons.

Boeing appears not to be as financial back when the C-17A white tails were built, I think P-8A is a far more specialised and unique capability compared to C-17A which was more appealing to a broader audience.

Anyway, who knows? I just can’t see that happening.

Not just the appeal of the aircraft needs to be considere3d, but also who the US would permit it to be exported to. Current P-8A Poseidon operators and those with already placed orders would be of little issue, but everyone else could be a different story. There is a reason the P-8I was developed, which was because all the kit and systems for the P-8A were not available for India. Keeping that in mind, it would make very little sense for Boeing to build at it's own expense on speculation, a few whitetails. There would be far too great a chance that there would either be no buyers, or that someone would need to spend even more resources to make the whitetails acceptable for export.

 

[STURM]

The Upholders had been in storage for years, which probably didn't help.

They were retired from RN service because it was felt that operating an all SSN fleet was more practical and cost effective. What I'm.curious about is whether the class was considered problematic by the RN itself. I remember on of the curators [ex submariner] at the sub museum at Gostport having nothing good to say about the Upholders. The first thing he said is ''they can't even dive''. He was exaggerating of course but has very strong and negative opnions about them.

They were first offered to Saudi and then other countries but there was no serious interest until Canada entered the picture.

 

[John Newman]

They were retired from RN service because it was felt that operating an all SSN fleet was more practical and cost effective. What I'm.curious about is whether the class was considered problematic by the RN itself. I remember on of the curators [ex submariner] at the sub museum at Gostport having nothing good to say about the Upholders. The first thing he said is ''they can't even dive''. He was exaggerating of course but has very strong and negative opnions about them.

They were first offered to Saudi and then other countries but there was no serious interest until Canada entered the picture.

Many years ago here on DT, one of the very senior members GF (most of us DT oldies know who I’m talking about), told the story of a briefing done in Canberra.

Apparently a team from the RAN went to the UK to inspect and look over the Upholder subs.

At that briefing they reported back that the subs were in a very poor material state (improper storage), and at the very same briefing members of the RCN were present and heard all that was said and what was wrong with them too.

And guess what? The Canucks still bought them.

Can’t say they weren’t warned.

 

[STURM]

Many years ago here on DT, one of the very senior members GF (most of us DT oldies know who I’m talking about),

I used to look forward to.his inputs and wondered what happened to.him.

 

[John Fedup]

Can’t say they weren’t warned.

I have always believed the RCN knew the Upholders were problematic but buying them was the only hope for preserving submarine capability. The interesting question would be did they tell Chrétien how bad they were and that billions would be needed to make them fit for service? $ucking Chrétien has been the RCN’s best naval victory since WW2.

 

[StobieWan]

I have always believed the RCN knew the Upholders were problematic but buying them was the only hope for preserving submarine capability. The interesting question would be did they tell Chrétien how bad they were and that billions would be needed to make them fit for service? $ucking Chrétien has been the RCN’s best naval victory since WW2.

Well, they made some strange and expensive decisions as well, like deciding to integrate Mk48 into the FCS which apparently ended up being expensive. I got the impression the Upholders were pretty competitive at the time and that if they'd been handed over as part of a hot transfer, they'd have been fine. However, as has been remarked, the RAN had the same chances for inspection the RCN had, and they concluded "No bueno"

 

[Pusser01]

I don’t think it will happen. Ten years to figure out how to buy a P-8! Even India didn’t need that period of delay. Just imagine the vast amounts of money wasted on keeping the Auroras flying for another 15-20 years.

I'd be interested to know what other countries Boeing might be targeting as possible P-8 new operators. Outside of Canada, I can only think of Singapore, Portugal & possibly Spain & Taiwan. Other than those, I can't think of any others off the top of my head that could afford & get the political approval to buy them. I am still surprised the Dutch gave up their ASW MPA capability when they did. Cheers.

 

[OldTex]

Well the PAF (Portuguese Air Force) are still using the ex-Dutch P3Cs but when it comes time to replace them I doubt that P-8A will be available. It might be more a case of MPA versions of C-295 or ATR-72 (if they are still available) might be likely replacements.

 

[ngatimozart]

Well the PAF (Portuguese Air Force) are still using the ex-Dutch P3Cs but when it comes time to replace them I doubt that P-8A will be available. It might be more a case of MPA versions of C-295 or ATR-72 (if they are still available) might be likely replacements.

Or the much talked about Airbus A320 MPA that has yet to see the light of day. Maybe the Canucks are hanging out to buy that.

 

[John Fedup]

Or the much talked about Airbus A320 MPA that has yet to see the light of day. Maybe the Canucks are hanging out to buy that.

Without Germany, France is stuck developing an A320 MPA on their own. Junior has no money for MPA development, he funded the A220 which unlike the Quebec government, his government has SFA equity in. Just another example of his incompetence in all things money related.

 

[STURM]

John,

What do you think PAL Aerospace's chances are of selling the P-4 [Dash 8 Q400] sa a cheaper alternative to the P-8 but one which is very capable?

 

[John Fedup]

John,

What do you think PAL Aerospace's chances are of selling the P-4 [Dash 8 Q400] sa a cheaper alternative to the P-8 but one which is very capable?

First off, the P-4 is paper at present and although Viking produces the aircraft at present, the P-4 version will require significant modification. As for capability, no details other than more range and ISR add-ons. Unlike the P-8, no mention of sonobuoy capacity, lightweight torpedoes or missile hardpoints. As PAL is ready a partner on the FWSAR C-295, I wonder why this aircraft wasn’t proposed as the MPA solution? My guess is a Canadian airframe might be a way to get pollie backing against DND opposition.

The P-8 is a vastly better solution that will be welcomed as something useful by our allies. Given the economic mess here, I really don’t know what the chances are for either. I would rather see the money spent on weapons inventory for future fighters and CSC than a P-4 development.

 

[swerve]

John,

What do you think PAL Aerospace's chances are of selling the P-4 [Dash 8 Q400] sa a cheaper alternative to the P-8 but one which is very capable?

If you want a Canadian aircraft, why not the Global 6000? Similar dimensions but can take off at much higher weight, has a very much longer range, & SAAB has already done a lot of work on it.

 

[John Fedup]

If you want a Canadian aircraft, why not the Global 6000? Similar dimensions but can take off at much higher weight, has a very much longer range, & SAAB has already done a lot of work on it.

Probably a better option than PAL’s P-4 concept. However the Bombardier logo on the Global Express jet, big political negative outside of Quebec. Also, like the P-4, the Saab offering isn’t what the DND wants but the pollies would not be concerned about that.

 

[Underway]

Like I was trying to warn everyone the new CSC factsheet has 24 Mk41VLS (and 6 ExLS not listed).

Before people freak out there are reasons for this, two of which I can point out here. First is the massive radar that cuts into margins. The second is that the Type 26 doesn't have shipboard torpedo tubes (the UK can afford to rely on carrier ASW helicopters, Canada cannot so doctrine must adjust) and the CSC does. This means they has to be cut weight/space out to install them and their associated equipment and torpedo magazines.

The RCN want's the extra missiles, they just wouldn't sacrifice capabilities elsewhere to make them fit.

This makes me look over to the Aussie program and wonder what/how they are managing. I know the programs talk to each other, BAE is the ship designer for all three of them.

 

[ngatimozart]

Like I was trying to warn everyone the new CSC factsheet has 24 Mk41VLS (and 6 ExLS not listed).

Before people freak out there are reasons for this, two of which I can point out here. First is the massive radar that cuts into margins. The second is that the Type 26 doesn't have shipboard torpedo tubes (the UK can afford to rely on carrier ASW helicopters, Canada cannot so doctrine must adjust) and the CSC does. This means they has to be cut weight/space out to install them and their associated equipment and torpedo magazines.

The RCN want's the extra missiles, they just wouldn't sacrifice capabilities elsewhere to make them fit.

This makes me look over to the Aussie program and wonder what/how they are managing. I know the programs talk to each other, BAE is the ship designer for all three of them.

The RCN are supposed to be using the Sea Ceptor as a CIWS type system. Whether that is going to work is another story. We'll just have to wait and see. Six ExLS will give 18 Sea Ceptor based on three Sea Ceptors per ExLS capsule.

Across the programs there are some similarities, such as hull and machinery, but more differences than not.

 

[Underway]

The RCN are supposed to be using the Sea Ceptor as a CIWS type system. Whether that is going to work is another story. We'll just have to wait and see. Six ExLS will give 18 Sea Ceptor based on three Sea Ceptors per ExLS capsule.

Across the programs there are some similarities, such as hull and machinery, but more differences than not.

ExLS carry four Sea Ceptors per launcher at least according to this documentation. As the CSC is fitted with 2x3 cells this works out to 24 missiles total.

ExLS 3 Cell Launcher

Number of other interesting things on the fact sheet. 8080 tons, no company assigned to the 30mm, EW antenna seem to have been stripped from the drawing, and the aft antenna farm is much shorter/further aft then in original drawings. One can assume that might have something to do with the big friggin radar arcs needed for that monstrosity in the mast!

Speculation follows: This number of VLS leads me to believe that Australia either will go with less VLS than 32 or... they will have to lengthen the ship. I haven't been into the Australia navy post in a while but last I checked their tonnage was higher then 8080. We'll see when the final designed are released /speculation

 

[ngatimozart]

ExLS carry four Sea Ceptors per launcher at least according to this documentation. As the CSC is fitted with 2x3 cells this works out to 24 missiles total.

ExLS 3 Cell Launcher

Yes I am very aware of what the documentation states but we have intel on the RN thread that in reality they can only fit three Sea Ceptor missiles in each capsule for the Mk-41 VLS and the ExLS. They are struggling with the fourth missile.