Canada and the World

[Admiral Beez]

I just don't agree with giving them the Destroyer title when the UK and Australia are calling them Frigates.

Agreed. To keep it simple, frigates have primarily self defence and ASW capabilities, destroyers offer more area defence and command capability as well as being usually larger and faster than frigates. Unless our Type 26s have the displacement, sensors and armament of a British Type 45, USN Arleigh Burke or Japanese Kongō-class destroyers, we’re buying frigates. Mind you, ever since the days of the DDE/H programs, Canada’s thrown the destroyer title onto nearly everything.

 

[kEiThZ]

Mind you, ever since the days of the DDE/H programs, Canada’s thrown the destroyer title onto nearly everything.

Not really. For over two decades, we have had Halifax Class Frigates and Iroquois Class Destroyers. The latter of which we haven't had since 2017.

The argument is that frigates have been ASW and GP and destroyers have been AAW. And since the CSC is filling all those roles, it should be called a destroyer. I get it. I just think it creates confusion. And on top of it all, the Brits also have a River Class.

By the way, these things are actually as heavy and equipped as an Arleigh Burke or Type 45. Only thing lacking is the missile count. But sensor suite on par.

 

[Admiral Beez]

It would have been better to name one the Don because they are full of s***

It’s nothing to get our knickers in a knot over. Canada has a long history of naming ocean going warships after rivers, for example the entirety of the postwar St. Laurent, Restigouche, Mackenzie and Annapolis class are named for rivers.

 

[kEiThZ]

Guess the government finally got the memo on the new CDS. Mixed reviews on her from folks who have worked with her, particularly her leadership in Iraq. So who knows

https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/s/29aXfXsKL0

 

[lenaitch]

Not really. For over two decades, we have had Halifax Class Frigates and Iroquois Class Destroyers. The latter of which we haven't had since 2017.

The argument is that frigates have been ASW and GP and destroyers have been AAW. And since the CSC is filling all those roles, it should be called a destroyer. I get it. I just think it creates confusion. And on top of it all, the Brits also have a River Class.

By the way, these things are actually as heavy and equipped as an Arleigh Burke or Type 45. Only thing lacking is the missile count. But sensor suite on par.

As I understand it, the classification is (loosely) based on capabilities rather than displacement, and the CSCs, while 'based on' the UK Type 26 hull, will be larger and heavier that the UK and Aussie versions and have the Aegis radar system that the Arleigh Burke class are essentially built around.

The River Class is a nod to history and no doubt some will be able to carry on any battle honours of their predecessors. To say that 'we always' name ships after rivers is a little short on history. I have heard that one of the options under consideration was a continuation of the 'tribal' history but to do so in today's context was 'fraught with landmines'.

 

[Admiral Beez]

To say that we always name ships after rivers is a little short on history.

What nonsense. No one here has claimed such an absolute. Of the entirely of the RCN’s current fleet there’s not a single vessel named after a river.

 

[kEiThZ]

As I understand it, the classification is (loosely) based on capabilities rather than displacement, and the CSCs, while 'based on' the UK Type 26 hull, will be larger and heavier that the UK and Aussie versions and have the Aegis radar system that the Arleigh Burke class are essentially built around.

Heavier than the British version. Not sure it's heavier than the Aussie version. And the latter also comes with an equally impressive sensor suite. And of course, 24 VLS (for us) is a very questionable choice for what is supposed to have AAW duties on par with ASW....

For me, at the end of the day, it's just a poor choice not to follow convention with our allies. And given that all the next gen destroyer programs are in the 9-12kt range, I'm worried that in a decade calling this thing a destroyer is going to make it a joke.

 

[lenaitch]

What nonsense. No one here has claimed such an absolute. Of the entirely of the RCN’s current fleet there’s not a single vessel named after a river.

I must have picked that up from another forum that was discussing the same topic at the same time.

Heavier than the British version. Not sure it's heavier than the Aussie version. And the latter also comes with an equally impressive sensor suite. And of course, 24 VLS (for us) is a very questionable choice for what is supposed to have AAW duties on par with ASW....

For me, at the end of the day, it's just a poor choice not to follow convention with our allies. And given that all the next gen destroyer programs are in the 9-12kt range, I'm worried that in a decade calling this thing a destroyer is going to make it a joke.

We'll see if all of the class comes to pass. Some circles are rumbling that later batch(es) may end up being something lighter due to escalating costs. Other than some prototype work they haven't started cutting steel yet and we have an election next year. Who knows.

 

[kEiThZ]

I must have picked that up from another forum that was discussing the same topic at the same time.


We'll see if all of the class comes to pass. Some circles are rumbling that later batch(es) may end up being something lighter due to escalating costs. Other than some prototype work they haven't started cutting steel yet and we have an election next year. Who knows.

Our "destroyer" is 8000t.

Here's what the Americans think a next-gen destroyer should be (13 000t):

DDG(X) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Here's the British next-gen destroyer (10 000t):

The Type 83 Destroyer – The MoD must get this right

Let's make sure that if the Type 83 ends up facing cuts to its numbers, we still get a decent platform out of it – no more 'fitted for but not with'.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

This is kinda why I think DDGH is overselling it.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Our "destroyer" is 8000t.

Here's what the Americans think a next-gen destroyer should be (13 000t):

DDG(X) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Here's the British next-gen destroyer (10 000t):

The Type 83 Destroyer – The MoD must get this right

Let's make sure that if the Type 83 ends up facing cuts to its numbers, we still get a decent platform out of it – no more 'fitted for but not with'.

ukdefencejournal.org.uk

This is kinda why I think DDGH is overselling it.

Well to be fair to those who stretch designations, here’s a Japanese destroyer.

Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kEiThZ]

Well to be fair to those who stretch designations, here’s a Japanese destroyer.

Hyūga-class helicopter destroyer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Japan has historical cultural reasons for calling a flat top a destroyer.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Japan has historical cultural reasons for calling a flat top a destroyer.

True. But governments the world over have always had their reasons to stretch (or shrink) their warships categories. In order to skirt past official policy against aircraft carriers,, Britain designated their 1980s Invincible class aircraft carriers as through deck cruisers. I expect Ottawa wishes the River class to be destroyers for public optics, but those who use them will know them to be frigates. But it doesn’t matter, I’m just glad we’re moving ahead with something to replace the aged Halifax class frigates.

Now, if we can just get going on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP). Considering that we have never produced a submarine I hope this one time we can buy off the shelf from the Euros or South Koreans.

 

[lenaitch]

True. But governments the world over have always had their reasons to stretch (or shrink) their warships categories. In order to skirt past official policy against aircraft carriers,, Britain designated their 1980s Invincible class aircraft carriers as through deck cruisers. I expect Ottawa wishes the River class to be destroyers for public optics, but those who use them will know them to be frigates. But it doesn’t matter, I’m just glad we’re moving ahead with something to replace the aged Halifax class frigates.

Now, if we can just get going on the Canadian Patrol Submarine Project (CPSP). Considering that we have never produced a submarine I hope this one time we can buy off the shelf from the Euros or South Koreans.

It would be interesting to be a fly on the wall in the classification discussions. I have a hard time believing that it was a push by this post-national, 'lecture-to-the-world', constantly-apologizing government to have such an aggressive term as 'destroyer'.