Work has started on the first River class Destroyer, a variant of the British Type 26 Frigate.
The Canadian Government said:
“Today has us celebrating, as the start of construction activities for Canada’s new fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) begins! This will equip our fleet with 15 new, state-of-the-art warships to bolster our capabilities for decades.”
According to the news release:
“Ship names are chosen carefully, and they tell the story of the RCN. Not only are these three ships named after Canada’s most important waterways that reach the Pacific, Atlantic, and Arctic oceans, they are also a tribute to previous Canadian warships with the same names – ships that made heroic wartime contributions and represented cutting-edge technological innovation. The RCN intends to foster a sense of pride in our sailors by connecting these ships to Canada’s maritime heritage.
The CSC project is the largest and most complex shipbuilding initiative in Canada since the Second World War and represents a historic investment into the recapitalization of the RCN’s surface fleet. This project will equip the RCN with new, state-of-the-art warships to bolster Canada’s naval capabilities at home, and abroad, for decades to come. The River-class will be Canada’s major component of maritime combat power, enabling us to continue to monitor and defend our own coastal waters, and contribute significantly to international naval operations alongside our Allies.
Today marked the start of construction on the production test module (PTM), through which the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will be able to test and streamline processes, and implement lessons learned into the build process, to enable the start of full rate production in 2025. Delivery of the first River-class destroyer, HMCS Fraser, is expected in the early 2030s, with the final ship expected by 2050.
The CSC project will support sustainable growth in Canada’s marine supply chain. The build phase of CSC will create and/or maintain approximately 10,800 jobs annually throughout the 25-year construction period across the country. The design phase of the project will create and/or maintain approximately 5,000 Canadian jobs annually across the economy. In total, this project will generate at least $40 billion in cumulative Gross Domestic Product.
As indicated in our renewed vision for defence, Our North, Strong and Free, the Government of Canada is committed to a renewed relationship with Canada’s defence industry, based on clarity, certainty, and long-term partnership. The CSC project is an excellent example of how the Government of Canada is investing in Canada’s domestic shipbuilding industry, while also equipping the RCN with a fleet of modern and effective ships to support operations well into the future.
The CSC is based on BAE Systems’ Type 26 warship design being built by the United Kingdom and Australia. The ships will have enhanced underwater sensors, state-of-the-art radar, and modern weapons.
The official NATO Ship Designator for the River-class warship will be DDGH – a destroyer (DD), guided (G) missile, helicopter (H) capable. As the RCN’s next generation combat ship, it replaces both the Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates. As a powerful and multi-functional ship, the River-class warship is by definition a destroyer: a fast, manoeuvrable, anti-aircraft and anti-submarine long-endurance warship, which can escort larger vessels in a fleet, convoy, or carrier battle group and defend them against a wide range of general threats.”
It will be very interesting to see if they get all 15 ships of the class. it is a tad embarrassing we are only getting 8 hulls when Canada, on paper is committing to 15. I know we are getting T31s and have T45s as well but considering we have a population of 67 million and a $3 trillion economy we should have an escort fleet larger than 20 hulls.
I think the whole concept with Canada is that these ships will make up the entirety of their frigate/destroyers, and they will not build others. Probably why they are calling them Destroyers and are fitting them with top of the line radars.
The UK will have the Type 31, but also the 45 til it retires and is replaced by the 83 and potentially the Type 32 to make up our escorts.
We still need more though, to be sure. I would like it if our Rivers are replaced by a 3-4k tonne frigate co-developed with Sweden that can add to combat weight and also take up OPV duties, but I am doubtful.
The way to get upto 32 hulls isn’t just fantasy fleet time.
Add 2-4 more type 26s to the programme, a second batch of type 31s, 5-10 type 32s and plan for 8-10 minimum type 83s. That will give us a fleet of between 34 and 40 escort warships.
I mean before any of this we need enough staff for that ships we have. The Royal Navy has a personnel cap which means they can actually only staff maybe 4 destroyers and 7-9 frigates iirc. So adding more ships won’t do any good if they’re just alongside.
I’d be interested to see a manpower exercise that would identify the minimum crew size our existing ships really do need. I think the crew sizes could be reduced without affecting performance.
We’re already slashing crew sizes with the new ships being built. Many argue the T31 and beyond will have far too few
But you need damage control…to reduce the crew via automation your automating it ..you have to build the ship very specifically to manage damage control with a lesser crew..that means huge levels of compartmentalisation beyond a normal warship all of which are sealed and filled with inert gas…even then your at greater risk of losing the ship…a number of US ships have been saved from foundering because of their larger crews.
So have RN ones…
Nottingham, Southampton, Brazen…
Very true although these were collisions and groundings…but the USN have some extreme examples of ships floating and moving after extremely significant battle damage form heavyweight anti ship missile.
USN did it on LCS. Crew fatigue and performance issues where the result.
A contributing factor to the AB collisions of recent years was crew fatigue.
Watch On, Stop On is not sustainable over a few weeks.
some of the shops are overmanned. a study which can identify the minimum crews our fleet needs perr ship.
Overmanned is far better than overworked crews who resign after a strenuous deployment.
But if more vessels are are amiable due to smaller crews the deployment lengths would be shorter and more attractive.
Perhaps but if you include the amount that have to go through refit or training you don’t get many more available for deployment. Without fixing our crewing crisis and massively growing our personnel count, there is little point to growing the fleet.
Well as Napoleon said we are a Nation of shopkeepers.
I thought it was Hitler who said that? 😂
That was very much in frustration because although he had a vast army..we were essentially trading and blockading his empire into oblivion with the nasty application of economics and industrial capacity..as well as some pretty effective political warfare..greased with gold and silver.
That is very true too.
Ambition is a thing too.
Set a fleet size and then staff it properly. There is a lead time to staff as well as ships both are long lead time!
not going to happen Fantasyland, but I like it.
Realistically that is never going to happen.
More T26 is a good thing given the submarine threat. As is more P8. RN has been ASW focussed for a long time and needs to lead on this game.
A batch of 3 more T31 to bring the numbers up – maybe. These take on the River B2 roles.
5-8 T32 which are lean core manned and used to do the River B1 and new roles. Other trades rotate on with the mission modules.
T32 won’t happen if it does, I’ll! slam my nuts in the fridge door. We’ve no design, no funding, nowhere to build them. a utter embarrassment and shameful way to run the organisation.
T32 is just more T31s. It was just the RN sexing up their PowerPoint for the Treasury.
Don’t do that mate, the NHS is under enough strain without yet another “nut” job in ED.
bring echo and enterprise back k into the fleet reconfigured and fitted out to perform a better range of duties .those ships are substantial platforms that have room for more offensive kit. fitted to them
Have already heard one might become a harbour training ship to replace Bristol and the other sold off.
Crikey an Enterprise to replace Bristol….
Bristol is massive.
Although Bristol has (had) absolutely zero kit on her that was anything like current.
The only thing you would have got out of time on Bristol is moving around a ship. Which has a massive value of its own.
That would make sense.
Tempting but I suspect financially not practical; 90m long, 4000 tons with podded thrusters. A better idea might be to build some batch 3 Rivers to enhance our presence in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Guinea. You could take the opportunity to review the armament.
With a hangar and hopefully gets some export sales.
I’d second that a 10% increase in size would give a hanger and 57mm on the foredeck.
If you stretch the batch the batch 2 River it starts to approach the rejected Leander design that BAE submitted for T31, which think was 117m. I’ve always thought that the combat hardening and compartmentalisation that BAE did in morphing the Amazonas into the batch 2 River was an investment in anticipation of getting the T31 order. Anyway, that’s history now. I doubt the RN sees a role for a new class of 3 such ships; wouldn’t 99m would be Khareef corvettes?
I thought the Leander design was a bit of a ripper and had a bit of everything on a compact platform. Kind of a muscled up B2 River. Hangar looked too small for a Merlin but okay for a Wildcat. Same kind of length that Babcock and Saab will working on with their new corvette which makes you think there’s still a market for this type.
With hindsight I don’t think it was ever in with a chance – no growth potential. Room for Mk41 vls was never explicitly stated as a requirement for T31 but I suspect it was always what the RN wanted. I have a vague memory that BAE did try to sell a Leander sized ship to Ecuador I think but nothing came of it.
Yep it would but I suspect she is a bit cramped. If you just drop the full size hanger to one for a drone then the 90.5m version would fit the bill.
Amazonas class for Brazil and Krabi for Thailand, the latter has a 76mm gun and Harpoon missiles.
The problem, they will face block obsolescence in thirty years time.
Three different flights are anticipated, with the first 3 being the baseline described in the press release, the next 6 (Flight 2) will be upgraded and have additional technology, and the final 6 (Flight 3), will be substantially different, and may not even be based on GCS/T26.
Where do you get this stuff?
What do you mean? It’s common knowledge. Surely you don’t think that ship 15 in 2050 will be the same as ship 1 in 2032?
I did not expect them to be the same.
I just have not seen the detail that you mentioned and wondered where you found it.
I’m not sure you can really get a 3-4k tonne frigate worth building..even the new French light frigate is 4500 tonnes and that’s got some compromises the RN would not accept..
1) Its 4500 tonne french frigates small fight capability is only capable of taking the NH90..a far smaller rotor that the Merlin requirement for any RN escort ( as in 13 foot longer and an extra 8 foot rotor diameter)..so the are would need a larger flight deck and hanger.
2) range.. the French frigate can only go 5000 miles…the are looks for a min of 7000 miles range and more like 9000 miles if it can get it..
simply put the very basic requirements for an RN escort are potting it will North of 5000 tonnes.
No point in going less than T31.
BDR suffers if you go small.
Ability to but Cabs and ISOs is also reduced.
Big platforms are more comfortable for crews too!
I agree that the Rivers should be replaced with larger fighty hulls that can be equipped with sophisticated systems as an adjunct to T45 and T26 who would do the main work.
Even bringing another 32 VLS and 8 box launchers with a help/drone port changes the calculus in a fighty situation. Even if all those things are actually controlled from the high end ship’s systems.
I would say the rivers have their place..but that’s local waters patrol around UK EEZs and benign environments well away from risks ( western med and North Atlantic). Anything eastern med and points east should be escorts.
Yes and potentially Non-RN crewed? Maybe Border Force/Coastguard/Weekend Warrior type set up to relieve RN personnel requirements?
The Kingston Class coastal defence/mine sweepers will need replacing in the coming decade or so. Talk is of a multi-mission corvette to replace them.
The Victoria Class Submarine replacement is the next big naval project for Canada.
We should have an escort fleet of 32+ hulls. That was what was deemed minimum required at the end of the cold war in 1998.
Then multiple governments have just cut cut cut.
Some warships we were told were at the end of their service lives, weren’t. HMS Ocean…serving the Brazilians very well. 3x type 23 frigates…still working for Chile, 2x type 22s still serving Romania.
We’ve got to get back upto reasonable numbers again. The threat we are facing isn’t just Russia. It’s a resurgent Sino-Russian axis of evil hell-bent on redefining the world order to their wishes
Arguably those Frigates in question and Ocean too are worked far less than their Royal Navy counterparts so will in turn last longer.
Bigger fleet works less than the present over stretched one. Plus you need reserves for the inevitable losses.
Course you do. Still has to be some initial investment to either have the reserve personnel or additional crew so that you can field more than half you ships immediately and the rest brought up later.
we should also aim to re-establish a Mediterranean fleet with ships based at Gibraltar and hopefully Malta a return to the old base h.m.s maribar on Ireland island in Bermuda which would give us a permanent presence in the Carribbean.
Ain’t going to happen. We should try a floating dock ship alongside HMS Cyprus!
batch 2 type 23 configured as destroyers. they would only need a few changes to what they are now. a modern destroyer needs to be fas, equipped to perform in all spheres of warfare land sea and air apert from being old these ships are still the best frigates on the seas.
The T23? The Tiny tubs which crews hate and have very little margin for growth? No you can’t make those into destroyers.
There is no margin left on a T23 and that’s after removing the 911 trackers!
Don’t you mean the T26 ?
no I mean T23, type 26 could be a cruiser.
T23 has not expansion left..it’s a 4500 ton hull that’s well armed for its size…they are also knackered…yes we need to keep them running..but CAMM is a profoundly good missile…and a T23 is now far more effective than a T42 destroyer ever was at AAW.
Getting to 32 escorts is easy if you are willing to accept a larger proportion of second tier ships. Let’s say you ringfence £1bn in 2024 terms (increasing annually along with GDP). That money goes to buy two streams: second tier at £400m each delivered one a year, and £600m a year for top tier delivered every 18 months (£900m per unit). We sell second tier ships after 16 years and top tier after 24 years, but only after its replacement is accepted. Escort numbers would rise to a steady state of 32, 16 of each tier, and the cost falls within the current surface ship procurement budget of £1.55bn. Paying for the crew is a separate issue, as goverment needs to release the cap, even if the required crew per ship continually falls.
The numbers are known in advance so are easy to manage. Treasury battles are minimised, after the first. There’s no lengthy decision making on how much we will spend, just how it’s best spent and with whom. By including spiral upgrades every four years and new designs every 12 (including competitive tender), there is opportunity for mind changing without messing with the build pace. All other changes are done, after delivery as a capability insert.
Contracts drive the drumbeat, so for example unless the Navy agrees a detailed design for Type 83 by a certain date, another Type 26s will automatically be built to fill the gap. On the other hand penalties might accrue to the shipbuilder if a ship isn’t delivered on time or to spec.
The biggest issue is the reduction of governance, for which you can read political and MOD interference. Reliquishing the power to mess things up isn’t something politicians are happy to do.
we can ring fence any numbers, but if you’re unable to produce those numbers it’s all pointless
We can wish that if there’s ever a second batch of T26s for the RN that they incorporate a more powerful radar like here on the RCAN T26, as it looks nice and compact and I assume it’s quite powerful? Eight T26s is still pretty decent and hopefully a few more T31s and the T32 might eventuate. Like to see T45s get Mk41s and if not then a greater number of CAMM, with additional silos down the sides of the Asters. There also looks like there’s room for FFBNW 4×4 NSM even if only 2×4 NSM are carried most of the time. Others posters have mentioned about updating the T45s main gun and sonar too.
Don’t think there’s room for any more NSM, there’s alot or equipment they’ve got to fit in the mid of the ship.
either way the policy of fitted for bur not with should stop.
Ideally it should. But building ships with unexploited space does have benefits when money can be spent further into their lives.
Dream on.
agreed
I wonder if Sampson by itself would work as a radar for T26? It has been stated that CEAFAR is much heavier so presumably could be done at a push.
I don’t think it’s a good idea, T31 is more sensible as an AAW frigate, but just putting the idea out there.
Morning SB, yes, there is an AAW variant of the A140 shown on their website. Good for an interim pre T83. I bee the Indonesian A140s have a AAW capability and have also been stretched a few metres.
Don’t think we’ll have a new AAW system (Radars and missiles) till type 83 though. And we’re not gonna put slyver cells on another ship in the mean time.
Doesn’t need to be Sylver. It might be more a tier 2 type AAW defence but how posh do you have to get to complement the T45s Samson/Aster? There’s the options of the Anglo-Polish or Italian CAMM/CAMM-ER/MR type systems. With 4 MK41s/ExLS you can get a very decent load out of both missiles paired with a decent radar.
What decent radar though, we’ve got numerous low end defence radars but Sampsons our only high end system and they’re not going to replicate it at this point.
But ignoring that issue, if we get any more frigates they’ll probably only be general purpose designs, they’re going to be as cheap as they can otherwise there will be none at all.
Sampson weighs in at around 9 Tonnes spinning at 30RPM. The bearing at the top of the mast for the rotating radar is massive. It needs to be. It takes a lot of loading when the vessel is moving especially in roughers (Gyroscopic principals and all that) There is a reason the T45 mast is that big. Height is one of them, the weight of the radar is another.
CEFAR is also big, heavy, and expensive (per plate). It also needs a lot of Chilled water to remove the wild heat, or it will slag itself. Sampson also needs a lot of CW sent up the mast. Large diameter pipes full of water are not light either.
T45 blows cooled air up the inside of the mast?
I’ve always believed that given proof of the capability of the T45, as second only maybe to the burke, that a designed from scratch T83 is unnecessary and that a upgraded batch 2 type 45 would be more beneficial.
There’s alot of issues with the T45s that really require a new design to be built. Missile capacity needs to go beyond the 64 T45 could have and there is potentially the need foe a quite hull to perform some ASW work
we are useless the MOD slashed the original hoped for number and still goes ahead with 8 and 5 T31. AND the fantasy type 32 and a new destroyer, all of which we can’t deliver. before 2040. incompetence at the highest level how many do we want?how much will they cost? can we deliver them? utter chaos he MOD IS NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE. EVERYONE IN IT AND THOSE connected to it should be removed.
Talking 2040, aren’t more ships needed by 2030?!
no, they are needed now but 2040, if you plan for more destroyers is more likely
And Canadians(and Australians) are making a proper destroyer not a frigate in the hull of a destroyer that is said to be an ASW frigate but only have 1 Merlin as the sole ASW weapon…
Apart from the new torpedo carrying missile on the wish list.
Torpedo carrying missile should have not be something thought so late.
We have destroyers. We don’t need it to be an AAW vessel. For them they either have no destroyers or only a few.
Type 23 only has one Merlin and short range torpedoes, does that mean it’s not an ASW vessel
6 destroyers, 4 at maximum at service any time, one loss or damage and even worse. While other peer navies, even inferior ones arm their frigates with AAW.
They arm their Frigates for AAW because in alot of cases they have no Destroyer type vessels at all. Looking at some of the notable fleets in Europe, Germany follows a similar philosophy to us, France and Italy do give their frigates more notable AAW capability but at the cost of very low missile capacity, all the Fremms have 16 Asters barring the Fremm DAs which were given 32 to make up for only have 2 Horizons.
Spain is similar, F110s will have Spy 7 but only 16 cells.
There are always trade offs, and I’d argue the T26 while not having the capabilities to engage targets like ballistic missiles or at extreme range, has a good depth of missiles 48 Camms, (giving comparable defenses to most Euro Frigates packing ESSM), potential for more and 24 mk41 cells for a variety of strike missiles.
Another bit of info I recalled is that only 2 of rhe ASW and the DA Fremms that France has, were built with A50, the other 4 only have A43 and in turn only Aster 15.
Next 5 French FDI will have Aster 30 because they saw the light. So they will have 9 RN still did not. Italians have will have Aster 30 in 16 ships.
If Type 23 have same capability and that is the objective why do not make a similar, slight bigger frigate? and instead make a monstrosity?
A monstrosity, now you’re just being ridiculous, and I don’t think you understand what growth margins and also just better accomdation are. Just look around, all Frigates are getting bigger.
Also back tracking to your slight against the T26, the French Fremms also only have 1 hangar.
And addressing the FDIs, and the Italian ships. Capacity issues again, 16 cells across the board barring the Horizon class.
A whole seperate issue is that Aster 30 doesn’t go in mk41 cells and we won’t be selecting a mk41 AAW missile till the T83 program so there is nothing longer range for the T26 to use anyway.
The Italian FREMM have 2 hangars for medium helicopters, the Constellations will have a medium helicopter and a medium heli drone(Lynx size).
. Yes they have less magazine depth but all FREMM have space for 32 Sylver.
Advantages and disadvantages. Its good the Italian design does have 2 hangars, they’ll be able to exploit their larger naval Helo fleet.
It may he Ffbnw on the Italian Fremms but from what I understand the space is now used for accommodation, so unlikely to be exploited anytime soon, especially since they haven’t chosen for any of the new Fremms under construction or planned to increase that.
But overall alot of solid Frigate designs in the European sphere, and always something they can learn from eachother in future.
A certain T23 has just sailed having been fitted for a Heli Drone …whilst retaining its Wildcat which can do Surface Strike, Anti Drone Air and ASW strike.
Interesting!
Monstrosity in question of size for a similar ASW Type 23 capability – excluding the at moment mythical ASW missile.
Again, crew comfort and upgradability.
And the T26 is not just an ASW platform, it gives the surface fleet for the first time some serious strike capability via its mk41.
Also don’t see how ASW missiles are mythical, we have numerous examples.
T26 will have 48 CAMM and 24 so far empty Mk41 for AAW capability.
48 CAMM is equivalent 12 Aster 30 in space department :)))
Are you going to fit 6 Aster 30 in a softlaunch silo behind the funnel?
I think the Iver H. have Sparrow VLS in a similar place and Tomahawk for T31 when they arrive.
Aster 30 is not a soft launch missile.
CAMM is…wait for it…An ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILE.
So T26 is capable of doing AAW.
CAMM is also capable of Surface Strike.
If you mean that a T26 cannot do Fleet Area Defence …that’s a different thing all together. However, if you fitted CAMM MR/ER that would rapidly change and be a lot cheaper and easier to achieve.
destroyers and frigates are the mainstay of every navy and always will be the limiting of type 45 to just 6 ships was a major blunder especially then accepting the billion pound price of of a T26
It isn’t the hull of a destroyer it is very much an optimised ASW frigate.
and should still have a permanent Mediterranean squadron, Carribbean squadron. and a china squadron(or near) to it. basically it’s called ambition.
I’ll be fascinated by how long they take to produce them
It seems the new infographic drops the CAMM missiles and have a RAM instead.
Perhaps they are going to sell some to the USN 😉
how can they justify keeping the Halifax class around until 2050?
I think the ships themselves will probably decide they’re knackered long before that date lol
That indeed will be the case.
You are correct sir. This has happened in the past to the RCN. The Protecteur and Iroquois class for example. There was nothing in those instances lined up to replace them though. At least this program will be in place.
Irving does have to speed up construction though. 25 years is not in my view realistic or pragmatic. The Canadian government is doing this for votes in the economically challenged Atlantic Canada and Irving is taking advantage of it.
It is because the last Type 26 Destroyer will be build by 2050. I think this just a bureaucratic rule. World will be very different by 2050.
Frigates,frigates frigates,,let’s get the rn back to having some proper warships like a “tico class”destroyer .proper fire power ,for an unsteady world.
Lets be very honest..the min standard for a peacetime fleet was 32 escorts and 12 SSNs…anything less as we move to a Cold War or pre war period is not just fantasy fleets it’s delusional….
HMG should be working every way possible to maximise the number of escorts ( not anything we can do about the SSNs for a generation). But in reality although it’s going to cost a fortune the T23s should be keep running until they fall apart or the escort fleet can be build up to 32 newer escorts…and every available slip and capability should be used to build those ships…the geopolitical situation really does dictate a move to 4-5% of GDP…we are far more at risk of being at war in the next 6 years than we were since Cuba and the only way to reduce that risk as a steely eyed focus on building deterrence….5% of GDP would hurt…but in the best case war will shatter our economy for a generation.
we really should be aiming for a fleet of
10 type 26
10 type 31/31
12 type 82 ( the RN should probably go for numbers over size..just fit it with a good radar and silo…with patrol frigate capability for everything else’s..getting the extra missile numbers from networked platforms such as the T31/32.
As well as 12 new SSNs.
on top of that a massive recruitment and retention programme over the next decade.
The rest is politics…..can Starmer deal with his baying mob demanding more yet cash for NHS and schools?
Can he fund RN growth (ships and people)?
I fear it will constantly be put on the ‘too hard’ pile and we will see the last years of T26/F31/FSSS orders as being a golden age of grown up ship / fleet building.
I would say you’re right..apart from the fact I would lay good odds the west will be in a shooting war with china a round Taiwan within the decade. That shooting war will inevitably drag into a long term global naval campaign over years…with a probable outcome of a very unsettled peace in which the side that got the bad end of the peace treaty ( losses ) will just build up its navy for round two creating a navel arms race….when you have two massive power blocks separated by oceans with interpenetration of “war triggering red lines”…navel conflict and or a navel arms race are inevitable, essentially because neither side can back down, be overcome or strategically exhausted in anything other than the long term.
“…will just build up its navy for round two creating a navel arms race…”
Nonsense, the PRC has got a severe demographic time-bomb of very low birth rate, and a rapidly ageing workforce, in store over the next few decades. The majority of it’s population was born in the 1960/70s.
It won’t be able to afford to rebuild its fleet in a decades time.
Well unfortunately that demographic timebomb is a driver…what do you think a nation or body politic with a know trajectory to the hight of its geopolitical and geostrategic power will do to its enemies when it knows that after that point of power it will decline…the CCP are not rushing through one of the biggest armament programmes ever seen just to get to 2035 and go “ ho look our demographics is now a problem..we will just scale back and fade” they will fight a war knowing their timeframe of greatest power…you don’t need to immediately fear your enemy as they grow in power, you fear your enemy at the point or close to the point they reach their peak of power..china watched the Soviet Union fail to act..it’s taken all the lessons…
Quite frankly if china had a stable demographic and was likely to continue its growth into the 2040s we would be less likely to be at risk of a major war..china could sit back knowing everything it wants will simply come to it…as is china will need to make a decision about its red line ( finishing its civil war) by 2035..personally in my view, if china thinks it could force the US to the table by trashing the world economy in a world war after it invaded Taiwan then Xi would press that “war” button. Tiawan is practically a religion to the CCP and Xi.
You have to remember what would be a win for china…for the CCP getting Taiwan is the win..they don’t care if they drive the world’s economy back to the stone age ( this is the party that killed millions of its own people in failed social experiments) … the CCP would happily see china set back decades if it could get Taiwan and take its enemies down to the same level ( xi is a true believer in communism and would happily see his population back as peasants) there is agreement amongst many experts that it would be happy to loss it’s navy to taking down the USN in a mutual blood bath..trashing the world economy and then force the US to the table due to a world wide crash in living standards that created political unrest in the west..because it thinks communism is more robust in this situation and that the one true weakness of the west is that it’s population will not take true grinding misery and that the west does not have the security apparatus to control its population…
remember china has not only been dumping hulls in the water to get it to match the USN it’s also:
1) actively developed its own ship building industry and attacked the wests by “dumping” cheap ship building on the market…it now has 260% more ship building capacity than the U.S. Thats 26 million tonnes a year vs 100,000 tonnes a year. It thinks it can attrition the USN and recover quicker.
2) invested in a massive political warfare machine to attack the west’s populations and political systems….it employs 3 million people in political warfare….this is part of standard Chinese Maoist war fighting doctrine…during the conflict you create as much misery and fear as possible then attack the population with political warfare to destabilise its political system to force a beneficial peace treaty.
3) internal control..the CCP international security services are as large as its war-fighting services… if your war-fighting doctrine is to destabilise by creating suffering then you need to control your population though the hell you have created..
The finally point is personal and that is Xi himself. Xi has over the last decade taken total control of the CCP, it’s leaders are all his men who believe in his message..china is run by the million members of the CCP ( every company has a CCP shadow board ready to take over..every part of China is controlled by the CCP). Now if Xi was a bog standard dictator or politician that would be a worry but manageable..as the leaders of the Soviet Union were..but this is not a political leader..this is a cult leader who believes completely in the teachings of the cult he leads..infact he’s been completely indoctrinated…there is no cynical leader running the CCP who will make pragmatic choices…it’s run by one of the biggest believers in Chinese destiny under the CCP , who had that belief indoctrinated into him by suffering..
Xi was the son of two of Mao’s generals…but when he was a child they were charged with treason..and sent to political prison ( the family though they would all be executed)..xi and his siblings were abandoned on the capital’s streets and lived as street children..at this point his sister killed herself..they were then swept up by the police of the cultural revolution and sent to a village to become child agro slaves ( this is the time when millions were dying due to the cultural revolution )…Xi escaped and went back to the capital..he was later arrested and sentenced to hard Labour and political reeducation..a few year later he returned to the village he was originally sent to with nothing more than a box of books of CCP propaganda..he then hounded the CCP to become a member..after a lot of refusals ( due to his parents being traitors and him sent to hard labour and political reeducate) he was allowed in the party and sent to university as a peasant student…as a party official he always picked the harder less glamorous rural assignments…and rose to the top..not because he was a slick politician but because he was harder and more of a believer than anyone else..this man will go to war, he will cast his nation and the world into suffering for his beliefs and the CCP will follow him..the rest of China will not get a vote.
I’d like to see that. Would you have to take back Portland or have some based in either Scotland or Gibraltar to have adequate dry docks etc.
How much is hype,
Canadian high priority program, According to the Ottawa Citizen article ref by earlier poster only building a test module and the design of the ship is yet to be completed and is still evolving, the start of the build which other sources mention might be next year, with first delivery hoped for by 2030/1 with 36 years to the final delivery in 2050.
https://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/defence-watch/government-to-begin-construction-on-new-warships-despite-not-knowing-the-final-cost-or-design#:~:text=The%20government%20will%20have%20more,or%20actual%20cost%20is%20folly.
If Norway chooses the T26 would it worth BAE also to try for Korea and Japan for potential licence builds? There are already existing industrial relationships, especially ship building with Korea and they both may want a higher level ASW that the T26 offers?