Destroyer Replacement Program

[cameron]

Hello all

I've just downloaded an exerpt of the Fall copy of Canadian Naval Review.  Haven't had time to read it yet, just browse through it.  One thing caught my eye though, in an article on procurement of future ships there is an editor's note that the SCSC has since been replaced by the Destroyer Replacement Program.  I haven't heard of this anywhere else, can any of you give me any more info on this Destroyer Replacement Program or sources where I can find such info, thanks.

 

[navymich]

There is a bit of information starting at this post and a few others following it.  Haven't seen a whole lot else around about it yet.

 

[NCS_Eng]

I was in error when I posted in the sub thread about the DRP coming up alongside the SCSC program. I've done a little digging through DGMFD and the CID and it looks like DRP has swallowed SCSC whole. It’s still quite a confusing project, as some of the documentation looks like it was lifted right from SCSC, while others are new for the Destroyer program, yet still make reference to the SCSC SOR... It looks to me like someone in DGMFD has broken off a part of the SCSC program and said "This is a high priority, and the SCSC is too ambitious.. lets break off the requirement for 4 ships to replace the destroyers and move them to the forefront". Again, that’s just a guess, but it looks like that’s what happened. Since the DRP entry in CID looks like it's built on top of the old SCSC project, it looks like we won't be seeing SC squared for a long while.

Reading the staff check, it looks like they evaluated all the same options that the CADRE program looked at a decade ago, A) "Trump the-Trumps" (Extend again) the 280s. B) Buy/lease off-the-shelf a completed ship C) Buy into an ongoing project (And the Australian Air Defence Destroyer was the heavy favourite) D) Build brand new in Canada. They are listed here in order of recommendation, from least recommended (A) to most (D)

The Staff check (and keep in mind this is as 'solid' as water) recommends option D for a whole host of reasons I won't go into here.

If you've got acess to the DWAN there is a some information to be had in the Capability Investment Database (search for Destroyer Replacement), including the Initial ID and the Staff Check (where most of my info is from)

This friday (23 Nov 07) The Maritime Capability Development Board is meeting and one of their agenda items is an update on the DRP. The minutes should be posted on the DWAN sometime next week.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

I was in error when I posted in the sub thread about the DRP coming up alongside the SCSC program. I've done a little digging through DGMFD and the CID and it looks like DRP has swallowed SCSC whole. It’s still quite a confusing project, as some of the documentation looks like it was lifted right from SCSC, while others are new for the Destroyer program, yet still make reference to the SCSC SOR... It looks to me like someone in DGMFD has broken off a part of the SCSC program and said "This is a high priority, and the SCSC is too ambitious.. lets break off the requirement for 4 ships to replace the destroyers and move them to the forefront". Again, that’s just a guess, but it looks like that’s what happened. Since the DRP entry in CID looks like it's built on top of the old SCSC project, it looks like we won't be seeing SC squared for a long while.

Reading the staff check, it looks like they evaluated all the same options that the CADRE program looked at a decade ago, A) "Trump the-Trumps" (Extend again) the 280s. B) Buy/lease off-the-shelf a completed ship C) Buy into an ongoing project (And the Australian Air Defence Destroyer was the heavy favourite) D) Build brand new in Canada. They are listed here in order of recommendation, from least recommended (A) to most (D)

The Staff check (and keep in mind this is as 'solid' as water) recommends option D for a whole host of reasons I won't go into here.

If you've got acess to the DWAN there is a some information to be had in the Capability Investment Database (search for Destroyer Replacement), including the Initial ID and the Staff Check (where most of my info is from)

This friday (23 Nov 07) The Maritime Capability Development Board is meeting and one of their agenda items is an update on the DRP. The minutes should be posted on the DWAN sometime next week.

I wonder how long we can extend the life of the 280s till we get a replacement...we've already had to retire and sink one of them (Huron). this could take up to ten years till we see any new hulls.

 

[ringo]

Seawaves magazine gives 2010 decommission date for DDH Algonquin along with AOR Preserver, Provider to
decommission 2011.
IMHO the AOR replacements will build followed by Arctic Patrol Ships then DRP's.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

Seawaves magazine gives 2010 decommission date for DDH Algonquin along with AOR Preserver, Provider to
decommission 2011.
IMHO the AOR replacements will build followed by Arctic Patrol Ships then DRP's.

Provider was decommissioned years ago, you must mean Protecteur? The JSS are supposed to be ready in 2014 I think, which is the replacement for the AOR.

 

[cameron]

Thanks guys, re: NCS_Eng i'm not surprised that option D was chosen, and I suspect that some of those "whole host of reason" were political.  However, while i'm all for supporting Canadian industry, with one 280 already scrapped and the remaining three due to be retired very soon, the Navy need new AAW capabilities yesterday, especially considering the theatres it's now operating in and the very real potential threats in those theatres. 

I would have thought that the logic behind DRP superceding SCSC would have been to get this urgent capability need to the Navy ASAP.  Which is why I think option C is the best option, and it would still allow Canadian industries to benefit.

P.S.  I think the Canadian Navy is doing a great job right now safeguarding the world's sea lanes and showing the flag,  keep it up. :cdnsalute:

 

[Sub_Guy]

Building new and in Canada is a good option, but I wonder if we would ever look at something off the shelf but built in Canada.  Many navies do this, and instead of building from the ground up it could save us some cashola.

The new Aussie destroyer is a Spanish F100, but will be built in Australia with some modifications (Vegemite storage rooms)

 

[Kirkhill]

.....with some modifications (Vegemite storage rooms)

I thought the Vegemite was kept with the POL.  ???

 

[Cloud Cover]

The new Aussie destroyer is a Spanish F100, but will be built in Australia with some modifications (Vegemite storage rooms)

I was down in Adelaide this past September. On the whole, my impression was that the RAN was not altogether happy about this political choice of base platform for their top pennant class of surface warface ships.  What they really wanted was a vessel nearly on par with the Burke class, with extreme modernization for less crew numbers. What they got was a smaller, less capable ship with same crew size + a lot of new features and capabilities tailored for Aussie industrial requirements [= lots of trouble=never-ending revisions and upgrades] all of which were below the mark for what the RAN spec'd in order to fulfill the role assigned by the government.

Still, the Aussies continue to build and grow capabilities befitting a middle power, while the Canadian Navy flounders in a sea of questionable designs, and no cutting of steel.       

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Seawaves magazine gives 2010 decommission date for DDH Algonquin along with AOR Preserver, Provider to
decommission 2011.
IMHO the AOR replacements will build followed by Arctic Patrol Ships then DRP's.

According to the ADM-MAT Material Group Project website, that is correct.  The delivery of the 1st JSS is 2012 with project complete in 2016, and the delivery of the 1st AOPS is 2013 with the project complete in 2019.

ADM Mat Material Group Project website:   http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/site/projects_e.asp

JSS Project Schedule:   http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/jss/JSS_Project_Schedule_e.asp

AOPS Project Schedule:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/admmat/dgmpd/aops/schedule_e.asp

Taken with the usual 'if all goes according to plan' comment, of course. 

 

[canuck101]

We can always hope they chose the modified version of the Arleigh Burke Class Aegis destroyer. It would ofcourse be a heavy ship at over 7370 tonnes but the core crew and air crew combined comes to 230. The DDG's that we have now are 5100 tonnes and a full crew of 280.

 

[geo]

Over the years, Canada has trashed pert much all of it's expertise in Warship design and construction.
Irving yards were dismantled after the Frigate program.... what capabilities they had developed were promptly - flushed down the pipes.  To decide on designing and building a new class of ships from scratch (again) is a recippe for disaster.

Unless there is foreward momentum (and not a full stop), there is no point in moving forward with "option D"

IMHO

 

[NCS_Eng]

I'd just like to further clear up some misconceptions. Option C, which is to buy into an existing program includes those "Canadian" ships being built in Canada.

Furthermore the option of getting Burkes comes up every time a Destroyer replacement project is created, and this one is no different. It was evaluated along with a number of other ship classes for Option B and C, and came out in the top 5. As 5th. This refers only to the Flight IIa ships, with Flight I and II having far too large a manning level.

It was noted as being very big, very expensive and would incur heavy Canadianization costs. The other Finalists were the aforementioned Australian vessel, the German F124, Spanish F100 (there were enough differences between the Spanish version and the Australian version to warrant a separate inclusion) and the Netherlands Provincien class.

I'd also like to point out that I'm giving only the smallest view into a 40 page document which is only itself simply a "Here are some options" paper. The paper also looked into some of the real world issues with buying from other countries (and thats why you won't see any ship classes from China or Russia, for instance)

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I say go German F124 stretched...

 

[Cloud Cover]

I say go German F124 stretched...

What are the damage control, living quarters and sustained heavy use characteristics of this class? Can they take a beating? It seems to me that, unlike the Germans, we are now likely to put our ships in harms way more often, over longer periods of time, and travel longer distances while working them through evolution after evolution [probably with smaller crews, I might add]. 

And most importantly, is the saur kraut and schnitzel locker big enough to hold real food? 

 

[cameron]

If ringo is correct then the Canadian Navy wouldn't have any area air defence capability after the 280's are scrapped for another two or three decade.  That is way too bloody long!!!  I agree with whiskey601 the Australian solution may not be perfect but at least it's a lot better than what we're doing right now.  Option C is not without its drawbacks sure, but let's be realistic, in this world you will hardly ever have a perfect choice in anything, especially not when it comes to procuring new and expensive military technology, and warships by virtue of being both a weapons platform and a floating military base have always been beset by more complex issues than most other military items.

Option C is NOT PERFECT but IT'S THE BEST OPTION.  This capability is one of our most urgently needed, along with tanks and heavy lift choppers and strategic airlift.  we may not be fighting a war on the high seas right now, but as I said in a related post a few months back, let's not make the same mistake as the British in 1982 and assume that because we aren't fighting one today we won't have to fight one tomorrow or the day after.

 

[Kirkhill]

NCS_ENG, whiskey and Ex-D:

Is the 6000 tonne Danish Absalon C&C ship a viable option as a platform?  Disregarding systems fit as I assume you will be modifying that regardless of what hull/machinery/controls you will be buying.

 

[IN HOC SIGNO]

NCS_ENG, whiskey and Ex-D:

Is the 6000 tonne Danish Absalon C&C ship a viable option as a platform?  Disregarding systems fit as I assume you will be modifying that regardless of what hull/machinery/controls you will be buying.

I toured the Absalon when she was here in 2005 or 06...nice ship.

 

[Bane]

      I know that this has been covered in other threads, but it is worthwhile to note here also.  Option 'D' would work well if ship procurment wouldn't be so contract based. Having a permenent yard, even of modest size, to produce a continuous but low volume of hulls is not to much to ask from one of the top 10 economies in the world, and the one with the most coastline.