I was pulling the recent Hansard transcripts on that $80 billion Parliamentary Budget Officer estimate for the River-class. The sticker shock is intense here. But when you read the committee records (where MPs interrogate defence officials), you see that money largely pays for 30 years of industrial neglect. Canada literally had to rebuild its shipyards from scratch before laying a single keel. The US avoids that massive premium entirely. It makes you realize that delaying military procurement does not actually save taxpayers money. It just hides the rust until the final bill arrives.
Excellent updated analysis. I enjoyed it more the second time around😁. I like the depth that you went into on the design and build facets of the ships. After reading the original article, I agreed that the RCD was exactly what the USN needed. I am even more so behind the idea now. The modern capacity of the RCD (hull, utility bay, power plant, etc) gives the USN the option to build many variants without massive redesigns. ASW variant, Burke variant, all-purpose light version with utility bay for lighter tasks. Endless options, with time to come up with endless more.
Excellent analysis on the complexities of military design/build.
But one big question remains.
Given the 2025 US National Security Strategy plan, do we really want to be sharing our latest, or any design with a country that intends to control the entire continent?
Excellent update to the original! I would be curious to know, now that the piece is circulated by the CMSN, have you had any discussions with the designers or shipbuilder about moving this forward? I am thinking a talk at the Wilson Center's Canada Institute as an example? Again, great work!
Hi Nick, to the best of my knowledge, this hasn't been read in those circles. The connection to CMSN happened via folks at the Naval Association of Canada.
I've seen people connected to various other maritime organizations leave comments, no one from Wilson Center or associated with design or construction, though. And there's a distinction between leaving a comment and reaching out.
The US government and military belief in “nimbyism” has been around for decades. So don’t hope for any equipment or design purchases from Canada. I believe RCD will be excellent for the RCN. Given current social and political tensions, I don’t think you will see the US jump at RCD and I’m really not caring about the mess the US shipbuilding industry is in.
I don't disagree with your theory, I agree. US will need, already needs, a credible ASW platform that has full spectrum capabilities - what I find puzzling is the advocacy. The USA has navigated themselves into a corner where they will *need* the RCN to supplement their fleets. That is power that Canada can leverage. It would be difficult for a President like Trump to say Canada isn't doing their part when the USN is begging the RCN for River fleet assignment.
I think Canada gets more leverage over the US by having them building ships that incorporate our technology, as the River does.
I also think the most likely next major war still sees Canada and the US on the same side. And it's short sighted to want their navy, in particular, to be weak for that scenario.
Someone like Trump would have no idea that the USN was building a RCN designed Ship. They would know when a Rear Admiral tells him that the 2nd fleet requires two RCD from Canada in order to be effective.
I agree, Canada and the US will be on the same side - hopefully no one seriously argues otherwise. I don't want their navy weak, I want their decision making dependent on our strengths. that's power that we wouldn't even need to talk about. it would just be understood. Don't piss off the Canadians, we need their ships.
Hey as far as the VSL launch system go's i don't know who you talked to in the Royal Canadian Navy but that problem has already been addressed in the design process . The Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Australian Navy wanted to " UpGun " these ship so BAE designed the VSL Modul . Turns out more then the Mission bay is modular , the whole ship is . The Mission bay is designed to be removed and the VSL module launcher put in its place , it also adds 2 more NSM ship to ship quad launchers . You can choose to keep the Toed sonar for ASW ( highly recommended ) and this add 40 or so VSL launcher , this is the version the Royal Canadian Navy went for . If you dont care about ASW and you think when you are doing the switch over between modules you will have time ( Time is big factor , plus dropping the ASW through multi Layers is big ) to remove all the ASW equipment including the Toed Sonar then you can build the VSL module for another 64 launch systems and another 2 NSM quad launchers for a total of total of 96 VSL cells. One last point , some of the weapon systems on the River class are Quad packed into one VSL cell so when it has the Launcher module it has lot more fire power then people give it credit for well keeping the tier 1 ASW . I believe 1/3 are being built with the mission module to start and 2/3 are being built with the launcher module , the fleet is planned to run standard 5 with the Mission module and 10 with VSL module ,have a good one cheers .
Just a fantastic analysis. I learned a lot having perceived the surface fleet just as targets during my years in a cockpit 😉. Your conclusion that the RCD would be an excellent solution to the USN’s ship shortage is very persuasive, although it might be politically very challenging for the USN to consider it. On the other hand, their attempts at the Constellation and now the ICE Pact are enticing. Perhaps the tables have turned, despite their president’s mantra that they don’t need anything from us. For once the U.S. may be arguing for a foreign purchase to ensure there is interoperability with the RCN.
I loved your River Runs Through It article so much, I’d love to see you do something on the merits of Canada securing and building the proposed new continental defence corvette. I love your writing and would love to subscribe full-time but simply can’t afford everything I want, but you are twisting my arm in a very positive way. Thank you for all your efforts.
I really enjoyed and appreciated your analysis on this very interesting subject. I found your arguments extremely well supported. It was also helpful in increasing my own awareness and knowledge on the River Classes expected capabilities. However, regardless of how well justified the argument, I simply can’t see under the current USA political environment support for any solution not considered 100% USA. Very sad, but likely reality.
I really enjoyed that, especially the 2nd time around. Much like you said at the top of the article, the selection of the NSC deflated some of the hope that this might actually happen, but this re-write does a good job of reinvigorating the idea that the Americans might recognize a good idea, and seriously pursue it.
I do think the politics right now are the idea's biggest vulnerability, as I believe many of the decisions being made are impulsive and ill considered, even when they have some positive fallout. Heh, the very logic of your arguments may work against you, as it does not make enough appeals to patriotism and optics... But It really does make sense, and I'm sure there are plenty of smart people left in the command structure of the USN. Hopefully some of them read this, and rework it into a very colourful powerpoint presentation that is designed to be maximally palatable to those steering the ship down there. Stranger things have happened!
I agree with you, the USN buying a ship design from us would give us all sorts of useful leverage, much of it in backrooms, where it won't turn into a pissing match. The ICE pact really got me thinking, although it's sort of amusing to see how the American press release spun the whole deal as being with a American company, Davies Defense, and acknowledged only the Finnish contribution, nearly sidestepping acknowledging needing Canada for anything... But the deal is done, so more people will eventually realize that if a Canadian design was purchased once, another one can be purchased again!
I was pulling the recent Hansard transcripts on that $80 billion Parliamentary Budget Officer estimate for the River-class. The sticker shock is intense here. But when you read the committee records (where MPs interrogate defence officials), you see that money largely pays for 30 years of industrial neglect. Canada literally had to rebuild its shipyards from scratch before laying a single keel. The US avoids that massive premium entirely. It makes you realize that delaying military procurement does not actually save taxpayers money. It just hides the rust until the final bill arrives.
In 2012, Seaspan was 40 years behind South Korean yards in technology and know-how. They had never built a ship using modular construction.
Excellent updated analysis. I enjoyed it more the second time around😁. I like the depth that you went into on the design and build facets of the ships. After reading the original article, I agreed that the RCD was exactly what the USN needed. I am even more so behind the idea now. The modern capacity of the RCD (hull, utility bay, power plant, etc) gives the USN the option to build many variants without massive redesigns. ASW variant, Burke variant, all-purpose light version with utility bay for lighter tasks. Endless options, with time to come up with endless more.
RCD. Another “thing” the U.S. does not need. Excellent analysis. Thank you.
Excellent analysis on the complexities of military design/build.
But one big question remains.
Given the 2025 US National Security Strategy plan, do we really want to be sharing our latest, or any design with a country that intends to control the entire continent?
Yes, for 3 reasons I can think of:
Having the US rely on us gives us leverage in our difficulties.
It’s good to help America exercise its cooperative muscles so they’re not atrophied when the current administration is gone.
In any conflict where it will matter whether the US has these ships, or not, we’re still a lot more likely to be fighting with them than not.
Excellent update to the original! I would be curious to know, now that the piece is circulated by the CMSN, have you had any discussions with the designers or shipbuilder about moving this forward? I am thinking a talk at the Wilson Center's Canada Institute as an example? Again, great work!
Hi Nick, to the best of my knowledge, this hasn't been read in those circles. The connection to CMSN happened via folks at the Naval Association of Canada.
I've seen people connected to various other maritime organizations leave comments, no one from Wilson Center or associated with design or construction, though. And there's a distinction between leaving a comment and reaching out.
The Wilson Centre Canada Institute as best I know is dormant due to Trump government funding cuts. It closed in April, 2025.
I believe that the Wilson Centre has been defunded. :(
The US government and military belief in “nimbyism” has been around for decades. So don’t hope for any equipment or design purchases from Canada. I believe RCD will be excellent for the RCN. Given current social and political tensions, I don’t think you will see the US jump at RCD and I’m really not caring about the mess the US shipbuilding industry is in.
And an excellent article, Policy Hawk!
Great analysis, I’m convinced! Unfortunately I don’t have much of a say in their decision making process!
I don't disagree with your theory, I agree. US will need, already needs, a credible ASW platform that has full spectrum capabilities - what I find puzzling is the advocacy. The USA has navigated themselves into a corner where they will *need* the RCN to supplement their fleets. That is power that Canada can leverage. It would be difficult for a President like Trump to say Canada isn't doing their part when the USN is begging the RCN for River fleet assignment.
I think Canada gets more leverage over the US by having them building ships that incorporate our technology, as the River does.
I also think the most likely next major war still sees Canada and the US on the same side. And it's short sighted to want their navy, in particular, to be weak for that scenario.
Someone like Trump would have no idea that the USN was building a RCN designed Ship. They would know when a Rear Admiral tells him that the 2nd fleet requires two RCD from Canada in order to be effective.
I agree, Canada and the US will be on the same side - hopefully no one seriously argues otherwise. I don't want their navy weak, I want their decision making dependent on our strengths. that's power that we wouldn't even need to talk about. it would just be understood. Don't piss off the Canadians, we need their ships.
Hey as far as the VSL launch system go's i don't know who you talked to in the Royal Canadian Navy but that problem has already been addressed in the design process . The Royal Canadian Navy and Royal Australian Navy wanted to " UpGun " these ship so BAE designed the VSL Modul . Turns out more then the Mission bay is modular , the whole ship is . The Mission bay is designed to be removed and the VSL module launcher put in its place , it also adds 2 more NSM ship to ship quad launchers . You can choose to keep the Toed sonar for ASW ( highly recommended ) and this add 40 or so VSL launcher , this is the version the Royal Canadian Navy went for . If you dont care about ASW and you think when you are doing the switch over between modules you will have time ( Time is big factor , plus dropping the ASW through multi Layers is big ) to remove all the ASW equipment including the Toed Sonar then you can build the VSL module for another 64 launch systems and another 2 NSM quad launchers for a total of total of 96 VSL cells. One last point , some of the weapon systems on the River class are Quad packed into one VSL cell so when it has the Launcher module it has lot more fire power then people give it credit for well keeping the tier 1 ASW . I believe 1/3 are being built with the mission module to start and 2/3 are being built with the launcher module , the fleet is planned to run standard 5 with the Mission module and 10 with VSL module ,have a good one cheers .
Just a fantastic analysis. I learned a lot having perceived the surface fleet just as targets during my years in a cockpit 😉. Your conclusion that the RCD would be an excellent solution to the USN’s ship shortage is very persuasive, although it might be politically very challenging for the USN to consider it. On the other hand, their attempts at the Constellation and now the ICE Pact are enticing. Perhaps the tables have turned, despite their president’s mantra that they don’t need anything from us. For once the U.S. may be arguing for a foreign purchase to ensure there is interoperability with the RCN.
Hawk- Cross posted to Cdr Salamander on his conny vs Navsea piece… ;) another great contributor
I loved your River Runs Through It article so much, I’d love to see you do something on the merits of Canada securing and building the proposed new continental defence corvette. I love your writing and would love to subscribe full-time but simply can’t afford everything I want, but you are twisting my arm in a very positive way. Thank you for all your efforts.
I really enjoyed and appreciated your analysis on this very interesting subject. I found your arguments extremely well supported. It was also helpful in increasing my own awareness and knowledge on the River Classes expected capabilities. However, regardless of how well justified the argument, I simply can’t see under the current USA political environment support for any solution not considered 100% USA. Very sad, but likely reality.
I really enjoyed that, especially the 2nd time around. Much like you said at the top of the article, the selection of the NSC deflated some of the hope that this might actually happen, but this re-write does a good job of reinvigorating the idea that the Americans might recognize a good idea, and seriously pursue it.
I do think the politics right now are the idea's biggest vulnerability, as I believe many of the decisions being made are impulsive and ill considered, even when they have some positive fallout. Heh, the very logic of your arguments may work against you, as it does not make enough appeals to patriotism and optics... But It really does make sense, and I'm sure there are plenty of smart people left in the command structure of the USN. Hopefully some of them read this, and rework it into a very colourful powerpoint presentation that is designed to be maximally palatable to those steering the ship down there. Stranger things have happened!
I agree with you, the USN buying a ship design from us would give us all sorts of useful leverage, much of it in backrooms, where it won't turn into a pissing match. The ICE pact really got me thinking, although it's sort of amusing to see how the American press release spun the whole deal as being with a American company, Davies Defense, and acknowledged only the Finnish contribution, nearly sidestepping acknowledging needing Canada for anything... But the deal is done, so more people will eventually realize that if a Canadian design was purchased once, another one can be purchased again!
Food for thought!