Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 145477 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Underway

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 477
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #500 on: July 25, 2017, 15:13:49 »
Brief I was given recently said that all the warship bidders were in pre-compliancy checks or something like that.  Basically the gov't and RCN were looking at all the CSC bids before they were officially submitted to ensure that they were compliant with the gov't requirements.  They want to help/ensure industry with/is meeting the requirements and that no bids are thrown out because of some compliance if possible, especially for something dumb like they forgot to submit something.  (Damn it Gary, it was your responsibility for the fire main pump specs!!).

These are big complicated bids so there are a lot of moving parts and stuff can get dropped/lost easily.  Should there be a compliance issue then the bidder will have time to figure out what they want to do (not bid, fix compliancy, etc...) before the bid is officially submitted.

There have been a number of non-compliant bids for various mil procurement since 2006 and the RCN seems to want to ensure that all the ducks are in a row before the "final deadline".  The navy also wants as many bidders compliant as possible to have a quote "really good solid competition to get the best ship for the navy and the best deal for the taxpayers".

Delays and lack of deadline reported might have something to do with this process.  Maybe we are taking to long to do the pre-screen or maybe there are compliancy issues they are letting some bidders sort out before giving a solid deadline.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,509
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #501 on: July 28, 2017, 10:50:28 »
USN sure planning to move a whole lot faster than RCN has:

Quote
Navy Hosts Guided-Missile Frigate Industry Day; Analysts Worried About Early FFG(X) Requirements

The Navy held an industry day for companies interested in participating in the frigate program, walking them through what is already decided about the future ship program and what decisions are pending industry feedback.

The guided-missile frigate program, FFG(X), is the Navy’s latest iteration of the small surface combatant program, which was first filled by the Littoral Combat Ship and then subsequently by the LCS-based frigate (FF), which would be up-gunned, up-armored and multi-mission compared to the LCS.

The FFG(X) program, announced earlier this year, will take the best of the LCS and LCS-based frigate ideas – multi-mission design, a reliance on unmanned vehicles in all domains to increase range, a smaller design to reduce cost and increase access to global ports compared to the larger surface combatants – while adding features such as vertical-launched missiles and more powerful radars, the service says.

According to the Navy’s industry day presentation slides, obtained by USNI News, industry will have until Aug. 24 to respond to the Navy’s request for information (RFI), released two weeks ago. The Navy will then enter a conceptual design phase to help take existing ship designs, called parent designs, and modify them to meet Navy requirements. The request for proposals (RFP) for the conceptual design contracts will provide system specifications and government furnished information (GFI), and conceptual design contracts will be awarded in calendar year 2018 ahead of a Fiscal Year 2020 detail design and construction contract [emphasis added].

Senate Armed Services Committee chairman and outspoken LCS critic Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the new frigate program after reading the July 10 RFI.

However, in a SASC seapower subcommittee hearing this week, leading voices in the naval analysis community expressed concerns about the Navy’s approach going forward.

Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments senior fellow Bryan Clark said during the hearing that he worried the Navy had begun this process with too many details left undecided, and said that the Navy should be able to better determine what it wants without first requiring industry feedback.

“I think what it does is it opens up the aperture too much in terms of what that future frigate could be. It makes it seem like it could be anything from a ship that’s only able to do surface warfare and [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] missions in support of distributed lethality, the Navy’s new surface concept. It could be from anything from that, which is a relatively low-end ship or less capable ship, all the way up to a frigate that can do air defense for another ship and do anti-submarine warfare,” Clark said towards the end of the hearing...

The industry day slides state that the RFI was meant to help the Navy “understand industry’s parent designs and their ability to integrate both the warfare system elements and the threshold requirements into the new FFG(X) design,” and to “understand the drivers in non-recurring engineering, recurring engineering, production schedule, and operations and supports costs,” before making certain decisions.

The RFI clearly outlines what anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare capabilities the FFG(X) will have to have, listing various systems and weapons the FFG(X) must include. The extent of its anti-air capability is less clear, with the RFI posing questions to industry about how to incorporate Vertical Launching System cells into the ship design.

Jerry Hendrix, senior fellow and director of the defense strategies and assessments program at the Center for a New American Security, said at the Tuesday hearing that, opposite of Clark’s concern, he worried too much emphasis was being placed on the addition of VLS cells and anti-air warfare capability...

According to the industry day slides, the FFG(X) will: supplement the fleet’s existing undersea and surface warfare capabilities, relieve cruisers and destroyers from non-combat duties, host unmanned systems that can penetrate and operate in contested environments, conduct over-the-horizon anti-ship missile operations, escort logistics ships, provide electromagnetic information exploitation capabilities and intelligence collection, and more.
https://news.usni.org/2017/07/27/navy-hosts-guided-missile-frigate-industry-day-analysts-worried-early-ffgx-requirements

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,509
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #502 on: July 30, 2017, 11:53:21 »
Those IP issues, Irving and a certain US company:

Quote
Warship bidders have issues

The federal government says intellectual property questions have dominated among bidders as the final bid deadline for the design of Canada’s new fleet of warships draws nearer.

In response to reports last week that the 12 firms prequalified to bid on the $60-billion procurement of 15 new warships were left wondering when a firm deadline would be imposed, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) reached out to The Chronicle Herald with an update on the process.

Lisa Campbell, assistant deputy minister of defence and marine procurement at PSPC, said Friday the department has nearly completed reviewing and providing feedback on the draft proposals. This was an optional service provided to bidders who wanted feedback before officially entering the competition. Once that is complete, which won’t be before mid-August, firms will have four weeks to finalize and submit their final responses.

The deadline has been extended twice so far. In February the government announced it was being moved from April 27 to June 22 after a third of the firms requested an extension. Then at the end of May it was extended again to a date to be determined.

With the second extension, the targeted completion for the procurement process moves from fall 2017 to 2018, the department said at the time, but the start of ship construction remains scheduled for the early 2020s.

Even though this is a private competition solicited by the project’s prime contractor, Halifax’s Irving Shipbuilding, Campbell said the final submissions will be reviewed and scored by an evaluation team which includes both Irving and the federal government. The proposals, which will combine a pre-existing ship design and combat systems integrator, will be evaluated first on mandatory criteria, then the designs that are up to snuff will be ranked in areas such as design maturity, software development capability and value proposition to select a winner...

Intellectual property, or IP, is a big deal in the defence world and bidders are not happy to just hand it over to any company or government, as it can contain classified security data as well as proprietary information that could jeopardize a company’s future competitions if it falls into the wrong hands.

But without obtaining enough IP it will be extremely difficult and costly for Canada to maintain these large and complex pieces of equipment.

“Many people have called this procurement in its essence an IP procurement,” Campbell said.

“We’ve found in defence procurement that IP and access to it is a determining factor of whether or not we have control over the lifecycle of maintaining equipment. It allows us to go back to the market, it allows us to compete, it allows us to quite frankly not be hamstrung by an original equipment manufacturer. It is extremely complex and very important for us.”

One well-placed industry source said it’s not the Government of Canada bidders are concerned about when it comes to intellectual property but private companies like Irving, and more specifically Gibbs & Cox, a U.S.-based warship giant Irving has retained to support engineering and design of the Canadian Surface Combatant [emphasis added]. The source said many of the firms bidding on the warship design compete against Gibbs & Cox on the world stage for other navy procurements regularly, so it’s not surprising they’re concerned about their intellectual property falling into the wrong hands...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1490189-warship-bidders-have-issues

Mark
Ottawa


Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,509
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #503 on: August 04, 2017, 11:26:45 »
CSC: Should RCN collaborate with USN on new frigates (note missile defence angle)?  Excerpts from lengthy piece by ret'd RCAF naval aviator which starts with lots on LCS (headline a bit silly):

Quote
...
While it might be comforting to believe that the CSC program is basically on track and moving briskly to build and introduce a world-class multi-purpose frigate to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), in the numbers and at the cost projected, few informed observers would agree that this is the case.  Even after years of work to ameliorate the program, and on the cusp of the first bids being submitted in mid-August, the impenetrable complexity of the process, ongoing industry wrangling, and ever-expanding price tag all suggest that staying the current course seems most likely to deliver less capability than the RCN needs, later than it is needed, and at a cost that will ultimately prove shocking to Canadian taxpayers.

It has been suggested that the sign of a good compromise is one which dissatisfies all participants equally, but this is surely a poor metric for success for a multi-billion dollar weapon system which will be in service for decades, is intended to remake the face of Canadian Naval industry, and which will carry Canada’s sailors into harm’s way in service of the country.  Instead, would it not be better to leverage the considerable competencies of our most important economic and military ally, share our valuable operational and design knowledge in an area where we have world-class industry, and explore the possibility of collaborating to solve a common problem?

If the Government, procurement officials, the RCN, and Canadian industry can work together with a sense of urgency and boldness to formulate, propose, and ultimately execute on a collaborative Bi-National Frigate Strategy with the United States, it could lead to an elegant, win-win outcome that resets two highly problematic programs, in a manner that would greatly benefit both countries, their respective Navies, and industry as well.

In considering such an approach, the initial step is to quickly establish whether there is sufficient alignment between the operational needs of the two Navies to make a joint program feasible.

Fortunately, Canada has already produced a very solid CSC requirements document, which includes extensive technical specifications based on decades of multi-purpose frigate operations.  This could form an immediate starting point for a foundational capability discussion with the USN.  While the CSC mission set is not an exact analogue, there is significant overlap between it and many of the systems, sensors, weapons, and warfighting capabilities needed in the FFG(X).  Like Canada, the USN needs a survivable, multi-role vessel that has the equipment, speed, range, and seakeeping ability to operate independently in hostile waters, and work in concert with other nations.  It requires advanced anti-submarine and electronic warfare capabilities, and a highly capable long-range radar system able to direct modern air to surface missiles in self-protection, area air defence, and perhaps even theatre ballistic missile defence roles [emphasis added].  It needs a conventional naval gun, smaller systems for close-in self-defence, and the ability to operate a medium-sized maritime helicopter in parallel with a range of airborne, surface, and possibly subsurface autonomous vehicles.  Finally, it requires an advanced suite of integrated combat management and automated ship control systems, to enable high-end warfighting operations and battle-damage tolerance, even with a reduced crew footprint.

On a purely military level, a harmonized requirements set has much to recommend it.  Although the two Navies train and operate differently, a strong baseline of procedural interoperability already exists, and would only be reinforced by commonality of equipment.  Canada could benefit from US advances in platform-level cyber protection, and would gain easier access to an expanded range of operational capabilities that might otherwise be unachievable due to CSC cost and technical obstacles. For its part, the USN would have a unique avenue to draw upon Canadian key industrial competencies already proven in the Halifax-class frigate, and under active development in anticipation of CSC.  These might include anti-submarine warfare sensors and processing, advanced sensor and system integration approaches, novel schemes for on-board automation, shipboard helicopter integration, and operation of unmanned air, surface, and sub-surface vehicles from medium-sized vessels.

Such collaboration would reduce manufacturing and technical risk not only in the design and build phases, but also as the complex weapon system is sustained over its lifetime...

This would not be a small undertaking, but if alignment were possible, it could dramatically enhance both the cost-effectiveness as well as the industrial attractiveness of the CSC program.  Already, some observers have suggested that a change in direction on LCS might cause CSC bidders to shift their focus to the more lucrative USN market.  Given the greater predictability of the US procurement processes, less onerous intellectual property (IP) requirements, and a more conventional distribution of labour between warship designers, system integrators, and shipyards, the possibility that major industrial players might reconsider their commitment to submit CSC bids is a real danger.  At the very least, a significantly reduced number of bidders could damage the quality of CSC competition, result in fewer options for Canada, and potentially create new cost and quality pressures on the program.

With a larger Bi-National program, however, the increased number of ships (at least 20 for the USN, and a further 12-15 ships for the RCN) will likely result in mutual cost and capability benefits due to the increased scale of manufacture, and greater scope for industry to recoup its investments over the service life of the fleet...

Jeff Tasseron is a Naval Aviator and the former Commanding Officer of 423 Maritime Helicopter Squadron.  His 26-year career in the Canadian Forces included more than 15 years of operational flying in the Sea King helicopter community, numerous deployments, and staff roles as the Special Advisor to the Chief of Defence Staff (General Walt Natynczyk) and the Director of Joint C4ISR in Chief of Force Development.  Following his retirement, he worked in the Air & Naval business unit of General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada, among other defence industry positions.  He currently provides independent consulting services on a wide range of defence and security issues, including procurement, the function of the civil /military interface,  and industry positioning and strategy.  As he is genetically incapable of confining his prose to 140 character run-on sentences , his first blog can be found at https://avernica.wordpress.com/ – proving that even a retired RCAF Colonel can learn new tricks.  When not working or writing, he can be found playing squash.
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/08/04/united-states-navy-seeks-nice-canadian-warship-for-sunset-cruises-visits-to-the-beach/#.WYSSCemQzwo

Meanwhile:

Quote
Coast Guard Design for Navy Frigate? It’s Doable, [Commandant] Zukunft Says


The Coast Guard's 418-foot National Security Cutter Hamilton cruises alongside the Fast Response Cutter William Flores off Miami Beach on Nov. 11, 2014. Mark Barney/Coast Guard
https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/08/03/coast-guard-design-navy-frigate-doable-zukunft-says/

Mark
Ottawa
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 12:03:06 by MarkOttawa »
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,184
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,569
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #504 on: August 04, 2017, 14:46:38 »

Meanwhile:
Coast Guard Design for Navy Frigate? It’s Doable, [Commandant] Zukunft Says

Mark
Ottawa

Not a bad design. That thing is as heavily armed as a CPF considering how often we sail without any missiles, torpedoes, or chaff embarked. In fact, probably more heavily armed if we aren't sailing around with war-shot for the 57mm.

Ramming speed!

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,814
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #505 on: August 04, 2017, 15:40:51 »
.... as heavily armed as a CPF considering how often we sail without any missiles, torpedoes, or chaff embarked. In fact, probably more heavily armed if we aren't sailing around with war-shot for the 57mm.

Ramming speed!

Excuse me?  :orly:

I seem to recall being berated over the need for ships to be maintained at war establishment because every ship had to be ready for Pearl Harbor.  Thus the argument against reduced crews and lightly armed OPVs like the Holland.

Anywho....

Back to the CSC RFQ -

Iroquois             - 129 m - 5100 tonnes
Halifax               -   134 m - 5032 tonnes
Huitfeldt/Absalon - 138 m - 6645 tonnes

What's wrong with a Halifax with additional freeboard to permit additional deadweight or fuel?

Transfer all the weapons and systems from the existing (and recently departed Tribal) hulls at zero cost.

Then.... and only then.... upgrade the existing systems on separate budgets.  Then you can have as many empty launchers as you like.

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,184
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,569
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #506 on: August 04, 2017, 15:57:26 »
Excuse me?  :orly:

I seem to recall being berated over the need for ships to be maintained at war establishment because every ship had to be ready for Pearl Harbor.  Thus the argument against reduced crews and lightly armed OPVs like the Holland.

I spent 4 years posted to the same ship. Sailed her into FELEX and then completed the TRP with her when she came out. Not once in those 4 years did she ever carry a single missile.

In fact, when we sailed on TGEX with the USN, you could see from miles away that we were missing our Harpoons, and if you had good optical equipment, you could see that our VLS system was empty as well; but, when we went on GLD, we sailed with empty ESSM and Harpoon canisters for public consumption.
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Dimsum

    West coast best coast.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 132,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,912
  • I get paid to travel. I just don't pick where.
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #507 on: August 04, 2017, 16:19:34 »
I spent 4 years posted to the same ship. Sailed her into FELEX and then completed the TRP with her when she came out. Not once in those 4 years did she ever carry a single missile.

In fact, when we sailed on TGEX with the USN, you could see from miles away that we were missing our Harpoons, and if you had good optical equipment, you could see that our VLS system was empty as well; but, when we went on GLD, we sailed with empty ESSM and Harpoon canisters for public consumption.

What is the reasoning for not sailing with missiles, etc?  Don't NWTs (?) need currency on maintaining such things? 
Philip II of Macedon to Spartans (346 BC):  "You are advised to submit without further delay, for if I bring my army into your land, I will destroy your farms, slay your people, and raze your city."

Reply:  "If."

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 184,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,814
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #508 on: August 04, 2017, 16:27:43 »
Thanks Lumber.

I wasn't questioning the authenticity of your statement.  Just restrained astonishment.

Cheers.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,711
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #509 on: August 04, 2017, 16:44:36 »
I don't know what the logic is but it could be as simple as "why drive around loaded with high explosives and dangerous corrosive fuels when you're just training".

As for a possible quick joint frigate program with the US, here are the various mods based on the USCG Hamilton cutters that the Huntington Ingalls is proposing:  Run the 4 minutes + video. In particular, pay attention to the FF4923 Version toward the end, impressive and very close to what we are seeking.

http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/file?fid=540e18ebf6091d02aa000004
« Last Edit: August 04, 2017, 16:50:40 by Oldgateboatdriver »

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 129,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,372
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #510 on: August 04, 2017, 17:09:46 »
Excuse me?  :orly:

I seem to recall being berated over the need for ships to be maintained at war establishment because every ship had to be ready for Pearl Harbor.  Thus the argument against reduced crews and lightly armed OPVs like the Holland.

Anywho....

Back to the CSC RFQ -

Iroquois             - 129 m - 5100 tonnes
Halifax               -   134 m - 5032 tonnes
Huitfeldt/Absalon - 138 m - 6645 tonnes

What's wrong with a Halifax with additional freeboard to permit additional deadweight or fuel?

Transfer all the weapons and systems from the existing (and recently departed Tribal) hulls at zero cost.

Then.... and only then.... upgrade the existing systems on separate budgets.  Then you can have as many empty launchers as you like.
 

The Wardroom will only fit so many Officers.    :whistle:
+300

Online suffolkowner

  • Member
  • ****
  • 9,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 237
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #511 on: August 06, 2017, 15:22:31 »
I spent 4 years posted to the same ship. Sailed her into FELEX and then completed the TRP with her when she came out. Not once in those 4 years did she ever carry a single missile.

In fact, when we sailed on TGEX with the USN, you could see from miles away that we were missing our Harpoons, and if you had good optical equipment, you could see that our VLS system was empty as well; but, when we went on GLD, we sailed with empty ESSM and Harpoon canisters for public consumption.

This is kind of disconcerting to me, did I not read something similar regarding our Hornet's being unarmed when flying in Iceland and even Romania?

Seems hard to sell the idea of new warships and fighters with all the fixings if we don't actually need them on deployments?

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 32,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,391
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #512 on: August 12, 2017, 09:55:47 »
More trouble over Irving handling the program

Quote
Impasse over intellectual property is tying up warship bids

The federal government's plan to buy an off-the-shelf design for the navy's new frigates is facing significant pushback from at least one of Canada's allies, which appears to question timelines and the fundamental structure of the high-stakes $60-billion project.

Documents obtained by CBC News show one of the 12 companies competing to design and help construct the warships has been blocked from handing over "supporting data and services."

The unidentified bidder says one of Canada's allies, which owns the rights to the sensitive electronics embedded in the warship, is refusing permission to include the information and instead wants direct negotiations with the federal government.

The nation, which is also not identified in the Aug. 2 document obtained by CBC News, has no interest in dealing directly with Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding Inc., which is the federal government's go-to company for warship construction.
Diplomatic exchange

The issue is serious enough that it has already been the subject of a diplomatic exchange, and Canada's ally finds certain terms in the federal government's request for proposals unacceptable.

"Bidder has been advised directly by Foreign Government that Foreign Government has communicated concerns directly to Canada and is awaiting Canada's response," said the internal documents, which are a collection of questions and answers between prospective bidders and Irving Shipbuilding.

Since they are circulated to everyone in the competition, the name of the company and the country raising the objections have been censored.

"Bidder wishes to advise Canada that until appropriate terms for transfer of [government to government] supporting data and services are negotiated directly between Canada and Foreign Government, Foreign Government will not permit Bidder to submit mandated [Government to Government] supporting information."
Faster, cheaper process

The federal government intends to build 15 warships to replace the navy's frigates.

Last year, the Liberals went to great lengths when they relaunched the national shipbuilding strategy to say they wanted a proven warship design rather than something done from scratch.

They said it would be faster and cheaper.

A design competition, involving a dozen pre-qualified companies, was launched last fall.

But there has been growing skepticism among the bidders, particularly when it comes to the amount of technical and intellectual property data requested by the Canadian government.

Officials have asked for all the data necessary to maintain equipment such as radar and combat management suites.
The problem is many of Canada's allies, including the U.S., Britain, France and Australia, paid for the development of those essential electronics individually and don't want to share the data for their own national security reasons.

Defence analyst Dave Perry said he's heard informally that as many as three governments, including the United States, are balking at handing over the data.

"It's critical because the ship designers need the information in order to submit a compliant bid," he said. "There is a high degree of frustration."
Bidder's responsibility

The Canadian government made it the responsibility of ship designers to acquire the sensitive data for inclusion in their proposals, and a defence industry source with knowledge of the file says the provision should be no surprise.

The Public Services and Procurement Department has yet to set a deadline for submission of final proposals, although it is widely expected to be in mid-September, and the source said it's likely some bidders are feeling the pressure to get their respective governments onside.

Even so, the documents show, at least one bidder believes negotiating state secret data is best done government-to-government.

"Whilst the Bidder respects Canada's absolute right to define the terms of any solicitation process, bidder respectfully suggests that Canada, rather than Canadian industry retains responsibility to conduct diplomacy and that it is up to Canada to negotiate terms with foreign governments," the documents said.

"Will Canada engage directly with foreign governments to resolve this issue?"
Ottawa calls its request 'reasonable'

Perry said putting the onus on bidders is a "unique arrangement" that has the potential of severely limiting the number of design submissions.

"There is still work to be done to solve this in order to get to a situation where several companies can successfully bid," he said.

Public works officials, however, have insisted they're not asking for anything out of the ordinary and remain confident they will have a number of bids to evaluate.

"I want to emphasize we're only asking for a reasonable amount of [intellectual property] — owning what we paid to develop and a limited licence access so we can design, build and maintain, and ultimately dispose of these ships over the next several decades," said Lisa Campbell, the assistant deputy minister of defence and marine procurement, in a conference call with the media on July 28.


"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,196
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #513 on: August 12, 2017, 12:15:32 »
I don't know what the logic is but it could be as simple as "why drive around loaded with high explosives and dangerous corrosive fuels when you're just training".

As for a possible quick joint frigate program with the US, here are the various mods based on the USCG Hamilton cutters that the Huntington Ingalls is proposing:  Run the 4 minutes + video. In particular, pay attention to the FF4923 Version toward the end, impressive and very close to what we are seeking.

http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/file?fid=540e18ebf6091d02aa000004

FF4923 is very impressive.  If thats a class of ships that is acceptable, why not this class as well: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ppa-class-multi-purpose-offshore-patrol-vessels

It would be nice to see the CSC find some room to replace the 280's with a nasty destroyer. Oh well, can't have everything.
You're right. I Never  Met A Motherfucker Quite Like You, or someone as smart as you.  Never ever will, either.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 53,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,509
  • Two birthdays
    • Currently posting at Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute's "3Ds Blog"
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #514 on: August 12, 2017, 13:12:23 »
More on Italian PPA (much more than normal OPV):

Quote
Italian Navy’s Offshore Patrol Vessel Plans (RCN?), Part 2
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/mark-collins-italian-navys-offshore-patrol-vessel-plans-rcn-part-2

/

Mark
Ottawa
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,184
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,569
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #515 on: August 13, 2017, 16:21:59 »
This is kind of disconcerting to me, did I not read something similar regarding our Hornet's being unarmed when flying in Iceland and even Romania?

Seems hard to sell the idea of new warships and fighters with all the fixings if we don't actually need them on deployments?

Deployments are a different beast. When our ships deploy they are loaded for bear.
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline serger989

  • Guest
  • *
  • 200
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #516 on: August 13, 2017, 22:43:14 »
Deployments are a different beast. When our ships deploy they are loaded for bear.

For a second there I thought you typed "loaded for beer". Made me laugh. Can't say I have ever heard loaded for bear though, I assume that means packed to the brim with their required arsenal?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 01:18:17 by serger989 »

Offline jollyjacktar

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 129,327
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,372
  • My uncle F/Sgt W.H.S. Buckwell KIA 14/05/43 22YOA
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #517 on: August 14, 2017, 06:46:48 »
The days of loaded for beer are sadly now, history.

Online Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 40,184
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,569
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #518 on: August 14, 2017, 09:07:50 »
For a second there I thought you typed "loaded for beer". Made me laugh. Can't say I have ever heard loaded for bear though, I assume that means packed to the brim with their required arsenal?

"The phrase originates with American hunters and woodsmen in regions frequented by the brown bear. Brown bears are the largest land-based predator on earth, and when expecting to deal with them the hunters would bring much more powerful rifles than they would if hunting other game."

The days of loaded for beer are sadly now, history.

Indeed.  :crybaby:
“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower


Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,711
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #519 on: August 14, 2017, 11:38:02 »
The days of loaded for beer are sadly now, history.

Yep. Gone are the days we would organize an impromptu two days port visit to Seattle merely because the B.C. breweries were on strike.  [:D

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,090
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,196
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #520 on: August 14, 2017, 13:13:24 »
Back to the CSC program. It seems that Canadian firms are obtaining contracts with the Type 26 program in the UK, this news from BAE itself.  If the Type 26 is a design contender, this certainly helps...
http://www.baesystems.com/en-ca/article/canadian-firms-win-contracts-to-support-uk-type-26-program

Canadian firms win contracts to support UK Type 26 program
Ottawa-based engineering firm WR Davis is the first Canadian company to secure a manufacturing contract to provide key equipment to the UK’s Type 26 Global Combat Ship program.
BAE Systems, the designer and manufacturer of this next generation anti-submarine warfare ship, has awarded the C$12m contract to WR Davis Engineering Ltd for the Uptake and Downtake elements of the ship’s funnel and exhaust system for the first three Type 26 ships. These components are key elements of the engine and propulsion system in the new UK Royal Navy ships.
 
Tom Davis, Vice President of WR Davis Engineering Ltd, said: “We are delighted to participate in the prestigious UK Royal Navy Type 26 Global Combat Ship program for the supply of the complete Downtake, Uptake, and Infra-Red Suppression systems for the propulsion and ship service engines. This builds on our previous experience of supplying similar systems for the UK Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers and reinforces our position as a world leader in the design and supply of engine Downtakes and Uptakes, for naval warships.”
 
WR Davis is one of seven supply chain partners to have been awarded equipment manufacturing contracts with BAE Systems. The Canadian firm has already started performing system integration and detailed design work on the Type 26 program.
 
The manufacturing contracts follow on from a number of design contracts already placed for the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program, including Montreal-based L-3 MAPPS for major elements of the platform management system in support of its L-3 Marine Systems UK business and Rolls-Royce, based in Peterborough, Ontario, for the mission bay handling system.
 
BAE Systems’ Ric Elkington, based in Ottawa, said: “Canadian companies are playing a crucial role in the development of Type 26. This design is a next generation multi-mission frigate and is being considered for the Canadian Surface Combatant, to be built by Irving Shipbuilding Inc in Halifax, Nova Scotia. 
 
“The work already underway on Type 26 could eventually lead to over C$70m of work for Canadian industry, based on the construction of eight Type 26 ships for the UK Royal Navy.”
 
The UK Ministry of Defence awarded BAE Systems a C$886m contract in March 2016 to continue to progress the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program following the UK Government’s commitment in the Strategic Defence and Security Review to buy eight of the advanced anti-submarine warfare ships. This contract reinforced the UK Government’s investment in Type 26 ensuring continued momentum to further mature the detailed design work and to manufacture key equipment for the first three ships.
 
The Type 26 Global Combat Ship will be a world-class anti-submarine warfare ship and will in time replace the UK Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates. Globally deployable, it will be capable of undertaking a wide range of roles from high intensity warfare to humanitarian assistance, either operating independently or as part of a task group.
You're right. I Never  Met A Motherfucker Quite Like You, or someone as smart as you.  Never ever will, either.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 99,770
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,726
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #521 on: August 15, 2017, 10:18:10 »
More on Italian PPA (much more than normal OPV):

Mark
Ottawa

No missile system?

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 86,475
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,711
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #522 on: August 15, 2017, 11:05:49 »
Actually, Colin, the "full" configuration includes 16 cells for Aster 15 and Aster 30 anti-air missiles and 8 cells for Ottoman or follow on surface to surface missiles.

The real question is how many "full" version can the Italian navy afford (so far, one for testing), and how successful will it be as a front line warship? This second question is the reason they have ordered one "full" version, so it can be put through its pace and decide if it is a proper front line warship.