Updating the Continental Defence Corvette infobox + Correcting myself on names + New list for Seapower (also I added Terminology stuff)
Hello everyone. I hope you're having a good weekend. I said to myself I was gonna save this for monday as I planned to have a quieter weekend. I wanted to make this a study weekend, as education is always important and I have a podcast to prep for tomorrow!
Its also been a super busy week with everything going on, so we needed a recalibrate day. That of course is out the window rifht now because a few people have asled me to update my Continental Defence Corvette in light of all the new info coming out.
Not only did we have our interview last week with the Vice-Admiral, but we finally got a readout of Seapower 2025, both of which had new information regarding the corvette. So, we need to do a little bit of updating because we last updated this thing, I believe, about early September?
Anyways, here you go:
Changes made
Seapower 2025 gave us a new number name for CDC of 8-20. While I stand that 8-12 is far more realistic for discussions, I have added the updated numbers because that is what is being said
I have also updated CDC to a Light Frigate as it essentially is. You can refer to it as a Corvette, however in my mind it is now at that Light Frigate territory
Tonnage updated to 2500+ tons to reflect this new classification
Added a note about the length of the vessel. While the limit is no longer in place, it's still a desire
PC 6 Equivalent Ice Class now confirmed. It might not technically reach PC 6 but will be similar at least
Range updated to 7000+ nm to reflext what Topshee said in our interview
VLS now in the likely category
Added a note about being a ‘Halifax-equivalent’
We have also updated our Ice-rated vessels list to reflect this change. We have elected not to include the discussed Polar-class Amphibious Assault Ship as it is not a real project on the books:
Terminology
Polar: Refers to the two Polar Icebreakers, Arpatuuq and Imnaryuaq
Program: Refers to the Program Icebreakers planned to be built by Chantier
MPI: Refers to the Multi-Purpose Icebreakers planned to be built by Seaspan
AOPS: Refers to the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships, six of which are for the navy and two for thr Canadian Coast Guard
Tor Viking: Refers to the Interim Icebreakers acquired from Trans Viking Icebreaking & Offshore for the Canadian Coast Guard
OOSV: Refers to CCGS Naalak Nappaaluk, the Coast Guards recently delivered Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel
CDC: Refers to the proposed Continental Defence Corvette. Currently planned but still in the early stages
OFSV: refers to the three Offshore fisheries science vessels built for the Canadian Coast Guard
Judy LaMarsh: Refers to CCGS Judy LaMarsh, formerly known as Mangystau-2. Acquired by the Canadian Coast Guard as an Interim Light Icebreaker
MSMM: Refers to the planned Mid-Shore Multi-Mission Vessels, the design contract of which currently has an RFP out
In addition it has come to my attention that some of the names we have used the last couple of weeks are not accurate. Now, I have a policy of not tracking down name changes. This isn't out of malice but because project names can change a lot, especially in the navy.
I tend to only uodate when it comes to my attention and I can confirm. This is esepcially an issue with thr navy, as project names can changes quite a lot. CDC has gone through about four or five in two years. Thats insane to keep track of.
However someone did reach out and ask me to change as two projects have changed names recently. These are:
The Underwater Environmental Awareness project is now the Uncrewed Underwater Surveillance System (UUSS) project.
The Rapidly Deployable Fixed Array Sensor project is now the Canadian Arctic Suite of Sensors (CASS) project.
Of course as soon as I talk about these obcuure projects they apparently get a name change! Sometimes I think they do it on purpose to keep me on my feet. Either way, I do believe it fits the requirements set out in our Ethics policy to justify a clarification and update publicly. So why not tie in our CDC update with it!
Lastly, two of you asked me to make a similar lost putlining what was discussed at Seapower 2025. The event featured a lot of discussion on the future of the Royal Canadian Navy. These conversations included a lot of new ideas and numbers that had previously not been discussed.
I wasnt going to do this, as numbers like these tend to fluctuate a lot, and do not reflect accurstely what the current plans are. There are lots of talks on desires and wants that usually never pan out. Thats just part of these kinds of conversations.
However, this is part of the discussion, and I want to encourage it. If you're curious the latest edition of Starshell has a writeout of what was said, including everything on this list.
I like to emcourage these kinds of denates and discussions. They're important to have, and are a natural part of thr force development conversation. Its only when we engage each other, debate and disvuss that we come to a proper conclusion.
Plus its fun! Who doesnt like hypothetical numbers, even if they're likely to never happen. They still present some joy, and give us something to talk about. We can't be 100% serious all the time. Thats boring and dry. Sometimes we need to be a bit silly and remember that we can still have fun conversations. Not everything needs to be a deep analysis.
Anyways, heres that list:
Terminology
River-class: Refers to the future River-class Destroyers, if that aint obvious
CDC: Refers to the Continental Defence Corvette. Numbers are highlighted above
AOPS: Refers to the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships. The two planned for the Coast Guard are not included
Future Orca: Refers to the future Orca-replacement project. No official project name is known to me
CPS: Refers to the future Canadian Patrol Submarine
JSS: Refers to the Joint Support Ships. Two, Protecteur and Preserver are planned. Up to five mentioned at Seapower but so far this is just discussions and not anything official. We did report a few months ago about this idea being floated.
Polar AAS: Refers to a proposed Polsr-class Amphibious Assault Ship. This was previously discussed in our Topshee Interview. Two mentioned at Seapower. Not an official project, nore a concept.
Im a little concerned about the potential lack of avail platforms for MHP operations and capability if removed from a future light Frigate in CDC I would argue there is a need to ensure MHP pilots maintain actual helo ops skill sets and landing etc. I listened to the Topshee interview with much interest, and just not convinced that this opinion would be shared by the RCAF. AIROPs are an important skillet for pilots for day and night operations, and for the ship side operational control in the SAC training. For fleet transition 1 for 1 with Halifax and RCD planned, there is likely no issue, BUT, as a taxpayer, not sure why we would exclude this very important capability from the design of a CDC from the starting block. I wonder if it is lost RCAF potential? Vert reps are one thing, but even the MMSC LCS corvette just rolled out by fincanterari as hull 820 Saud, made me wonder why wouldnt we just nab that design and build them "cheap and nasty" for Canada. It may even soothe some diplomatic rifts with the US if we choose to do a mixed fighter fleet and cut the f35 down from 88 to accommodate a mixed fleet the jas-39. I mean, the design is done - print to build, no changes required on the MMSC, and besides it is an FMS candidate, ready to go and one mean looking capable "corvette" design that looks like it can defend itself quite nicely.
In my opinion for modern navies, <3000t is a Corvette, 3000-7000t is a Frigate, and >7000t is a Destroyer.
I'm worried that the scope creep is going to make these ships neither cheap nor quick to build. In my mind this ship should be able to be built within 7-12 months and commissioned within 14-22 months if we're going to need to replace combat losses in a conflict, which means the hulls should be under 100m.
I also did some rough cost calculations (probably wrong since its based on some internet AI-assisted sleuthing, others can feel free to correct me) and came up with the following USD cost estimates:
- Sensors (NS100 radar and M670 HMS sonar) ~$80mil
- Weapons (57mm, 2x12.7mm, 8xNSM, 16-cell Mk-41 VLS, Mk-49 RAM, 4 Torpedo Tubes) ~$45mil
- Ammunition (for above weapons) ~$113.5mil
I've heard that sensors, weapons, and ammo account for about 60% of the total vessel cost, so for these capabilities, I estimate the total cost per hull to be almost $400mil USD.
I'd be more focused on underwater and assymetric threats. I would downgrade the radar to NS50 and keep the weapons loadout to 57mm, 2x20mm, 4 torps, and the 16-cell Mk-41 (you could load some of the cells with NSMs). That might lower the sensor, weapon and ammo cost to ~$141mil USD, needing a smaller hull and a lower total cost of ~$235mil USD. I think that could be more palatable to the politicians.
Am I totally out to lunch or do these costs sound reasonable? I didn't include costs for Satcoms, navigation, CMS, or EW equipment.