Hawk...You done well!!. You captured the essence of warship design spiral risks and design immaturity that the GAO has been recommending against for the past few years.... final design before construction....always. I hope RCD does wel, it'll be a success story just like the workhorse Halifax Class... I mean who builds ships to last 25 years, and then doubles the calling to 50 yrs!. It's a real testament to the engineering prowess of the design capability on our soil.. I am super proud of everything they are going to deliver with RCD. Great post. Nailed it. Arguably, the yard building RCD is the most capable yard to get the job done, the business of building complex warships. My prediction is USN will go for the fast & cheap avenue, they have to play catch up fast. It would be great if the RCD was in the running, but unless there was a real GCS benefit from a sustainment perspective realized (which there very much is) I would be surprised to see it come to fruition. I'm all in for fleet commonality across the alliance, heck, that means you could service and sustain those ships literally anywhere within the alliance. I'm smelling what The Rock is cooking, and hopefully it it some true tag team wrassling action!.. just kidding, great job on the very detailed post!
Hawk - excellent piece; sound analysis and argument. Have you considered offering it to the Naval Institute? Would share your thoughts more broadly to the profession here in the US. All the best.
be curious to know what the munitions storage and damage controls differences and similarities might be with regard to the RCN vs USN vs RN. Weve got a bit of a hodgepodge of standards going on now with the JSS/Aops/RCD
What an excellent report, especially for us not well versed in naval/ship matters! I don’t know whether the USA would humble themselves to look at a Canadian destroyer option. The NIMBY factor has been prevalent in the USA for decades with very few Canadian aircraft selections. We could show maturity by offering design and construction assistance to the US Navy by offering these services tariff free…
While the River-class avoids the "clean sheet" trap, it hasn't escaped the design spiral entirely. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the fleet's acquisition cost has climbed to $84.5 billion, nearly triple the original projection. Crucially, the Department of National Defence forecasts the "Final Design Review" for 2028, three years after full-rate production began. Adopting the River-class now could simply mean importing a different kind of concurrent-engineering risk.
I address cost in the piece. The "original projection" you're referring to wasn't a projection, though. It was an accounting placeholder for replacing the Halifax capability. We later chose to go far beyond that.
Concurrent-engineering seems misunderstood. It's standard practice in warship construction and has been for a long time. Constellation's issues were that it went to absurd lengths to manage that process and went to absurd lengths to mismanage the process (see Perun's recent work for examples), effectively beginning construction without knowing the maturity of the design.
Every indication is that the River-class achieved a level of design maturity before construction began that the Constellation never achieved, even years after construction began. The US Navy should definitely confirm before pulling the trigger, but there are no signs of the kinds of malpractice that make the modest amount of concurrent-engineering happening in the program alarming.
As a Canadian, I sure hope this doesn’t happen. I think the River class is going to be a great success & a point of pride for us. This ship is going to give us influence, having the US with the same capabilities diminishes that. The current administration says they can do whatever they want alone, so let them.
But I also think that a clear-eyed assessment will conclude that Canada is better off with the US relying on it, than not. That limits the damage that the current US administration can do to us.
The section of this piece on that topic ended up getting cut. But the sum of it is that this is a place where it hurts us, and doesn't help us, to take our ball and go home.
The RCD’s are going to be very American with the Aegis system and main missiles not to mention the cooperative engagement capability. Having said that when at Sea our Navy is trusted and respected by the Americans like few others including the Brits or Japan.
Excellent post. When I first heard about the River class as a person living in Germany, I had (and still have) many doubts, as it seems to be almost a step down from the previous class of Halifax frigates. They will be far more expensive, construction will take time, have a lacking magazine depth and there will be fewer of them. Numbers, ultimately especially in terms of escort missions, matter, as a ship can be only in so many places at once.
Though the Type 26 hull is obviously great, and will allow for these ships to travel long distances, crucial for transatlantic, and perhaps transpacific escort missions.
Not sure where the confusion is coming from, but you're mistaken in your comparison to the Halifax-class.
The River-class could carry the Halifax's entire missile load, and still have 20 empty VLS cells. Canada also only ever operated 12 Halifax-class ships, and plans to build 15 River-class.
Based on the US 20e5 National Security Survey released earlier this month, the very last thing we should be doing is sharing our ship design with a foreign power that has made it clear it reserves the right to "geographical access" to anywhere or anything in the North American hemisphere.
In March, 2025 the US cut off satellite intelligence to Ukraine, about a week after berating Zelensky in the White House. Eventually it was restored, but it showed how vicious the US can be, when it doesn't get its way.
And make no mistake, Canada is in its way.
Our ships design is a matter of national security, and not shareable with nations that are using economic force and 5th column advocacy groups to try to destabilize us.
Hawk...You done well!!. You captured the essence of warship design spiral risks and design immaturity that the GAO has been recommending against for the past few years.... final design before construction....always. I hope RCD does wel, it'll be a success story just like the workhorse Halifax Class... I mean who builds ships to last 25 years, and then doubles the calling to 50 yrs!. It's a real testament to the engineering prowess of the design capability on our soil.. I am super proud of everything they are going to deliver with RCD. Great post. Nailed it. Arguably, the yard building RCD is the most capable yard to get the job done, the business of building complex warships. My prediction is USN will go for the fast & cheap avenue, they have to play catch up fast. It would be great if the RCD was in the running, but unless there was a real GCS benefit from a sustainment perspective realized (which there very much is) I would be surprised to see it come to fruition. I'm all in for fleet commonality across the alliance, heck, that means you could service and sustain those ships literally anywhere within the alliance. I'm smelling what The Rock is cooking, and hopefully it it some true tag team wrassling action!.. just kidding, great job on the very detailed post!
Hawk - excellent piece; sound analysis and argument. Have you considered offering it to the Naval Institute? Would share your thoughts more broadly to the profession here in the US. All the best.
I'd happily see USNI (or others) republish it, if they saw value in it. But I wouldn't know where to begin in terms of offering it to them.
be curious to know what the munitions storage and damage controls differences and similarities might be with regard to the RCN vs USN vs RN. Weve got a bit of a hodgepodge of standards going on now with the JSS/Aops/RCD
What an excellent report, especially for us not well versed in naval/ship matters! I don’t know whether the USA would humble themselves to look at a Canadian destroyer option. The NIMBY factor has been prevalent in the USA for decades with very few Canadian aircraft selections. We could show maturity by offering design and construction assistance to the US Navy by offering these services tariff free…
Very interesting argument. I shared it along with some thoughts with my network on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nicholas-m-buckle_after-constellation-why-the-us-navy-needs-activity-7423693988983001088-0u8G?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop&rcm=ACoAAEQCM38Bl_UVFxCNKYSvmH61S1VJwYvucJY
While the River-class avoids the "clean sheet" trap, it hasn't escaped the design spiral entirely. The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates the fleet's acquisition cost has climbed to $84.5 billion, nearly triple the original projection. Crucially, the Department of National Defence forecasts the "Final Design Review" for 2028, three years after full-rate production began. Adopting the River-class now could simply mean importing a different kind of concurrent-engineering risk.
I address cost in the piece. The "original projection" you're referring to wasn't a projection, though. It was an accounting placeholder for replacing the Halifax capability. We later chose to go far beyond that.
Concurrent-engineering seems misunderstood. It's standard practice in warship construction and has been for a long time. Constellation's issues were that it went to absurd lengths to manage that process and went to absurd lengths to mismanage the process (see Perun's recent work for examples), effectively beginning construction without knowing the maturity of the design.
Every indication is that the River-class achieved a level of design maturity before construction began that the Constellation never achieved, even years after construction began. The US Navy should definitely confirm before pulling the trigger, but there are no signs of the kinds of malpractice that make the modest amount of concurrent-engineering happening in the program alarming.
Thank you, really enjoy your work! Very interesting insights.
As a Canadian, I sure hope this doesn’t happen. I think the River class is going to be a great success & a point of pride for us. This ship is going to give us influence, having the US with the same capabilities diminishes that. The current administration says they can do whatever they want alone, so let them.
I understand the impulse.
But I also think that a clear-eyed assessment will conclude that Canada is better off with the US relying on it, than not. That limits the damage that the current US administration can do to us.
The section of this piece on that topic ended up getting cut. But the sum of it is that this is a place where it hurts us, and doesn't help us, to take our ball and go home.
if they need to rely on our RCD in their CSG, how does that hurt us?
The RCD’s are going to be very American with the Aegis system and main missiles not to mention the cooperative engagement capability. Having said that when at Sea our Navy is trusted and respected by the Americans like few others including the Brits or Japan.
They’re going to be some British, some American and some Canadian. Sounds Canadian to me
Yup
Excellent post. When I first heard about the River class as a person living in Germany, I had (and still have) many doubts, as it seems to be almost a step down from the previous class of Halifax frigates. They will be far more expensive, construction will take time, have a lacking magazine depth and there will be fewer of them. Numbers, ultimately especially in terms of escort missions, matter, as a ship can be only in so many places at once.
Though the Type 26 hull is obviously great, and will allow for these ships to travel long distances, crucial for transatlantic, and perhaps transpacific escort missions.
Not sure where the confusion is coming from, but you're mistaken in your comparison to the Halifax-class.
The River-class could carry the Halifax's entire missile load, and still have 20 empty VLS cells. Canada also only ever operated 12 Halifax-class ships, and plans to build 15 River-class.
I may have confused them with the modernized Type-23 frigates of the Royal Navy. My bad
Based on the US 20e5 National Security Survey released earlier this month, the very last thing we should be doing is sharing our ship design with a foreign power that has made it clear it reserves the right to "geographical access" to anywhere or anything in the North American hemisphere.
In March, 2025 the US cut off satellite intelligence to Ukraine, about a week after berating Zelensky in the White House. Eventually it was restored, but it showed how vicious the US can be, when it doesn't get its way.
And make no mistake, Canada is in its way.
Our ships design is a matter of national security, and not shareable with nations that are using economic force and 5th column advocacy groups to try to destabilize us.
The USN needs nothing, except responsible management, dedicated to SERVING the Consitution rather than making a mockery of it!
Disagree. I think they need ships too.
Understood.
You made my day (well, evening) with this comment.
It summarizes exactly what I was trying to do. Thank you, so much, for taking the time to write it.