Updating the Continental Defence Corvette Infobox + Clarifying recent reporting
Noah Note
Welp. We haven't done this in a while. It isnt because I haven't been meaning too, moreso waiting for a good time when I had a bunch more info to put in the box.
With the Ottawa Citizen now posting about CDC (ill get there) what better time to update our CDC Infobox than now? It's been a few months, and the project how has some clearer timelines, some changes in restrictions, and more set requirements than before.
So, what better time than now! Anywho. Heres a rundown of the major changes:
The 12-20 potential hulls has been added, fixing my guesstimate of 8-12 a few months ago.
The 105m limit is no longer a hard limit, nice one, but not strict. I don't think we have a high chance of going past 120m though.
Added the 7000+ nautical mile range and and 30 days endurance from Vice-Admiral Topshee. We kinds knew that, basic math, but hid confirmation is what we needed to add it.
As we first reported a few weeks ago, 2039 IOC date, 2049 FOC date, and an RFI released this year, likely summer. These dates are subject to change, and there is a push to get them a lot sooner if possible.
Finally cemented the VLS, which seems very likely now. Torpedoes not added as they have not been confirmed.
Updated to clarify that the flight deck has not been decided on.
Added Polar 6 equivalent instead of Polar Class 6 as there has been further clarification that the navy might not go for the full IACS certification requirements.
Weight raised to 2500-4000 as a general area of thought. No tonnage confirmed, if there is one desired.
This represents my most up to date understanding of the Continental Defence Corvette, and likely close to the final package that the navy brass is seeking to get out of the project. As always, unfunded, not approved, could change when presented. All that fun drag.
Use this infobox as a handy tool, or a quick share resource. If you guys like this, maybe I'll do similar for FASST-V and Arctic Mobile Base? I like these little graphics. They give a quick, easily-digestable resource that almost everyone knows and can read easily without being overwhleming or confusion.
Straight to the point, all the basic info you need in a little package. I like that kind of stuff. It's fun to have CDC in the general conversation, though if I can be that guy for a minute… usually I dont like to call out things, nor try to step above and clarify on my elder reporters. However, I do also believe on axcurste informations.
The Ottawa Citizen article is fine, however there are a few things I think need addressed. Firstly, the price tag. I don't know where they're getting five billion from, but nowhere in any CDC media or in any talks ive had have I ever even heard a solid guess on the price tag.
It quite literally does not exist as I know. There is zero way that 12 corvettes, let alone up to 20 comes in at five billion. That us enough for the VLS modules and initial munitions, but for the whole vessels? With all the radars, sonars, systems, munitions, equipment, etc put in? Zero way this costs five billion.
You could get them built at the cheapest shipyard in China, and fitted with North Korean technology, and I still doubt that price tag would be under five billion. That is an insane number to put out there, especially one that everyone knows is ridiculously low.
Maybe they heard over five billion and got confused? Or misremembered? Thats the only legitimate way I can see that number thrown out there. No other way makes sense. I swear though, I better not see complaining about ‘price increases’ based off a ridiculous five billion dollar number. I will dropkick someone.
Seondly is the RFI question, which I found weird. No one is gonna tell you when the RFI is dropping, usually because those dates fluxtuate so much, for so many reasons that it's almost worthless information. It's so worthless that I dont even bother reporting rumors on them.
In some cases they may not even know themsleves! They may have a rough idea, liek in the summer, but beyond that? Absolutely no way you're getting a date. RFI releases can be delayed by just about anything. Could be issues with funding, caught in review, lack of procurement staff, political delay, ATIP requests, waiting on thr French copy. Lots of things can delay it.
Now, I don't know what they asked. Maybe they just asked a general ‘Summer-Fall-Winter’ timeline. That can be a bit more reasonable, and usually if one asks the DND will mention it, at least for me. Maybe not them.
Anything beyond that is silly to ask for. It just isnt worth it. You'll never get a good amswer because it just doesn't exist. You're better off asking a Shaman to foretell the date, like me, because that's about as accurate as you can get.
Those are my two mentions from the article. Rest is generally accurate, including timelines. I should note the 2039 timeline is very much in the fsr end of the spectrum. Navy would definetly liek it sooner if possible, and there have been talks of rushing through CDC to get a contract awarded.
RFP would come around 2027/2028, award hopefully before 2030 would be great. That alone likely means an IOC date before 2039. I always stress that timelines like this aint set in stone. They change, especially this early in the project lifecycle. You shouldn't be too held up by it yet.
Thats about all I have to rant about! Howpfully yall can find some value in this little box.