"U.K., Canada Discuss Joint Frigate Development"

[The Bread Guy]

Mods - couldn't find this elsewhere, but feel free to merge if more's already here.

U.K., Canada Discuss Joint Frigate Development
ANDREW CHUTER, Defensenews.com, 1 Feb 2011 14:02
Article link

Britain is in talks with Canada about a possible joint program to develop a frigate for their respective navies, according to U.K. Defence Minister Gerald Howarth.

Responding to questions from parliamentarians Jan. 31, Howarth said the British government is in "close discussion with the Canadians" on a possible collaborative program to develop the Global Combat Ship, destined to replace Type 23 frigates in Royal Navy service by the start of the next decade.

The minister said Australia, Malaysia, New Zealand and Turkey have expressed interest in the warship program, to be called the Type 26 in Royal Navy service, when Defence Secretary Liam Fox recently visited the various countries ....

More on link.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Very Interesting.  I don't that we have done this World War 2...

Be interesting to see if that many countries can agree on even the basic design (hullform, propulsion) without the whole thing ending up looking like a camel...

Forget any two countries agreeing on sensors, weapons or information management systems.

Still, fiscal desparation makes strange bedfellows.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Very Interesting.  I don't that we have done this World War 2...

Be interesting to see if that many countries can agree on even the basic design (hullform, propulsion) without the whole thing ending up looking like a camel...

Forget any two countries agreeing on sensors, weapons or information management systems.

Still, fiscal desparation makes strange bedfellows.

Indeed, and a serious proposal - which this might be - could force partner nations to remember, for once, that the "best" (which usually means "made here, by us") is the implacable enemy of the "good enough" (generally, "made there by them").

 

[McG]

Indeed, and a serious proposal - which this might be - could force partner nations to remember, for once, that the "best" (which usually means "made here, by us") is the implacable enemy of the "good enough" (generally, "made there by them").

Sometimes the politically palitable solution to this is to design internationally and build locally.  It doesn't  usually make good sense for things that come of a production line, but it may be a good fit for ship building.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

One of my old XOs mentioned this early last year, now it sounds like its getting closer to a reality. Interesting

 

[Halifax Tar]

Would this be a replacement for the CPFs ? As they are the only frigates we have in service.

 

[NavyShooter]

This sounds like something I heard about a while back...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFR-90

That's sort of it I think....

NS

 

[McG]

Would this be a replacement for the CPFs ? As they are the only frigates we have in service.

I understand the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) will replace both destroyers & Frigates with one single class of ship.

 

[NavyShooter]

Aye,

And if we share a common hull design amongst at least us and the UK, it would probably drop the costs.

NS

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Aye,

And if we share a common hull design amongst at least us and the UK, it would probably drop the costs.

NS

Then would we not have to compete with British Shipyards if we go ahead with them on this?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Maybe...maybe not.

The article lacks detail, but suppose we are talking a design consortium here- Once the design is set, you build it where you want.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Can someone remind us, please, of how the Australia/NZ frigate project worked?

 

[MarkOttawa]

And why cannot our government inform us about these things?  Even if only in general terms?

By the way if you think any Canadian government will spend $41 billion or so on Canadian Surface Combatants--well I have my doubts:
http://www.vanguardcanada.com/FutureFleetMack

...
Canadian Surface Combatant
The most anticipated vessel in the new wave of shipbuilding is the Canadian Surface Combatant, the 15 ships that will replace the current mix of destroyers and frigates. With acquisition costs of about $26 billion and in-service support estimated at almost $15 billion over twenty years, these ships will be Canada’s military presence on the world’s oceans...

Given likely defence expenditures over the coming years I wonder why there should be a Canadian "military [sic] presence on the world’s oceans."  As opposed to waters of direct Canadian interest.  At some point some Canadian government is going to have to engage in a serious defence review--capabilities to conduct specified types of missions necessary vs. money available--as the British have just done, whatever one may think of their conclusions.  And each of our services should think seriously about what the CF as a whole may best be able to do under budget constraints and how they may best be able together to provide governments with the most effective military capability to do realistic things within budgetary realities.

So that any government has the most flexible and capable CF to use to achieve serious Canadian security and foreign policy purposes rather than just domestic political ones (the shipbuilding strategy and F-35-related jobs for examples).  Because if there is a really big war in which we become involved any Canadian contribution will be quite slight.  Without time as previously to build up a full force.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[larry Strong]

And why cannot our government inform us about these things?  Even if only in general terms?

I can just imagine what the reaction from the masses is going to be, when on top of A-stan, the F 35  schmozzle et al, they find out that we could/might be looking at new warships..................

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Can someone remind us, please, of how the Australia/NZ frigate project worked?

Quite well from what I can gather from both my Kiwi and Aussi friends.  Mind you, that was only two, fairly like-minded partners.  And even then,  each country's ships ended up quite differently armed (not that that is a drawback- it seemed to work for each country).

As for you Mark- which waters are of Canadian interest and which aren't?  Just everything within 200nm?  All of the Atlantic and Pacific and Arctic Oceans?  All Ocean waters of the world?

Right now, we have one of only about a dozen navies in the World capable of routinely operating anywhere (basically).  We are also a Maritime Nation that relies heavily on trade.  If pirates (or others) interupt the flow of goods around the Horn of Africa- is that Canada's problem, or not?  How about the Straits of Malacca?  How about the Med?  Or Carribean?  If not us- then who?

My point is: more than even fighters, a robust Navy is something Canada must have.  We trade by Sea a great deal.  Keeping sea lanes open everywhere is our business.  Not ours alone, too be sure, but it is our responsibility.

Having a coastal navy or an armed constabulary is not going to cut it- not if we don't want both our Maritime Trade policy and a good deal of our foreign affairs dictated to us.

 

[HavokFour]

I can just imagine what the reaction from the masses is going to be, when on top of A-stan, the F 35  schmozzle et al, they find out that we could/might be looking at new warships..................

We have to get serious on the Arctic at some point...

 

[larry Strong]

We have to get serious on the Arctic at some point...

That might be a way of selling it.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

Quite well from what I can gather from both my Kiwi and Aussi friends.  Mind you, that was only two, fairly like-minded partners.  And even then,  each country's ships ended up quite differently armed (not that that is a drawback- it seemed to work for each country).

That was also with a design (MEKO) that was specifically made for situations where each building country can specify their own weapons/sensors. You couldn't really expect that with another design.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I can just imagine what the reaction from the masses is going to be, when on top of A-stan, the F 35  schmozzle et al, they find out that we could/might be looking at new warships..................

They have been talking about this for years but because it has been renamed, rethought, reroled etc the public generally does not notice that this office has been stood up for years working on this project.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Because if there is a really big war in which we become involved any Canadian contribution will be quite slight.  Without time as previously to build up a full force.

There is no strategic, tactical, political or other basis for such statement. Until and unless we can reasonably predict the nature, location, cause and "build-up to" the next war, and the parties involved,  we cannot state what our contribution will be - or ought to be - nor how much time we will have to get our forces ready for the fight.

I know you like to create controversies, Mark. And perhaps it is a good way to get people thinking differently and launch discussions. But if you honestly believe these statements of yours I quoted here, and then considering that Canada is extremely unlikely to be invaded by anyone (with the US the only likely candidate anyway), then what you are advocating is the replacement wholesale of the CF by a small territorial defence force, lightly armed (in military terms) to back up the police in their duties regarding control of illegal immigrants, drug runners, pollution control, etc.

If that is your position you should advocate a reduction of defence budget in the order of $15b per year and downsizing the CF to about 10,000 total, mostly to train the "militia".

But in reality, there is the reverse point based on your statement: If Canadians want to make a reasonable contribution to an upcoming "really big war" and know there is no time to build up a force for it, then they should agree to invest heavily to build up the required force now, in peace time, before the "big one".

Back on topic now: IMHO, after the bad experience the Brits have had with the European Horizon Frigates Program, I think they will do two things in their next cooperation program: (1) they will ensure that the responsibilities and timelines are spelled out very strictly, and (2) they will chose partner countries that are as like minded as possible on matters of defence. Both of these facts militate in favour of getting on board with them, as all the countries listed in the press release are the most likely allies and cooperators in any international operations and have a similar outlook on defence matters.

Also, concerning the ANZAC frigates program: It is not necessarily a reference frame for the collaboration with the UK proposed here because New Zealand has no warship shipbuilding capability: All ANZAC's were built in Australia - the participating countries only specified what they wanted (or not) fitted on their version.