Milnet.ca Forums

Navy.ca => Ships & Vessels => Topic started by: jmt18325 on August 16, 2015, 14:19:57

Title: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on August 16, 2015, 14:19:57
Any thoughts on who will be shortlisted for warship designer and combat systems integrator, or when we can expect to find out who was shortlisted, and with which baseline product?  Looking at the list of companies attending, it looks like pretty much any western company with a recent warship design is interested (TKMS, OMT, DCNS, G+C, LM, BAE, Thales, Navantia, Fincatieri, General Dynamics, etc). 

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on August 16, 2015, 17:35:10
Any thoughts on who will be shortlisted for warship designer and combat systems integrator, or when we can expect to find out who was shortlisted, and with which baseline product?  Looking at the list of companies attending, it looks like pretty much any western company with a recent warship design is interested (TKMS, OMT, DCNS, G+C, LM, BAE, Thales, Navantia, Fincatieri, General Dynamics, etc).

Something tells some of us that you should be the one telling us...we're not as well suited to floating trial balloons are perhaps you might be?  You listed companies that some (many?) of us have never heard of.  I know of LM, BAE, Thales and GD...don't know the others.

G2G
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on August 16, 2015, 17:57:37
Something tells some of us that you should be the one telling us...we're not as well suited to floating trial balloons are perhaps you might be?  You listed companies that some (many?) of us have never heard of.  I know of LM, BAE, Thales and GD...don't know the others.

G2G

I live in a rural town in Manitoba and this is just an interest to me (I like the navy and ships - always have).  I have a screen cap on my iPad from this:

http://www.atlanticalliance.ca/userfiles/file/EN%2010%20Feb%202015%20%20PIE%20Presentation.pdf

That's where I got the names from.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on August 16, 2015, 18:14:58
You have more names than most of us then, and I don't think that anyone involved inside the project would comment on the specifics of the project.  The online/media acquisition pundits will probably give the most feedback on the projects status, certainly until after the election.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on August 16, 2015, 21:13:56
G2G

TKMS, Thyssen Krupp Marine of Germany (The Queenston/Berlins)

OMT, Odense Marine of Denmark (Absalon, Huitfeldt, AOPS and allied with Irving)

DCNS, (Can never remember what they stand for but it is the French company responsible for FREMM and the Sevastopol)

G+C, (No clue)

LM, BAE, Thales,

Navantia, (Spanish version of DCNS - responsible for the Aussi LHDs and the F100?)

Fincantieri, (Italian Company - both military and civil - Owner of Vard which used to be Kvaerner and Aker and STX (Kjell Inge Rokke's Company)  in Vancouver and was responsible for ice breaker technology and Double Acting Hulls - Vard currently associated with SeaSpan)

General Dynamics,

They are all legitimate contenders - Surprised not to see Damen but perhaps Thales is fronting them?

G+C is apparently Gibbs and Cox http://www.gibbscox.com/  (LCS-1,3,5 etc)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on August 16, 2015, 21:40:36
Quote
Canada has determined that it will utilize a single prime contractor to best manage
this procurement over three decades of design and ship construction
– Irving Shipbuilding Inc., as the Combat Package NSPS shipyard, has been selected as Canada’s
prime contractor for the design and build phases of CSC

Ok no surprises here.... we already knew this....

Canada will competitively select the Combat System Integrator (CSI) and Warship
Designer (WD)
– The selected CSI and WD will be key sub-contractors to the NSPS shipyard

So we actually get a say?  From everything I read the sub-contractors were picked by Irving, the keys handed over so to speak.  If this happens the way I hope then its good news.

Canada, with the participation of ISI, will develop the RFP for selection of the CSI
and WD. It will include:
– The model sub-contracts, statement of work, pricing information required, and ITB VP
contractual obligations
– Canada’s prime contractor will award the sub-contracts to the CSI and WD, and monitor the
commitments made in the winning proposal

See this is where I get confused.  If Irving is awarding the sub-contracts how does the Gov't get a say in who the subcontractors are or the equipment.  Is it because the RCN gets a say in the RFP development?  I need a bit more explanation....#confused


If Irving picks the subcontrators then Lockheed and General Dynamics are the leads for CSI.  If the gov't gets to pick then its wide open.  As for WD it could be anyone.  France is pushing hard for DCNS, BAE is in the process of building new frigates for the RN, and TKMS have a lot of great ships on the market.  I truly think it will be OMT as well, but in an open competition who knows?

For me the top WD's are OMT, BAE, DCNS and TKMS not necessarily in that order.

For CSI its Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Thales, BAE again not in that order.  I really hope for Thales but doubtfull....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on August 16, 2015, 21:42:27
G+C is apparently Gibbs and Cox http://www.gibbscox.com/  (LCS-1,3,5 etc)

Arleigh Burke as well.

The full list:

DCNS
TKMS
Fincantieri
MDA
Gibbs & Cox
Thales
Raytheon
BAE Systems
Navantia
Saab
Lockheed Martin
Atlas Elektronik
Selex ES
General Dynamics
OMT
Alion Science & Technology
Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

I have no idea what MDA is doing there.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on August 16, 2015, 21:55:09
Schmoozing?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on August 24, 2015, 23:11:27
Schmoozing?

Haha maybe....

MDA would be there to compete only for the Combat Systems Integration portion.  They are world experts in comms, remote sensing and a bunch of space stuff but they also do maritime security bits.  What they would likely do is gain the CSI and then subcontract out the shooting parts but do the comms/RMP stuff themselves.  It's not like each one of those companies are going to provide the entire combat, comms and sensor suit without working with other companies.  It might be a Thales radar with a SM-6 from Lockheed and a GD comms system....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on August 30, 2015, 14:21:42
http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Lerhe%20-%20CSC%20SOR.pdf

Things have gone quiet round here lately.  Time to stir the pot a little  >:D

The link above is to a June 2014 Dalhousie presentation by Eric Lerhe on the CSC Statement of Requirements.

My take-away from the presentation, and being as disputatious as possible, is:

The RCN intends to continue as a Blue Water Auxilliary to the USN providing ASW services to US Fleets.
Its AAW capabilities will be integrated into the USNs Cooperative Engagement Capability
The RCN will protect the size of the service by not reducing crewing levels below the current levels.

Cargo carrying capability, Naval Gunfire / Land Attack Missile support, and crew reduction are all secondary targets.

This does not seem to present a platform that the Army can operate from (or even the Special Forces) and there is nothing on the books to suggest that there will be a dedicated Army Support platform.

In other words the RCN sails on serenely in splendid isolation (as does the Army).
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on September 05, 2015, 20:14:33
http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Lerhe%20-%20CSC%20SOR.pdf

Things have gone quiet round here lately.  Time to stir the pot a little  >:D

The link above is to a June 2014 Dalhousie presentation by Eric Lerhe on the CSC Statement of Requirements.

My take-away from the presentation, and being as disputatious as possible, is:

The RCN intends to continue as a Blue Water Auxilliary to the USN providing ASW services to US Fleets.
Its AAW capabilities will be integrated into the USNs Cooperative Engagement Capability
The RCN will protect the size of the service by not reducing crewing levels below the current levels.

Cargo carrying capability, Naval Gunfire / Land Attack Missile support, and crew reduction are all secondary targets.

This does not seem to present a platform that the Army can operate from (or even the Special Forces) and there is nothing on the books to suggest that there will be a dedicated Army Support platform.

In other words the RCN sails on serenely in splendid isolation (as does the Army).

I think that most of what you have said is correct, however with a few differences. 

Support to forces ashore with Naval Gunfire is very much on the navies radar, especially after Libya, where ships could have prosecuted targets better than airpower in a couple of circumstances.  Now the issue is does both versions of the CSC have this capability or only the GP version.

But the focus back on ASW is extremely interesting from my perspective.  There are so many new developments in that area which need to be taken into account.  The maturation of ultra low freq sonar is a big one.  The processing power of modern computers are making that possibility of torpedo hard kill systems a possibility as well, and linked ASW systems are going to be amazing when they get working.  Its a whole new world of ASW going on out there...

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 05, 2015, 22:05:26
So, would that put the Oto Melara Vulcano (http://www.otomelara.it/documents/1287567/3805766/body_VULCANO_127mm_REV2013.pdf) on the agenda? Giving you a 100 km stand-off capability and 32 rounds per minute?

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.otomelara.it%2Fdocuments%2F1287567%2F3805766%2Fsquared_medium_VULCANO_127mm_MG_1545_s.jpg&hash=8fcffeee9cb9b2c097e90a6b4424d63d)

Also -  On the ASW front - especially with the new gear - does all of the kit have to be carried all of the time?  Or are some of the capabilities compatible with Mission Bay installations (temporary).

PS - And I appreciate that you understood my tone and supplied a civil response.  Thanks.  :)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: FSTO on September 08, 2015, 01:01:12
All I hope is that we sail far far away from the LCS concept. It has been a disaster from the start. (if you believe the critics)

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2015/08/lcs-and-miw-you-knew-this-was-coming.html
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on September 08, 2015, 11:08:46
This is a case where I believe the critics. You want fast attack littoral craft, then expect them to be disposable. Basically they want a MGB, frigate, corvette, minesweeper, ASW cutter all in one platform and that crap only works in Sci-fi.

 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 08, 2015, 12:27:45
I don't think the LCS is a suitable solution for much of anything (I don't like the Yanks for innovation - never their strong suit - too slow and too pricey).

But I do think that any design adopted should take  on board (pun intended) two key design elements from Denmark.

1) Modularized Weapons and Sensors to permit easy mission conversions and systems upgrades
2) A large, accessible, empty space that can be used for carrying stuff.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on September 08, 2015, 13:17:19
Curious as an uninformed observer.  Are the complaints about the LCS more about the systems or about the physical design of the ship? 

Austal is promoting a "Multi-Mission Combatant" which is I'm guessing more or less an LCS with a more traditional weapons fit?  (http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf).  They of course pump up the claimed advantages of their trimaran design over a traditonal hull.  Is there any validity to their claims?  Would a trimaran hull make sense in a Canadian context?

The impression I get is that the CSC concept doesn't really seek to make the "multi-mission" aspect the top priority, so could a portion of this proposed space be used to give the vessel greater range and endurance (which I'm guessing would be a benefit for a Canadian ship)?  Could extending the superstructure (and reducing the flight deck area to only allow operation of a single helicopter instead of two simultaneously) permit the addition of additional AAW missles for the Area Air Defence version of the CSC?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 08, 2015, 13:37:06
Curious as an uninformed observer.  Are the complaints about the LCS more about the systems or about the physical design of the ship? 

Austal is promoting a "Multi-Mission Combatant" which is I'm guessing more or less an LCS with a more traditional weapons fit?  (http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf).  They of course pump up the claimed advantages of their trimaran design over a traditonal hull.  Is there any validity to their claims?  Would a trimaran hull make sense in a Canadian context?

The impression I get is that the CSC concept doesn't really seek to make the "multi-mission" aspect the top priority, so could a portion of this proposed space be used to give the vessel greater range and endurance (which I'm guessing would be a benefit for a Canadian ship)?  Could extending the superstructure (and reducing the flight deck area to only allow operation of a single helicopter instead of two simultaneously) permit the addition of additional AAW missles for the Area Air Defence version of the CSC?

My take on the issue is that the LCS was oversold, under-delivered and deliberately sabotaged.

The LCS concept was based on the success of the Western Express catamaran and the JHSV project.  Relatively cheap, flexible hulls were to be fitted for a variety of missions.  Marry Western Express with Stan Flex and you should have had a useful concept.

But then the USN got its hands on it and it became a fight between Brown Water reformists (Austal - Freedom) and Blue Water, Single Hull traditionalists (Lockheed Martin Independence).  Lockheed and the traditionalists kept driving the design basis away from Austal's capabilities and towards their own comfort zone with the collusion of the Blue Water navy and their congressional supporters. 

The net effect was that the project grew like Topsy and ballooned away from the original objectives.  In my opinion, the irony is that the Blue Water types have shot themselves in the foot.  The project is now so big it cannot be allowed to fail.  More money is being spent on the LCS programme than was ever intended, money that could have be spent on real, modern, frigates (employing the Stanflex concept at a different fleet level and sharing weapons modules with the LCS) and the navy will end up with hulls that are neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat.

And like every Yankee project the product is overly complex and ridiculously expensive.  Lockmart and GD should never be given project lead on any Canadian project.  They have many useful capabilities that need to be integrated and they can do that but they should never be given Carte Blanche.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on September 08, 2015, 13:38:42
I suspect part of the problem is the LCS program was vastly oversold and then hugely overbudget without any real gain in capability. They want a littoral combat ship that can easily and quickly self deploy across significant blue water distances.

I suspect the Tri-hull design after some hard usage, will show structural problems over the years to come, sidelining a significant chunk of the fleet. As a experimental design program working as addition to the regular fleet they may have their uses, but I think the USN thought they could replace many of the more specialized vessels with one type. I have never been a huge fan of multi-tasking as it rarely works as well as the bean counters envision.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 08, 2015, 14:10:49
I suspect part of the problem is the LCS program was vastly oversold and then hugely overbudget without any real gain in capability. They want a littoral combat ship that can easily and quickly self deploy across significant blue water distances.

I suspect the Tri-hull design after some hard usage, will show structural problems over the years to come, sidelining a significant chunk of the fleet. As a experimental design program working as addition to the regular fleet they may have their uses, but I think the USN thought they could replace many of the more specialized vessels with one type. I have never been a huge fan of multi-tasking as it rarely works as well as the bean counters envision.

Coming from a very different background, where I have never had the luxury of the money I needed nor the equipment I wanted I have learned that you can get a long ways towards your goals by exploiting that which is available.  Flexibility is a precondition to success in my world.  By the time I delivered the perfect solution the client's market would have moved on, in which case I would be using the perfect solution sub-optimally in another application.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on September 08, 2015, 15:40:47
Ships generally have significant penalties when you give it to many tasks. it should be designed purposely for it's main task with a little flexibility to conduct others. Trying to make a ship do everything equally well, generally makes it a complete dog in all aspects.   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 08, 2015, 17:21:43
Factory Processors and Trawlers generally manage to accommodate processing modifications and capability enhancements in the same hull - just like their on-shore brethren.

And they manage to accommodate shifting loads while operating in high seas at high latitudes.  As I have noted before my work is done in the areas set aside for processing - not in designing the structures that wrap around them - but I have worked enough of those projects to recognize the flexibility and adaptability inherent in their 4000 tonne, 90 m hulls.

Pickup truck or Formula 1?

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on September 08, 2015, 17:34:32
Using a hull like that for similar work is not such a stretch, not to mention the approval process for design changes generally follow a shorter loop. but when you want high speed, blue water seakeeping, shallow draft, fast attack craft, that can patrol, sweep for mines that's when you get issues.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 08, 2015, 19:56:32
Using a hull like that for similar work is not such a stretch, not to mention the approval process for design changes generally follow a shorter loop. but when you want high speed, blue water seakeeping, shallow draft, fast attack craft, that can patrol, sweep for mines that's when you get issues.

Seen.

I guess that is what I was getting at in terms of my comments on the "sabotage" of the LCS concept.  A shallow water, high speed, flexible, "sprint and drift" platform that can relocate itself over intercontinental distances is one thing.   A platform that can endure in blue water is something else.  There is certainly a clear differentiation there.

On the other hand tailoring a platform so that it can only perform one role with one set of permanently installed gear appears to me to be swinging the pendulum too far the other way.  Formula 1 cars have very limited useful lives.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on September 08, 2015, 20:21:16
Forget the LSC, forget the CSC. Let's just build a fleet of small, sleek, super fast, super stealthy FOO ships.... purpose would be to spot for a network of anti-air and anti-surface space based lasers satellites and ICBMs...  >:D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 09, 2015, 09:21:38
On the other hand tailoring a platform so that it can only perform one role with one set of permanently installed gear appears to me to be swinging the pendulum too far the other way.  Formula 1 cars have very limited useful lives.

Some times single role is the only option (Landing ships or submarines for instance), but most of the time Navies have general purpose ships as their most numerous class of ships, like frigates or destroyers, which, even when more specialized in one aspect are still well rounded general purpose forces.

Don't confuse not being able to switch basic equipment loads [the launching systems] (as if filling the back of a truck with weapons of different kind for delivery to the front) with lack of flexibility or single role. And don't consider that the lack of facilities in a warship to carry soldiers to combat means that they lack flexibility.

Think of the IRO before retirement. They could handle ASW, AAW, ASuW and self protect from mines. But more than that. While they carried only SM-2 missiles in their Mk-41 launchers, the actual launcher (the Mk41) could have carried quad packs ESSM's, or VL Tomahawk missiles, or ASROC's or any other ones of the SM's as required. Switching your missile load composition as required for the circumstances, now that's flexibility. And the CSC will have that same flexibility.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on September 09, 2015, 10:24:13
Some times single role is the only option (Landing ships or submarines for instance)...

Submarines can have multiple roles. Different boats could be geared for one specific role, or rigged for flexibility. For example, SSNs vs SSBNs vs SSGNs vs Special Forces deployers.

Think of the IRO before retirement. They could handle ASW, AAW, ASuW and self protect from mines. But more than that. While they carried only SM-2 missiles in their Mk-41 launchers, the actual launcher (the Mk41) could have carried quad packs ESSM's, or VL Tomahawk missiles, or ASROC's or any other ones of the SM's as required. Switching your missile load composition as required for the circumstances, now that's flexibility. And the CSC will have that same flexibility.

Fixed that for you.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 09, 2015, 10:53:47
Some times single role is the only option (Landing ships or submarines for instance), but most of the time Navies have general purpose ships as their most numerous class of ships, like frigates or destroyers, which, even when more specialized in one aspect are still well rounded general purpose forces.

Don't confuse not being able to switch basic equipment loads [the launching systems] (as if filling the back of a truck with weapons of different kind for delivery to the front) with lack of flexibility or single role. And don't consider that the lack of facilities in a warship to carry soldiers to combat means that they lack flexibility.

Think of the IRO before retirement. They could handle ASW, AAW, ASuW and self protect from mines. But more than that. While they carried only SM-2 missiles in their Mk-41 launchers, the actual launcher (the Mk41) could have carried quad packs ESSM's, or VL Tomahawk missiles, or ASROC's or any other ones of the SM's as required. Switching your missile load composition as required for the circumstances, now that's flexibility. And the CSC will have that same flexibility.

No argument on any of your points OGBD - especially in regards to the inherent flexibility of the VLS system (or a gun that can fire multiple types of bullets. 

I am often hearing that we are a small, impoverished nation with a poor, hard done by defence force that can't afford to do everything.  Then I see us regularly (regardless of service) opt for the most expensive solution available on the lot.  Then I see other smaller, presumably more impoverished nations, like the Danes, the Dutch, the Aussies make different decisions that allow them to upgrade and modernize, while still effectively operating, in a more timely fashion than ourselves.  And I find myself puzzled. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 09, 2015, 15:08:15
Fixed that for you.

You shouldn't fix what ain't broke.

With both hull mounted and VDS sonars, two triple tubes for Mk 46 torpedoes and the capacity to host two Seaking helicopters, the IRO were still pretty reasonable ASW platforms. As for ASuW, I agree that one 76mm gun and six .50 cal. MGs is limited but not inexistant. Also, remember that  there were plans in place and a quite fast capability for fitting two quad-harpoon launchers over the old limbo well should the need arise.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 09, 2015, 15:28:54
I am often hearing that we are a small, impoverished nation with a poor, hard done by defence force that can't afford to do everything.  Then I see us regularly (regardless of service) opt for the most expensive solution available on the lot.  Then I see other smaller, presumably more impoverished nations, like the Danes, the Dutch, the Aussies make different decisions that allow them to upgrade and modernize, while still effectively operating, in a more timely fashion than ourselves.  And I find myself puzzled.


First, the only reason we fail to upgrade and modernize in a timely fashion is budgetary/procurement causes that are dictated to us by politician for their own reasons (i.e. the Navy constantly keeps track of the upgrade and modernization needs of the fleet, develop plans for it and put them up - only to see them shot down. The Navy would like nothing better than to be able to constantly upgrade and modernize the equipment  on its ships instead of having to wait twenty years between programs and do all the updates in one big single shot).

I am not sure how you see Australia being different than we are. The Meko design of the  Anzac class was modular, but in practice, they have not modernized or upgraded in any significant different way than we have.

The Dutch, I would not call "impoverished" compared to us, but in any event, they upgrade and modernize even less than we do: they just change classes of ship more frequently.

Finally, the Danes are probably the only ones from your list that have an "upgrade and modernization" ongoing system, but in their case it is for financial reasons: Their fleet is much smaller than ours in terms of major surface combatant so it is a big item to absorb when constructing a new one comes up. That is why they have developed their "build-up-by-pieces" system where they build the hull and machinery, put minimal weapons onboard, and then add weapons and sensors from time to time throughout the lifetime of the ship until it's fully up to specs.

BTW, one of the reason we end up opting for the "most expensive" solution more often than not has to do with the fact that  in the RCN, we see it as a necessity for us to be fully capable to integrate into an American task force or just as seamlessly integrate into a NATO one. Very few nations (and none of the ones you mention, though the Australians are now moving that way) in the world can do that other than us and we have derived great tactical advantages from this capability.
 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 09, 2015, 16:23:36
OGBD - flexibility comes in many forms.  Sometimes it is a single platform.  Sometimes it is the range of platforms.

The Aussies have Frigates/Destroyers comparable to yours.  Dead right.

The Aussies also have a commercial AOR to bridge the gap.  A solution previously rejected here in Canada.
The Aussies have a pair of Troop Transports that don't show up anywhere in the RCN's shopping list.

The Dutch have Troop Transports and AORs and OPVs that allow them to provide a variety of capabilities in low risk environments (including lifting troops and refugees).

The  Danes - AAWs with ASW capability, Cmd and Spt with ASW capability, Light Frigates and OPVs with ice capabilities and crews smaller than an MCDV.

You don't get to blame the politicians for everything. 

Take a look at your own buttons-and-bows politicians.

Luego.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on September 09, 2015, 17:59:11
Kirkhill, you are looking at flexibility from a Navy overall capabilities point of view, not from an individual ship or class of ship perspective. This thread is about  a single class of ships, the combatant ones, not Navies as a whole, and it is this limited perspective I have always used as guiding my posts.

The overall flexibility in a Navy from the combination of all of its ship's type is a strategic decision. In Canada's case, it is not something derived from the Navy's choice alone, but from NDHQ. If NDHQ determined that  having amphibious capability was required of Canada, the Navy would propose what it needs and the "powers that be" would then decide the extent to which it will provide the Navy's request for materiel to do so. Then everybody would get on with the job with what is provided.

Again, though, it is important not to confuse overall flexibility with national requirements. The Australian and the Dutch have amphibious capabilities? Yes, but they live in an area where their own territory has multiple other nations nearby where they may need the capabilities (we are talking a few hundred nautical miles here, particularly for Australia - the Dutch have oversea territories as well where the capability may be needed).

For us in Canada, on the other hand, we have no territory nearby that threaten us from a military point of view (I will except St-Pierre et Miquelon for obvious reasons). The only "military" need for amphibious ships would be for [very] far oversea employment. This requires rather a deployment model based on the US Marines style of permanent forward deployment of soldiers onboard large ships for long period of time. This would be too much of a drag  on scarce defence dollars both from the Naval and the Army point of view (can you see what would be required in Army numbers just to make it possible to  maintain 1,500 soldiers battle groups deployed permanently in 6 months rotations at sea?). If not for that type of deployment, why spend 100's of millions of dollars every year just to make it possible for the Winnipeg Riffles to practice landing on the North shore of lake Superior once in a while for a change of scenery?

Also, you seem to have an unnatural fixation with crew reduction. First of all the Danish OPV's you are talking about do not have a smaller crew than the MCDV's. When they deploy in their ordinary role (coast guard/constabulary), they have a crew of 18, but only carry two .50 cal MG's. If I wanted to deploy the MCDV in a similar role, I could actually better that and sail with a crew of 15. When the Knut Rasmunssen class deploy with more advanced weapons and a military mission, the crew goes up to 43.

But, and I can excuse you here as you have no experience of working with European (unionized or near unionized) navies, you have to consider concept of operation. The continental European navies, unlike us, the Americans and the other Anglo-sphere navies, do not permanently operate AS IF AT WAR, meaning that we have at least 1/3 of the crew manning all the fighting stations at all time, and often more than that. For instance, if they are out for an ASW exercise, it will be scheduled to start in the morning, end in the afternoon, and after its conclusion and until the next exercise the morning after, the ship will just sail around with a minimal crewing of a few seaman per watch akin to  a merchant ship. Some of those nations boast their capability to operate with a duty watch of four: An OOW, a seaman, one engineer (at a remote control console on the bridge) and one signalman. That is fine until a passing merchant ship decides to turn and ram you (which you didn't see coming because the ops room is down for the night and can't quickly escape from when you notice because your sole engineer can only operate the cruise diesel but not flash up the two gas turbines in the engine room) while everybody is asleep. It's a lesson the US learned at Pearl Harbour, and we emulate in large part.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on September 10, 2015, 09:46:55
That is fine until a passing merchant ship decides to turn and ram you ..... It's a lesson the US learned at Pearl Harbour, and we emulate in large part.

A merchant ship turned and ramed a USN ship at Pearl Harbour? When did that happen? I think you're thinking about when Winnipeg got rammed in Esquimalt.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on September 10, 2015, 10:20:35
A merchant ship turned and ramed a USN ship at Pearl Harbour? When did that happen? I think you're thinking about when Winnipeg got rammed in Esquimalt.

He's not talking about a particular incident of ramming.  He's saying that one of the lessons learned from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was that you must ALWAYS be operating as if at war which is why we (like the US) have higher manning levels than some European navies.  That both prevents being caught by a sneak attack...as well as being prepared to avoid things like an unexpected "encounter" with a wayward merchant ship.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on September 10, 2015, 10:43:35
He's not talking about a particular incident of ramming.  He's saying that one of the lessons learned from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was that you must ALWAYS be operating as if at war which is why we (like the US) have higher manning levels than some European navies.  That both prevents being caught by a sneak attack...as well as being prepared to avoid things like an unexpected "encounter" with a wayward merchant ship.

This may grind the gears of some of my former mentors and COs, but as former bridge watchkeeper, I did not feel I needed an Ops room backing me up for collision avoidance. A closed up Ops room for collision avoidance was made even more unnecessary with the introduction of CMS330. With data fusion, having any trackers at all in the Ops room is just redundant. They don't track anything; they just report what the system generates on their screens, which is the same things displayed on the bridge MFW. You have more people on the bridge of a CPF than merchant vessels have on their entire ship! Two OOWs, two look-outs, two radars, AIS, GPS and VHF. If you can't keep the ship safe with that, the Ops room isn't going to save you.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on September 10, 2015, 14:46:15
I must have missed the part where OGBD said CIC was needed for collision avoidance.  Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought his reference to the Ops room was with regard to having SA on the entire space within which the Ship was operating....and it's ability to respond capably...no? ???
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on September 10, 2015, 14:49:07
I must have missed the part where OGBD said CIC was needed for collision avoidance.  Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought his reference to the Ops room was with regard to having SA on the entire space within which the Ship was operating....and it's ability to respond capably...no? ???

I was responding to GR66:

....as well as being prepared to avoid things like an unexpected "encounter" with a wayward merchant ship.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 10, 2015, 15:04:09
 OGBD: wrt "an unnatural fixation with crew reduction"

It is what I do. 

A worker employed at a rate of $12/hr is a battery of stored energy that they sell to me at a rate of $68,390/GigaJoule, assuming a labour efficiency of 70% while they are operating on my clock.

Natural Gas sells for $3/GJ
Electricity sells for $14/GJ
Diesel sells for $17/GJ
Gasoline sells for $20/GJ

Buddy also is fully discharged in 8 hours and requires 16 hours to recharge daily, a deep cycle recharge of 48 hours every 7 days and an annual maintenance period of 2 to 5 weeks (older batteries take longer to recharge).

Buddy better be doing more for me than eating my groceries and scanning the horizon.  I can get a PLC to do that for me for a lot less.

Thus the Danish Navy, thus Maersk, thus every manufacturing facility in the world.

I need people to do the things machines can't do.  And machines can effectively keep islands in position and relocate them when necessary. Without me having to worry about widows and orphans.

By the way, 1 GJ = 272 kWh ($17 for diesel or $68,390 for Buddy) and an electric motor or a Combined Heat and Power plant are upwards of 90% efficient.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Baz on September 10, 2015, 15:07:45
I was responding to GR66:

I think he meant while doing other warship like things.

I'd have to look up the details, but there was (is?) a Canadian Cdr who was RN, who was on board (the XO?) a UK Destroyer (Frigate?) during the tanker wars.  The whole bridge got so involved in trying to spot something on the engaged side, including both lookouts, that they missed the scheduled turn of the escorted force, in the Straights Of Hormuz.  As the story was told to me the lookout on the unengaged side went back to have a peek and was confused because there were no lights or stars; and then hit the alarm when he realized that was because they were about to be run over by a super tanker.   Almost lost the ship...

Not disagreeing with anyone... it's just things get more complex when people are shooting at you so redundancy isn't a bad thing, and that whole train as you fight thing...

Edited to add: story was told to me directly by said Cdr, who was my XO at the time, whom I know by name but won't write.  Disclaimer: that's how I remember him telling it...
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on September 10, 2015, 15:12:15
OGBD: wrt "an unnatural fixation with crew reduction"

It is what I do. 

...

I once discovered that I had accidently sent half my bridge watch either for coffee or pee-breaks. There were only 4 of us on the bridge (myself, a helsman, bosnsmate and navcom). I wasn't one bit worried about being able to keep the ship safe; I even quickly developped a plan to respond to a man overboard (I would be the one sounding the general alarm and pipping the ship to resuce stations). No, the only thing I was worried about was the CO coming to the bridge and discovering my ineptitude!
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on September 10, 2015, 16:59:49
CCG ships generally sail with 1 officer of the watch, 2 quartermasters, which normally one is off the bridge and resting/security checks. In bad vis or on a call, one or more deckhands will be called out to watch sectors. Radars and such are fabulous unless you are looking for a guy in a kayak or standing on a bit of ice.

Merchant ships run with the slimmest of crews for economy reasons, but when things go wrong they have little recourse and the ship and cargo can be lost. accident rates can also be quite high depending on locations and crewing. I have to wonder if the cost of ships, cargo and insurance is really being factored properly against the cost of crewing. I suspect crewing and training is the easiest bit to cut.   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 10, 2015, 17:50:39
Colin - for the merchant fleet you have to ask yourself how many containers reach port vice how many containers are lost at sea.  How many barrels of oil....etc.

As to the manning of government vessels, I would suggest that you are "over-manned" (a relative term) precisely so that when things go pear-shaped on a merchant vessel you can jump in to ensure those containers, barrels, ships and crew are not lost.  Kind of like the government facilitating trade by building highways and hiring coppers.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on September 10, 2015, 18:45:14
I was responding to GR66:

Ack.  OGBD's point, as the starter of the "BE PREPARED, ALWAYS" line of thinking, still holds water though...and you never know...there may also be some future KAPITAN MANs out there that our Ships need to be capable of dealing with...
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on September 10, 2015, 21:03:24
There are plenty of times that my ships have needed everyone for some unforeseen situation.  A tow in a storm for example in which reduced crewing would have made things rather dicey.  It was great to have the extra help for the evolution.  Prob could have done it with less but it didn't hurt to have more people.  In the Canadian waters situation help is a very long way away if there is an emergency of some kind, any kind.  In European waters its most likely in visual range.  Europe is positively crawling with traffic both airborne and waterborne. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on September 11, 2015, 11:57:55
Colin - for the merchant fleet you have to ask yourself how many containers reach port vice how many containers are lost at sea.  How many barrels of oil....etc.

As to the manning of government vessels, I would suggest that you are "over-manned" (a relative term) precisely so that when things go pear-shaped on a merchant vessel you can jump in to ensure those containers, barrels, ships and crew are not lost.  Kind of like the government facilitating trade by building highways and hiring coppers.

On containers http://gcaptain.com/how-many-shipping-containers-lost-at-sea/#.VfLp-_mnRyE

ships lost http://www.actuarialeye.com/2014/03/30/how-many-ships-disappear-each-year/

Governments generally can't afford to lose even one ship to accidents. Commercial shipping is much safer than it used to be. However with the larger container carriers being built just the loss of one of them with a full load is likely to have a economic ripple.
Title: CSC will be a foreign design
Post by: S.M.A. on November 20, 2015, 14:24:58
An update:

Canadian Global Affairs Institute (https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/)

Quote
Mark Collins – RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatant Will be Foreign Design
November 20, 2015 Global Affairs Staff

Makes sense, the major European players are included plus one American:

    Results of pre-qualification process for Canadian Surface Combatant

    Public Services and Procurement Canada today announced the results of the pre-qualification process, the first step in the competitive procurement process to select a Combat Systems Integrator and a Warship Designer for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC).

(...SNIPPED)
Title: Re: CSC will be a foreign design
Post by: Chris Pook on November 20, 2015, 17:27:22
An update:

Canadian Global Affairs Institute (https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/)

I'm going with an OMT hull with LockMart systems for 50 cents Alec.  Now if only they will guarantee the Stanflex philosophy.
Title: Re: CSC will be a foreign design
Post by: Cloud Cover on December 02, 2015, 22:33:20
I'm going with an OMT hull with LockMart systems for 50 cents Alec.  Now if only they will guarantee the Stanflex philosophy.

I don't care what they do, as long as they start cutting steel and ordering engines. Lots of them. Big ships, little ships, stealthy ships submarines, surveillance ships, drone ships >>I don't care what, but they need to get moving. There are people who this project in some form of iteration 20+ years ago, and are planning to retire and nothing has been done. Get movin people. Build it, and they will come...
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: dapaterson on December 02, 2015, 22:46:21
Commander, RCN states that budget is not enough: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warships-30-billion-navy-mark-norman-1.3347145
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 03, 2015, 09:36:21
A few comments on my part here:

First of all, I thought this was a very good presentation by the Admiral: Short, clear sentences; no mumbo-jumbo or buzzword that make you sound like a politician; direct answers to direct questions, and taking responsibility where responsibility lies. Moreover (and this one is a personal beef) I appreciated seeing a senior military officer meeting the press dressed appropriately in DEU, not in "look at me I'm a crusty combat type" gear.

Second of all, I will admit to being surprised to learn that the 26 B$ of the NSPS identified for the SCSC is for the overall program - not just the ships, which are apparently only 14 B$ of it.

I had always assumed the higher figure to be for the ships only, which to me made sense, as being about 1.5 B$ each for the GP version and about 2.5 B$ each for the three AAW/Command version. With the lower costs, I can see this makes no sense: 15 ships for 14 B$ means each one is below one billion dollars. They must have been on drugs: The CPF's cost about 800 millions each to build in the early to mid nineties, and just TRUMPing the tribals cost about as much for each.

Third, I am happy to see that the Navy wants to be heard publicly about its requirements. We don't  do that often enough and in my mind, every opportunity to explain to Canadian what we do and why it can be so expensive should be seized upon. Canadians, in my experience, understand - they don't like spending that kind of money - but they understand, if they are told the facts.

Finally, I appreciate his candour when saying, we tell the government "this is what we need and how much it costs, or this is what capability the money you want to spend buys" but when all is said and done, the government decides and we get on with the job with what we are given (in my early days in the Navy, we used to say "The Queen will provide"). I made that very point on a different aspect of this discussion in my above post #30 of Sept 09, 2015 at 16:59:11.

A little side note: In the "Power and Politics" video, it's hard to see because they have a "exclusive interview" electronic box in front of it, but in the short clips of the Admiral's interview aired on the National, you can see that the ball cap on his desk behind him says "HMCS HARRY DEWOLFE  PGB 430". I guess they have decided that the AOPS are "Gun Boats (PG), Icebreaking (B)".   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 09, 2015, 23:26:42
A few comments on my part here:

First of all, I thought this was a very good presentation by the Admiral: Short, clear sentences; no mumbo-jumbo or buzzword that make you sound like a politician; direct answers to direct questions, and taking responsibility where responsibility lies. Moreover (and this one is a personal beef) I appreciated seeing a senior military officer meeting the press dressed appropriately in DEU, not in "look at me I'm a crusty combat type" gear.


Agreed,

Second of all, I will admit to being surprised to learn that the 26 B$ of the NSPS identified for the SCSC is for the overall program - not just the ships, which are apparently only 14 B$ of it.

You're dating yourself OGB.  Its the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project now not the Single Class Surface Combatant (SCSC).  That particular program died about 2008 or so.  If you don't stop using it I'm going to start calling certain ships Henry.... :subbies:

A little side note: In the "Power and Politics" video, it's hard to see because they have a "exclusive interview" electronic box in front of it, but in the short clips of the Admiral's interview aired on the National, you can see that the ball cap on his desk behind him says "HMCS HARRY DEWOLFE  PGB 430". I guess they have decided that the AOPS are "Gun Boats (PG), Icebreaking (B)".

Once again dating yourself.  It went from Gunboat or Patrol Gunboat to now "Patrol Combatant (PG)" as I guess that covers more types of ships...  Gunboats used to have a very specific brown water job and now they are doing blue water work... at least in our case they will be.  I do think its probably the best classification for the ship, can't really think of a better place to pigeon-hole them into.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: ringo on December 10, 2015, 00:29:25
Build 10 CSC all to the same design, do not build 3 AAW and 7 ASW, all 10 should be equally able in AAW and ASW.
They should be commissioned one per year over 10 years.
Order in pairs update design over build period.
Each ship should be able to operate two helicopters.
Build hulls overseas and fit out in Canada?
BTW is Irvings building yard covered, if not they do not deserve the build.
Going to have to be huge increase in defence budget to get more than 10 CSC.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on December 10, 2015, 00:50:43
I think at anything less than 12, we're going to compromise our ability to operate effectively year round.  12 allows 4 to be at sea at all times.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: ringo on December 10, 2015, 03:13:42
I hope for more than 10 CSC as well but believe it will be 10 CSC and 5 AOPS, maybe if we get out of submarines or settle for interim AORs on permanent basis we can get a couple more CSC.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: SeaKingTacco on December 10, 2015, 09:45:53
Getting out of submarines creates a whole host of other issues with domain awareness.

On paper, it may look like you are saving money, but you are giving up quite a lot of capability by not having them.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on December 10, 2015, 09:54:50
Getting out of submarines creates a whole host of other issues with domain awareness.

On paper, it may look like you are saving money, but you are giving up quite a lot of capability by not having them.

And credibility too.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on December 10, 2015, 11:14:39
and the ability to train for ASW, something that has bitten us badly more than a few times in the past.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: SeaKingTacco on December 10, 2015, 11:20:56
and the ability to train for ASW, something that has bitten us badly more than a few times in the past.

I am a bit less concerned about this part, but yeah, real world ASW is a gut check that you don't get in a sim.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 10, 2015, 11:37:54
I am a bit less concerned about this part, but yeah, real world ASW is a gut check that you don't get in a sim.

I would still be concerned. There are still way too many "unstable" nations that could potentially be at times our enemies/opponent in our area of action and who own and operate diesel submarines.

I know they may not be up to Western levels of maintenance and training, but they often work for governments that are more casual than we are with their seaman's lives. And that is sufficient to create a threat. Remember that, at the rate they were cranking out boats, the German by 1942 were sailing U-boats with crew as green as those of the corvettes that were fighting them. They were going to sea with fresh recruits barely trained and a couple of merchant seaman officers turned naval captains and a few merchant seaman engineers per boat. They still made quite an impression.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on December 10, 2015, 12:15:17
Our first U-Boat kill was a green corvette captain vs a green u-boat captain, thankfully our guy did everything right. Due to the lack of subs, Canada struggled to get subs loaned to her in WWII to train her escorts in sub hunting.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on December 10, 2015, 13:21:07
I'd strongly agree that ASW should be a priority focus for us...with the new CSC, by maintaining a submarine capability and with MPAs.  I personally think it's important for our own sovereignty but also in support of the US as our primary ally.

I can't think of anything that would have a bigger political and military effect (both psychologically and in terms of changes to overall strategy) on the US than the loss of one of their aircraft carriers.  While there are multiple possible threats to a carrier I'd guess that a lucky diesel sub is the greatest one. 

I'm sure the US would be happy to see us bring as much and as varied capabilities to the table as we can, but I'd be willing to bet that a strong ASW contribution would be at the top of their wish list.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on December 10, 2015, 15:31:21
Since we are not going to have Mistral like ships, I agree ASW is a skillset we can focus on, but also I would throw in Mine hunting as a skillset that seems to be ignored and would suit us well. It could also be used to increase leverage Canadian companies into the underwater robotics and detection game which we have done well in already. Harbour and approaches mine hunting could be also tasked to Naval Reserve units near major harbours who can practice the skill sets right in their own backyard. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 10, 2015, 15:58:29
Actually, Colin, what do you think the KINSTON's are?

Their MM designation means Mine warfare Multi-purpose.

They can sweep, but they also have the electronics to do route survey and, if you fit the type of remote control equipment you are talking about onboard, to mine hunt. In fact, they have tested all sorts of such equipment and, I am sure will continue to do so.

There are however, snags with what you are proposing. First of all, most of the European navies already have very developed and advanced mine hunting forces, and are therefore years ahead of us (and need them since, to this day, they still find mines from all the past wars suddenly showing up along their coasts and harbours).

Second, as historically demonstrated, there is little to no mine threat to Canada, and North America in general, and in both world wars, we ended up using the sweepers as coastal escorts. There is a good reason why this is so: we are so far away from other countries that we might end up at war with. As a result, the chances of an "enemy" surface vessel making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific to our close coasts or harbour entrances to lay a reasonable number of mines is pretty insignificant.  And if you wish to do it by submarines, you face two difficulties - first, again, making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific without being detected, and second, the fact that a submarine can only carry an extremely limited number of mines, and only at the cost of landing some or all of its torpedoes. Much more economical and efficient to send submarines to actually do their job with their own torpedoes.

As fora "covert" limited mining operation by merchant ships in peace time, as I have discussed a long time ago in another post, it would also be extremely difficult and could have repercussions. First, Merchant ships are not designed to lay mines - second, a good deal of the crew, if not all of the crew, would have to be involved (and what are the chances of that) because laying mines at sea is a difficult undertaking that required cranes, booms or tracks of some sort and onboard handling equipments (mines are not light), which merchant ships don't usually carry, The highest likelihood then, is that it is done on government's order, and if so, it can be traced back to such government and laying mines in another's waters by any government is an act of war.
 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on December 10, 2015, 16:27:47
I understand a smaller ship can be fitted with a containerized towed-array sonar to allow it to detect enemy submarines, but how difficult would it be to fit them with weapons to engage what they detect?  Can the Kingston-Class or AOPS (or something similar) be fairly easily fitted with something like an ASROC launcher if necessary or would they also need new control systems?  Would they instead rely on a helicopter or MPA to engage the targets they detect?

I'm guessing both of those types of air assets would be just as difficult to obtain quickly in a conflict as the new ship itself would.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on December 11, 2015, 11:31:25
I know the Kingstons were designed for that in mind, but how often do they practice that skillset? I hadn't considered the European experience, thanks for that, my main thought is to back up the US which appear to have limited interest in that field, despite throwing some big bucks at it with little result.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on December 11, 2015, 18:41:20
....

There are however, snags with what you are proposing. First of all, most of the European navies already have very developed and advanced mine hunting forces, and are therefore years ahead of us (and need them since, to this day, they still find mines from all the past wars suddenly showing up along their coasts and harbours).

Second, as historically demonstrated, there is little to no mine threat to Canada, and North America in general, and in both world wars, we ended up using the sweepers as coastal escorts. There is a good reason why this is so: we are so far away from other countries that we might end up at war with. As a result, the chances of an "enemy" surface vessel making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific to our close coasts or harbour entrances to lay a reasonable number of mines is pretty insignificant.  And if you wish to do it by submarines, you face two difficulties - first, again, making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific without being detected, and second, the fact that a submarine can only carry an extremely limited number of mines, and only at the cost of landing some or all of its torpedoes. Much more economical and efficient to send submarines to actually do their job with their own torpedoes.

.....

There is another type of minewarfare though, isn't there?  What you have described is "offensive" mining as I understand it.  In WW2 and WW1 weren't a lot of the sown mines actually sown by local forces for "defensive" purposes?

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ibiblio.org%2Fhyperwar%2FUN%2FUK%2FUK-Defence-UK%2Fimg%2FDefenseOfUK-20.jpg&hash=9728b2fff70c5434a7d0f6428b6102d3)

And closer to home - The Golden Gate minefield


(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.militarymuseum.org%2FResources%2FMine1.jpg&hash=65af282c181f877a08c933758bf1aca1)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Fabius on December 11, 2015, 20:29:33
When we discuss ASW in the context of the RCN why is there not consideration given to the role a helicopter carrier, BHS, LHD, etc. can play in the ASW fight?  Outfitted with a complement of ASW aircraft (helicopters) these small flat tops have seemed to have a promient role in ASW operations with other navies both now and in the past. 
Such ships played a key piece in the hunter killer groups in the Battle of the Atlantic, and have seen similar use during the Cold War.  Even now we see the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces deploying ships of this nature (see the Hygua Class as an example).

It seems to be that when we discuss ASW ships in the context of the RCN's future we are strictly focused on surface warships such as the Halifax Class and discount any other other concept.

Perhaps this is just because this is the Surface Ship RFQ thread after all.  ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on December 11, 2015, 21:01:16
I know the Kingstons were designed for that in mind, but how often do they practice that skillset? I hadn't considered the European experience, thanks for that, my main thought is to back up the US which appear to have limited interest in that field, despite throwing some big bucks at it with little result.

The Kingston Class haven't practiced mechanical mine sweeping in many years. They do however practice mine warfare in the form of route survey and bottom object inspection. The latest concept of use for the Kingston Class lists a refocusing of the Class, acquiring new mine hunting equipment and a review of a life extension past the classes original 25 yr service life.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 11, 2015, 22:00:59
The Kingston Class haven't practiced mechanical mine sweeping in many years. They do however practice mine warfare in the form of route survey and bottom object inspection. The latest concept of use for the Kingston Class lists a refocusing of the Class, acquiring new mine hunting equipment and a review of a life extension past the classes original 25 yr service life.

Not surprised with the last part.  They are coming due for a life extension.  I would guess right around when the AOPs are mostly online???
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on December 11, 2015, 22:10:17
Not surprised with the last part.  They are coming due for a life extension.  I would guess right around when the AOPs are mostly online???

The Class is in good shape and there is a long list of upgrades currently being implemented included a replacement for the 40MM. It interesting to note both the Kingston Class and AOPS concept of use lists the Kingston Class to continue to operate in the Arctic as a platform for chart work.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on December 12, 2015, 16:17:19
Here I go, sounding the Lurblaeseren for the Danes again.   [:D  If anyone is interested.

https://www.navalengineers.org/ProceedingsDocs/ASNEDay2015/Technical%20Paper%20Sessions/Sorensen_Paper.pdf

The author, of OMT, may be working on your ships as we speak.  Who knows.

Anyway, I find his comments about modularity, combat information systems, flexibility, commonality across classes and In Service Support verry interesting.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftherealview.activerain.com%2Fimage_store%2Fuploads%2F6%2F3%2F3%2F5%2F5%2Far11647567555336.jpg&hash=bc4bab5bb7e7c6ad3799a0730b55eda8)

One common system for the CSC, AOPS, JSS and the MCDV with plug and play pieces.  And fast upgrades.

And I will put one more plug in for the Flex Deck Concept, particularly as described by the Dutch shipyard Damen and their Crossover series.

As someone interested in getting muddy boots and pongos onboard pristine, if bolshie, RCN vessels, obviously the Flexdeck/Crossover deck appeals to me.

But might it not also offer the RCN advantages as well?   I mean in addition to a glorified boat deck.

Would it be possible to increase the carrying capacity of the crossover crane to 50 tonnes so as to be able to lift the deckplates on the flexdeck and access the machinery spaces so you could yard out your own engines and drop them on the dockside and bring another engine on board?  Or even carry a spare if the situation warranted?

The crossover crane is already envisaged as having a capacity of up to 40 tonnes to be able to lift LCVPs according to the product sheet accessible from here.


Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 02, 2016, 17:59:16
Some foreign (mostly NATO) frigates with good images (I've done Norwegian, Danish and Dutch):
http://defencyclopedia.com/2016/01/02/top-10-most-powerful-frigates-in-the-world/

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FQkPNTX0.jpg&hash=c5640d0781801a054e107d8b782714bc)

(https://defencyclopedia.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/iver-huitfeldt-class.jpg?w=1000)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.naval-technology.com%2Fprojects%2Fdezeven%2Fimages%2FDeZeven_2.jpg-.jpg&hash=6c6f25137ced600f1e161f4afcce8ca4)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Pat in Halifax on January 02, 2016, 21:09:23
I don't believe I am going to say this but here goes. IAW CFDS, support to multi national TGs in foreign operations is but one portion. For the remainder, anything much beyond a PRE MLR Halifax class is a bit of overkill. My thoughts recently have been a small force for blue water ops and a shitload of OPVs in the 1000-2500 ton range with constabulary capabilities. I sit back now and have to ask, do we really need a large fleet of AB/Type 45/FREMM type vessels... I mean really? As much as I would love to see a huge surface combatant fleet harkening back to the 60s, do we REALLY need it?
I worked the CSC Project in Ottawa 2011-2012 and am proud of the work I did toward it but now that I am out, I really have to ask myself if this is the right move for us. Yes, we are a maritime nation but for the price of one CSC we could potentially build (and crew) 2-3 smaller vessels. Sending even a skeleton crew of 160 on a Halifax class on a FISHPAT/NANOOK/CARIBE is NOT the best use of our limited HR resources.
I want to see a strong Navy as much as anyone but maybe a step back from the table is in order. I realize some of you may think me out to lunch and that is fine.

Pat
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: dapaterson on January 02, 2016, 21:48:42
Pat:  I'm not in violent disagreement.  A corvette navy plus half a dozen or so major combatants might be an option; as I recall, the KINGSTON class spend more days at sea than the HALIFAX.  Much of this goes back to a need for a clearly enunciated defence policy for Canada - what do we want the RCN to do?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 02, 2016, 22:42:12
I have no objection to a Corvette navy once more as Pat is proposing.  Were we to downgrade, I would want to make sure they they're capable of something better than getting outrun by the Dartmouth Ferry or the like.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Dimsum on January 03, 2016, 02:21:46
Agreed as well.  Also, the Russian experience in Syria has proven that corvette-sized ships can fling long range missiles. 

A fleet of corvettes based on the Norwegian Skjold-class would be a sight to see   :nod:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold-class_corvette

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 03, 2016, 03:55:15
Nothing wrong with the Corvette concept, would prefer something a little larger, say up to 3000 tons or slightly above, with one or two VLS 41 launchers, capable of:

Littoral
Escort
Anti-Piracy
ASW

Would need a good range.  There are a number of designs that can carry a Cyclone sized helo.  3-4 Ivars and 6 or more Corvettes per coast.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on January 03, 2016, 11:26:20
Nothing wrong with the Corvette concept, would prefer something a little larger, say up to 3000 tons or slightly above, with one or two VLS 41 launchers, capable of:

Littoral
Escort
Anti-Piracy
ASW

Would need a good range.  There are a number of designs that can carry a Cyclone sized helo.  3-4 Ivars and 6 or more Corvettes per coast.

AM, even just one Mk.41 (or 57) would be quite a capability! :nod:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: deepblue202 on January 03, 2016, 11:41:46
How about the Sigma Frigate 10514 http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-frigate-and-corvette/sigma-frigate-10514 (http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-frigate-and-corvette/sigma-frigate-10514)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on January 03, 2016, 12:26:38
For those of us interested readers that are uneducated about such things what are the biggest cost factors in making this program so expensive?

I'm guessing it's not the actual construction of the hull itself.  Is it the initial cost of creating the industrial capacity to build the ships in the first place?  Is it the design cost of modifying a basic design to meet our specific Canadian requirements and integrating those systems to work together?  The cost of the weapons?  The cost of the sensors?  The lifetime maintenance cost of the ships?  The cost of crewing them?

Knowing that might help to understand what kind of actions might actually have a realistic chance of improving the process.  What actions or decisions might actually have a realistic impact on the long term affordability of our Navy.

- Do we have the actual hulls built elsewhere (domestic political impacts?)
- Do we stick to an existing design with established systems integration (have to suit our doctrine of operations to the platform?)
- Do we reduce the number and/or capability of the weapons and/or sensors fitted (reduce our capability?)
- Do we go for lower maintenance designs (does that affect survivability and redundancy?)
- Do we go for ships with smaller crew requirements (does that change our basic method of operations?)
- Do we stick with the plan and just have fewer ships (what are the effects of that?)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 03, 2016, 13:15:43
For those of us interested readers that are uneducated about such things what are the biggest cost factors in making this program so expensive?

I'm guessing it's not the actual construction of the hull itself.  Is it the initial cost of creating the industrial capacity to build the ships in the first place?  Is it the design cost of modifying a basic design to meet our specific Canadian requirements and integrating those systems to work together?  The cost of the weapons?  The cost of the sensors?  The lifetime maintenance cost of the ships?  The cost of crewing them? 



You forgot one:  The cost of Canadian politics (politicians)?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 03, 2016, 13:23:01
On the OPV front:

Here is one of the, if not the, most modern OPV on the oceans just now.

HNLMS Holland -

Quote
The general characteristics of the class is a displacement of 3,750 tons, speed of up to 22 knots, length of 108.4 meters and a range of 5,000n.m. with the speed of 15 knots. The endurance is 21 days. The complement is just 52 people while there is additional accommodation for more than 40 in really spacious rooms (it was like.. a floating hotel to me comparing with other ships such as a Type 23 frigate).
 

Complete with ship's bar apparently

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GJzqsvF0Z54/VGUcHULSDXI/AAAAAAAACEw/RMJ6KgRNpA0/s1600/DSC04498.JPG)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-EUw3H2Q6uAI%2FVSpNpua2x0I%2FAAAAAAAADtU%2FGEU5_vmN--g%2Fs1600%2Fgroningen.jpg&hash=71a5d20a8d1c74e1e7a5821f02aa2bea)

Here's a link to a very nice presentation - lots of facts, photos and videos.

http://navalanalyses.blogspot.ca/2014/11/holland-class-offshore-patrol-boats-of.html
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 03, 2016, 14:05:33
Here's a less "glossy" view of the Hollands, but with some really interesting costing information (ca 2010)

Quote
For an OPV - called Ocean Going Patrol Vessel by the MOD - it's huge at 3750t. Even if the MoD calls them 'small flexible patrol vessels'. It's bigger than the 3320t M-class it replaces.
There are a couple of reasons for this. First, mild steel is used to build the vessels. This is heavier than the high tensile steel used for frigates. Mild steel is cheaper and since the ships will only do 22 knots, high tensile steel is not necessary. A plus is that this cheaper steel is actually more blast resistant. The second reason is the use of a lot of armour on the ships and the last reason is the need to operate the NH-90 helicopter up to Sea State 5.

Length: 354ft.
Propulsion: Diesel-electric
Max Sustained Speed: 22kts
Range: 5000nm (@15kts)
Endurance: 21 days
Crew: 50 (max. 90 + 100 evacuees)
Armament: 1x 76mm Oto Melara, 1x30mm Marlin WS, 2x 12.7mm Hitrole (all remotely operated)
Stern Launch: 1
RHIB Davit: 1 RHIB
Aviation Facilities: One NH-90 + hangar
Cost: €120 million a piece of which about €30 million is for the Integrated Mast from Thales.

On paper it actually has a lot in common with the notional characteristics of the future Offshore Patrol Cutter from the USCG.

http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/03/holland-class-opvs-will-need-change.html

Edit to add a further discussion link

http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2012/03/neither-frigate-nor-opv-be.html
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on January 03, 2016, 15:08:39
I would be in favour of getting 6 very capable Canadian Surface Combatant ships, and something like 12 corvettes (in addition to the AOPS and a patrol boat class to replace the MCDVs).  I think it would serve Canada's needs well.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 03, 2016, 15:16:16
And while about it

A neat little technical article about propulsion systems  http://202.114.89.60/resource/pdf/5220.pdf

It may help to answer why the AOPS opted not to use an all electric drive system based on Azipods

Quote
With a well designed system, a mechanical propulsion has a full load efficiency in the range of 98%
whereas an electric drive has an efficiency of about 90--92%.

And it also addresses changes in ships operations that reduce/eliminate the need for a high-speed sprint capability

Apparently the German F123 (designed for 1990) was expected to do the following:

15% of the time Loitering at 0 to 10 kts
55% of the time in Transit at 12 to 20 kts
20% of the time in High Speed Transit at 20 to 26 kts
And
10% of the time in Sprint Mode

Meanwhile the German F125 (designed for 2010) is expected to do:

32% of the time Loitering at 0 to 10 kts
54% of the time in Transit at 12 to 20 kts
14% of the time in High Speed Transit at 20 to 26 kts.
And
Exactly 0% of the time in Sprint Mode.

The elimination of the Sprint Mode, made possible by greater reliance on helos, UAVs and high speed interceptor boats, results in the following change in power requirements (5200 ton frigate):

To achieve a maximum speed of 20 knots (Transit) you need a 15 MW power plant
To achieve a maximum speed of 25 knots (High Speed Transit) you need a 25 MW power plant
To achieve a maximum speed of 30 knots (Sprint Mode) you need a 45 MW power plant

You see the latter in both the Halifax and the Italian Fremms.
Ivar Huitfeldt conforms to the German F125 concept  and the Absalon is scaled according to the Transit model.

Ivar Huitfeldt - 32.8 MW to drive 6645 tonnes through the water at 30 kts
Absalon (same hull form as Huitfeldt) - 16.4 MW to drive 6300 tonnes through the water at 24 kts.

Does the RCN need sprinters or can it manage with drifters?  How many of each?  Can the same hull be used for logistics as for combat?  Can hulls be fitted with additional engines if circumstances demand?

Many thanks to Pat and Mark for finding me some new paths to surf.  :nod:


Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 03, 2016, 15:36:19
Not saying we need these, but here is what can be done inside 3200 tons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formidable-class_frigate
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 03, 2016, 15:42:04
I would say get 12 of these, 6 on each coast. I was on LÉ Róisínand its quite nice. 1500 tonnes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%89_R%C3%B3is%C3%ADn_%28P51%29
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 03, 2016, 17:29:35
Can't do Cyclone on a hull that size without a massive loss in capability.  Also even with a small helo you need a larger ship to do proper helo ops at the sea states that we get in the northern latitudes.  The helo is such an important part of the Canadian TG.

Corvette navies you notice are built by countries that have no need to deal with big oceans, only sail in brown or close to home blue waters and finally have limited funds.  Its no surprise the Med nations, Baltic nations (North Sea included) and South Pacific nations all build corvettes.  The Russian Black Sea fleet has corvettes but their Northern and Pacific Fleets really don't have any (for those same reasons).   No need to build a ship with legs if all you're gonna do is hang out at home in nice calm waters.  The Canadian situation is very different and the job requirements handed to us by the government require a big (relatively) ship navy.  Even the AOP's are a big ship by corvette standards.

If the cost of a ship is based mainly on its weapon/sensor systems then really capable corvettes are going to cost pretty close to the same as a bigger ship.  Unless you accept a loss in capability.  So if you want a less capable navy well then build less capable ships.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 03, 2016, 18:04:52
Can't do Cyclone on a hull that size without a massive loss in capability.  Also even with a small helo you need a larger ship to do proper helo ops at the sea states that we get in the northern latitudes.  The helo is such an important part of the Canadian TG.

Corvette navies you notice are built by countries that have no need to deal with big oceans, only sail in brown or close to home blue waters and finally have limited funds.  Its no surprise the Med nations, Baltic nations (North Sea included) and South Pacific nations all build corvettes.  The Russian Black Sea fleet has corvettes but their Northern and Pacific Fleets really don't have any (for those same reasons).   No need to build a ship with legs if all you're gonna do is hang out at home in nice calm waters.  The Canadian situation is very different and the job requirements handed to us by the government require a big (relatively) ship navy.  Even the AOP's are a big ship by corvette standards.


If the cost of a ship is based mainly on its weapon/sensor systems then really capable corvettes are going to cost pretty close to the same as a bigger ship.  Unless you accept a loss in capability.  So if you want a less capable navy well then build less capable ships.

I believe the sea keeping requirement to manage boats and Cyclone size helos in sea state 5 is what drove the Hollands up to 3750 tonnes and the Svalbard up to 6000 tonnes.

HMS Clyde - at 2000 tonnes can land a Cyclone but has no hangar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on January 03, 2016, 18:23:44
Does this meet the criteria for a reasonably capable vessel with blue water helicopter capability, a VLS system, ASuW missiles, mission bays, a smaller crew, an in-production hull, and interoperability with our allies?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140806123312/http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 03, 2016, 18:56:34
Does this meet the criteria for a reasonably capable vessel with blue water helicopter capability, a VLS system, ASuW missiles, mission bays, a smaller crew, an in-production hull, and interoperability with our allies?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140806123312/http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf
12 please.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 03, 2016, 19:19:28
I believe the sea keeping requirement to manage boats and Cyclone size helos in sea state 5 is what drove the Hollands up to 3750 tonnes and the Svalbard up to 6000 tonnes.

HMS Clyde - at 2000 tonnes can land a Cyclone but has no hangar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257)
The Hollands would work just fine, plenty of freeboard and stability, hopefully could add one vls launcher.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 03, 2016, 19:30:27
I would say get 12 of these, 6 on each coast. I was on LÉ Róisínand its quite nice. 1500 tonnes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%89_R%C3%B3is%C3%ADn_%28P51%29

I was a guest on her at Quebec City in 08.  Very nice little ship indeed, good sized crew, facilities and capability.  Would suit me just fine, she would.  Good pick.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 03, 2016, 19:53:20
I was a guest on her at Quebec City in 08.  Very nice little ship indeed, good sized crew, facilities and capability.  Would suit me just fine, she would.  Good pick.

So was I, the Irish party really hard ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Dimsum on January 03, 2016, 20:14:44
I would say get 12 of these, 6 on each coast. I was on LÉ Róisínand its quite nice. 1500 tonnes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%89_R%C3%B3is%C3%ADn_%28P51%29

I was part of a Lakes Tour when her sister ship Le Niamh was doing her first (?) international tour in 2004.  I heard from various sources their port visit in Toronto was....interesting. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 03, 2016, 20:21:04
I was part of a Lakes Tour when her sister ship Le Niamh was doing her first (?) international tour in 2004.  I heard from various sources their port visit in Toronto was....interesting.

So was I we drove from Kingston (namesake visit) and had a time on board.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 03, 2016, 20:27:35
So was I, the Irish party really hard ;D

Awesome chaps.  I was legless.  Would love a cross pol/exchange to them any time.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Dimsum on January 03, 2016, 20:29:13
So was I we drove from Kingston (namesake visit) and had a time on board.

So you can probably answer this:  Did or did not some HCol suggest that his daughter show the Irish lads a night on the town (to...um...put it diplomatically)?

 >:D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 03, 2016, 20:35:55
So you can probably answer this:  Did or did not some HCol suggest that his daughter show the Irish lads a night on the town (to...um...put it diplomatically)?

 >:D

Wouldn't surprise me. Can't say for sure as I ended up with severe gyro failure after drinking Jamison's out of a pint glass after the beer ran out. These guys party hard.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on January 03, 2016, 20:38:29
Can't do Cyclone on a hull that size without a massive loss in capability.

The helicopters would be for the smaller fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants and the AORs.  These ships would be used for patrol and things like operation caribbe. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Dimsum on January 03, 2016, 20:44:48
Wouldn't surprise me. Can't say for sure as I ended up with severe gyro failure after drinking Jamison's out of a pint glass after the beer ran out. These guys party hard.

Dammit.  I had to visit the parents that night (and show them GLA the next day) but I've been hearing stories about the party since then.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 03, 2016, 21:00:19
I still remember blundering into the C&PO's and coming across a photograph of Her Honour, Mary Robinson, posted much as we would have HM.  I asked who she was only to exclaim we could only be so lucky to have a PM as good looking as her.  They, were not the least bit offended.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on January 04, 2016, 09:03:08
So,

The question is, what will we actually get?

The answer is, something that complies with the competitive bid process.

As much as I'd be delighted to see a mix of ships, and having seen the little corvettes that the Irish run, they're damn cute, but they don't fit into the NSPS, do they?

We'll get 15 (12?) large ships, somewhat similar to a Halifax Class, with probably similar capabilities.  We'll get 2(or 3 with the Resolve) Supply ships.  We'll get a 5(-7?) AOPS. 

We'll also see some Coast Guard ships.

To expect the makeup of the fleet to change at this point would be a surprise.

Would a dozen little corvettes make a great addition to the fleet, absolutely.  Are they in the cards/budget/plan right now?  Nope.

Nothing wrong with dreaming though!

NS
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: dapaterson on January 04, 2016, 09:08:02
The fundamental problem is that the NSPS is an economic development strategy, not a naval strategy.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 04, 2016, 09:55:08
The fundamental problem is that the NSPS is an economic development strategy, not a naval strategy.

You nailed it. In a perfect world the funds would be made available to the RCN, we design what we need and get it built as cheaply and efficiently as possible either domestic or offshore. Sadly that's not the case.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 04, 2016, 11:26:05
You nailed it. In a perfect world the funds would be made available to the RCN, we design what we need and get it built as cheaply and efficiently as possible either domestic or offshore. Sadly that's not the case.

And I think it is safe to say that there is not a navy in the world for whom that is the case.

Everybody gets what they get and then makes it work.

With respect to the lack of a Corvette programme in the NSPS - that is a reason why I continue to believe the Multi-Tiered Single Class concept is still likely to be the best bet for preserving capacity within the budget.

The Danes, of course, have two tiers in their single class (Command and Support is one,  AAW is the other).  The Brits are moving their Type 26 back to the three tier model (C1, C2 and C3 - although C3 may end up being a new Corvette type design).

I don't think you are going to be able to get 4 Tier 1 AAWs and and 12 Tier 2 CPFs all manned with 200 plus regular sailors and all equipped with brand new weapons.  Not with Canadian pricing practices.

I do think that you could build 16 hulls, carve them up into three tiers with different levels of weaponry, cargo and passengers, and man them with reduced crews that could be beefed up with third watches, specialists (like weapons and boarding parties or even soldiers) for extended deployments.  And I am pretty sure that you could motivate sea-going soldiers to learn how to keep their ship afloat if it were damaged.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Journeyman on January 04, 2016, 11:37:31
The fundamental problem is that the NSPS is an economic development strategy, not a naval strategy.
Much like the Canada First Defence Strategy  was nothing more than a Christmas wish list, rather than even a feeble attempt at "strategy."  It was justifiably shelved before the ink was dry.

In a perfect world the funds would be made available to the RCN, we design what we need and get it built....
What are the odds that the process would devolve to leadership preferences zig-zagging through posting cycles?  In the fighter-dominated RCAF, ask a Sea King person how enthused they are to see the world revolving around CF-18 replacement.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: dapaterson on January 04, 2016, 11:45:11
Much like the Canada First Defence Strategy  was nothing more than a Christmas wish list, rather than even a feeble attempt at "strategy."  It was justifiably shelved before the ink was dry.

Don't worry.  Under the new government, the wish list will not be tied to any specific religious holiday, but will be equally ignored when fiscal reality hits.

Quote

What are the odds that the process would devolve to leadership preferences zig-zagging through posting cycles?  In the fighter-dominated RCAF, ask a Sea King person how enthused they are to see the world revolving around CF-18 replacement.

The challenge of building a consensus and a shared vision that survives the posting cycle is, in theory, what Leadership is all about.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 04, 2016, 13:07:30
Of course, were the powers that be decide to go back to the drawing boards once more for a better bang for the buck solution (Corvette, MTSC, vicious Sea Bass with lasers on their heads...) the amount of treasure that has been expended so far would have been wasted and having seen how slowly the mills of the gods in Ottawa grind plus appeasing PWGSC (the real enemy), I am sure the second coming will come first.  I know now why men(and women) go mad here.

Yes, it could happen.  It has before, EH101 anyone?  Will it?  Goodness knows.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: STONEY on January 04, 2016, 13:49:19
I think i would rather have 6 new subs in the works than 24 new corvettes . More bank for the buck. Remember there are subs and everything else is a target.

Toodles   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 04, 2016, 13:59:28
I think i would rather have 6 new subs in the works than 24 new corvettes . More bank for the buck. Remember there are subs and everything else is a target.

Toodles

Honestly the utility for subs are great for a country, but they are a notorious black hole for money which the RCN just doesn't have. Just look at what was spent on the Victoria Class so far and apply it to the surface fleet, we would be well off. I would pick a corvette or patrol ship built overseas over the capability of a sub any day in peacetime.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 04, 2016, 15:30:19
Honestly the utility for subs are great for a country, but they are a notorious black hole for money which the RCN just doesn't have. Just look at what was spent on the Victoria Class so far and apply it to the surface fleet, we would be well off. I would pick a corvette or patrol ship built overseas over the capability of a sub any day in peacetime.

So, do we exist for peace or war?

Subs are actually incredibly efficient war fighting devices. They soak up a terrible amount of resources just defending against them.

But, as you astutely note, does the CF exist for peace or war?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 04, 2016, 15:50:03
As the Romans succinctly put it, "those who desire peace, prepare for war".  Bearing that in mind, the CAF exist for and how the GoC wants us to be, it's not really up to us, is it?

Subs are great, but until I went to FMF I did not have a real idea of how much of a money pit they can be.  I honestly can't say if their cost out weigh their utility or if the reverse is true.  That is above my comprehension, pay grade and need to know.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 04, 2016, 16:34:22
So, do we exist for peace or war?

....

Yes?

You exist for peace AND war.

Some of you operate peacefully in an environment that may turn war-like at any moment..... but hasn't for the number of days/months/years/decades.   Some of you operate in peaceful environments with no risk.  Some of you are despatched to areas of high risk or to active theatres.

While it seems reasonable to have all platforms equipped for all risks in all environments the net effect is 1x Zumwalt (or 1x Rainbow and 1x Niobe) is available to patrol coasts and act overseas 24/7.

The alternative is a larger number of platforms with fewer capabilities and higher risk.   But Risk Management is all about everything - whether it is safe for the Coast Guard to operate, or the RCMP in higher risk areas or the CAF in the highest risk environment.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 04, 2016, 16:38:28
So, do we exist for peace or war?

Subs are actually incredibly efficient war fighting devices. They soak up a terrible amount of resources just defending against them.

But, as you astutely note, does the CF exist for peace or war?

I agree their great for a country that has a decent defence budget. Honestly you have no idea the money spent with the sub certification program. The money saved would pay for top of the line shiny helo's for you that's for sure and money left over for the RCN. In the big scheme of things we would be better off without them, my opinion as a skimmer of course.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 04, 2016, 17:53:58
I agree their great for a country that has a decent defence budget. Honestly you have no idea the money spent with the sub certification program. The money saved would pay for top of the line shiny helo's for you that's for sure and money left over for the RCN. In the big scheme of things we would be better off without them, my opinion as a skimmer of course.

But in the skimmer world, we have another way of ridding ourselves of submarines  ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 04, 2016, 18:12:29
But in the skimmer world, we have another way of ridding ourselves of submarines  ;D

That's right dust off Sackville and buy some depth charges.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: suffolkowner on January 04, 2016, 18:52:31
With respect to submarines do people think that a new platform would be cheaper to run for example the U216/U218?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: suffolkowner on January 04, 2016, 19:10:15
a piece on the costs of the submarine service

http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol10num3/vol10num3art8.pdf
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: cheeky_monkey on January 04, 2016, 19:37:20
Emphasis added.
Subs are great, but until I went to FMF I did not have a real idea of how much of a money pit they can be.  I honestly can't say if their cost outweigh their utility or if the reverse is true.  That is above my comprehension, pay grade and need to know.
Subs are actually incredibly efficient war fighting devices. They soak up a terrible amount of resources just defending against them.

I think SKT addressed JJT's cost/benefit concerns soundly.
Within the task group construct, in a multi threat warfare scenario, multiple ships get dispatched to hunt one sub. That single sub-surface asset has just taken multiple surface ships away from the high value unit, leaving the burden of maintaining the screen on fewer ships, thereby leaving the HVU more vulnerable. Happy day for the sub, who will just go deep - not a happy day for the "priceless" HVU, or the screening ship's whose mission is to protect her.


I think i would rather have 6 new subs in the works than 24 new corvettes . More bank for the buck. Remember where there are subs - everything else is a target.
Absolutely subs have more bank for their buck. And it seems so few people, even those within the naval community, understand this concept.

Honestly the utility for subs are great for a country, but they are a notorious black hole for money which the RCN just doesn't have. Just look at what was spent on the Victoria Class so far and apply it to the surface fleet, we would be well off. I would pick a corvette or patrol ship built overseas over the capability of a sub any day in peacetime.

Robbing Peter to pay Paul makes for a poor defence policy. Certainly when you're talking about completely removing our ability to fight or operate underwater, in exchange for a token presence on the surface. I'll keep my sub-surface golden-egg-laying-goose, thanks.

In peacetime we pay large sums to maintain this capability. In wartime, we reap the dividends. Even in peacetime we can reap the dividends - our subs have deployed on Op Caribbe, and have contributed to stopping illegal narcotics.

We don't plan for peace, we plan for war. That's at the very core of what we (CAF) do. We would just prefer it that it all remains peaceful.

/sub-tangent
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GK .Dundas on January 04, 2016, 19:48:09
But in the skimmer world, we have another way of ridding ourselves of submarines  ;D
OK that takes care of our submarines .But how do we deal with an opponent's subs.For some odd  reason I doubt they 'll let us screw  with their budgets .But then again I have been wrong before. ::)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 04, 2016, 20:44:10
Emphasis added.
In peacetime we pay large sums to maintain this capability. In wartime, we reap the dividends. Even in peacetime we can reap the dividends - our subs have deployed on Op Caribbe, and have contributed to stopping illegal narcotics.

We don't plan for peace, we plan for war. That's at the very core of what we (CAF) do. We would just prefer it that it all remains peaceful.

I really don't think six subs, with two in refit at all times is in my opinion a good way to spend limited defence dollars. Did you see the article, something like 90% of what it costs to operate our surface fleet to what it costs for six subs. How much operational time for our money? not much. It took over 10 years for Victoria to fire a torpedo.  Do people realize the dog and pony show that follows the Victoria Class to maintain them when they hit port$$  I do realize its a capability, but not a capability that we need right now given the state of the fleet in my opinion. As for the Op Caribbe, yes they did disrupt drugs but so did a 60 million MCDV.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 04, 2016, 21:02:43
Agreed.  I believe it's Cornerbrook that has actually spent more time on the lift (years) than she's ever spent in the water.  I fail to see the overall benefit of having the resource bleed as we've experienced.  CM, you fail to convince me otherwise as to their utility.  There are many platforms we'd all love to see on the inventory, Amphibs, Carriers, Subs, etc etc but it's a case of want vs need.  We need to be smarter than we have been in the past as we cannot continue to spend like drunken sailors. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 04, 2016, 21:20:32
Agreed.  I believe it's Cornerbrook that has actually spent more time on the lift (years) than she's ever spent in the water.  I fail to see the overall benefit of having the resource bleed as we've experienced.  CM, you fail to convince me otherwise as to their utility.  There are many platforms we'd all love to see on the inventory, Amphibs, Carriers, Subs, etc etc but it's a case of want vs need.  We need to be smarter than we have been in the past as we cannot continue to spend like drunken sailors.

I totally agree divest ourselves of the subs, build up the surface fleet, and get new subs then. Farm out our personnel to the Brits and Australians to maintain skills.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 04, 2016, 21:53:39
I totally agree divest ourselves of the subs, build up the surface fleet, and get new subs then. Farm out our personnel to the Brits and Australians to maintain skills.

Once the subs are gone we will never get them back.  it will be a lost capability like the Bonnie.  It's hard enough to convince the gov't to retain the capability as it currently stands.  And an inability to know what happens under our waters is the dumbest thing you can think of from a strategic perspective.  Submarines are arguably Canada's only operational strategic weapons system and are critical for a maritime nation on an island continent. 

What the navy really needs is a budgetary increase, and less crabbing about cutting capability.  There's a reason every other nation in the world is increasing their subs, and its because the strategic impact for the cost is much better than surface fleets.  How are we in Canada the only ones who seem to think that this is the opposite?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: PuckChaser on January 04, 2016, 21:58:37
What the navyCAF really needs is a budgetary increase, and less crabbing about cutting capability.

FTFY.

The RCN is not alone in budgetary struggles. The Army just parked 50% of its B Fleet because we can't afford to run them.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Journeyman on January 04, 2016, 23:23:25
The Army just parked 50% of its B Fleet  trucks .....

/translation 

[it is  a Navy thread after all; if we're going to be guests, we should be considerate of Army-speak.  ;)  ]
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: YZT580 on January 05, 2016, 01:30:28
Perhaps the high cost of running the subs is more reflective of the old adage "Buyer beware" when buying something used.  If we had invested, sorry, if is a stupid argument because we didn't.  The same can be said regarding the foolishness of closing the st. Johns yard.  All studies have indicated that we require an underwater presence.  In addition, subs are the only reliable means of patrolling our northern flank.  Nuclear ones at that which is a really bad word.  So either we pay the price or we lower the flag.  The more we delay the more it will cost us.  The replacement project for the Sea Kings comes to mind when I say that.  What is needed more than anything is leadership that is willing to spell out our basic requirements regardless of the fact that it will be bad news.  Since Trudeau has said that he wishes to instate total freedom of speech I wait impatiently for the naval/air force leader who will take him at his word and tell Canada the exact state of our current inventory.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: suffolkowner on January 05, 2016, 11:08:51
What I gathered from the naval review article was that our fleet of 4 subs were costing 95% of the entire surface fleet. While comparatively the cost should be 30% per unit which should equal just over 1 Halifax class frigate. I'd take that any day of the week.  24x that costing would seem to be an issue that is difficult to justify so either
1. the 30% number is inaccurate
2. the Victoria class is inordinately expensive to run (or maybe just one of them)
3. or the RCN submarine management skills have atrophied over time
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 05, 2016, 11:16:22
Was that just operational costs, or the ops and upgrade costs rolled into one?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 05, 2016, 12:45:43
The subs are incredibly expensive to operate and maintain that's a matter of public knowledge. They sat in the water for years rotting away while the government at the time dithered. They were expensive to reactivate not to mention all the problems they had with them, IE the tragic fire and the grounding. There is also the certification program they go through to ensure they are operational. Spare parts are very expensive. When  the RCN bought them they had the choice of something like five warehouses of parts, the RCN only had so much money and at the time picked what they though they needed. The rest of the parts went to BAE, when they need parts for them we pay through the nose, not to mention many parts to be re-certified has to be sent to the UK.
Again I want to be clear, while the subs are a necessary strategic asset like others have alluded to I worry about having a robust surface fleet including the proper support to look after our domestic and international commitments. IF the budget for the RCN is increased then by all means have subs but not at expense of what little we have now.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 05, 2016, 14:27:09
CSC: FrontLine Defence takes on Irving:

Quote
Editor's Corner
Govt Tackles Procurement Challenge
BY CHRIS MACLEAN
...
Canada’s experience/expertise in warship design, combat system development or integration dissipated decades ago. Undeniable logic dictates that a project of this complexity should be undertaken by an experienced warship integrator (that includes WD, plus CSI, plus Platform System Integrator) to avoid disaster in the form of delays and cost...

Canada has taken a shipbuilder with limited experience with the complexities of modern warships, and placed it in a position of authority to determine which companies it prefers to work with. This is completely backward to the normal build process of any large and complex project. It’s like putting the construction foreman in charge of choosing which cyber security engineers he/she would prefer to work with when building the new CSIS facility.

Will the Liberal government push back from the bullying tactics that have been displayed, and reconsider if the best option for Canada wouldn’t be to change to the most capable design procurement strategy? It’s not too late to turn this ship around...
http://defence.frontline.online/article/2015/6/3703

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: cheeky_monkey on January 05, 2016, 14:36:01
YTZ and Underway have hit the nail on the head.

Subs are a capability that is required for our own northern surveillance. The north is slowly, but very surely opening up. We need a multi-pronged, multi-dimensional approach to maritime security. Subs are a key component of that.

The proliferation of 'inexpensive" diesel subs around the world - specifically into the hands of non-NATO/FVEYs countries - is on the rise. To meet this threat, we need the capability.
For as long as Canada borders the oceans, we need to be able to operate under, on, and in the sky above. We need to do this not only in the interest of our own security, but with our vested interest operating as a piece within the global maritime security construct.

To argue that it's purely a matter of dollars and cents is myopic. At the very least we must retain the sub capability such that it can be expanded in times of budgetary feast, and put into a maintenance posture (not cut entirely) in times of famine.

More than just hulls, people, dollars, and capability, what we need is a definitive naval strategy within the larger Canadian defence strategy. We certainly don't have that.
And we need senior leadership who are willing to address the elephant in the room head on.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 05, 2016, 14:47:04
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbelgranoinquiry.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FBelgrano-Sunk-copy2.jpg&hash=f8b52e788ccff3a4e11c24f132943ea2)

One submarine pretty much cost Argentina the entire Falklands War.  The British Navy was able to operate with impunity following the attack on Belgrano.

Getting rid of the submarine program would be a very shortsighted decision. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 05, 2016, 14:58:45
Subs have deployed north twice to the Arctic that's it. We are building a system of underwater surveillance in the Northwest passage to detect subs and ships. That being said I doubt we will get rid of our subs despite the hopes of many of us who sail out the harbour while watching subs sit alongside taking up 80% of what it takes the fleet to operate however anything is possible with our new government. These subs that we have cannot be laid up to save money, they have to be continuously maintained at operational levels or we'll have a repeat of when we got the things. With all the new ships coming I hope there will extra funds to support the fleet as at current levels we won't be able to do it.  I would say within a year we will have a new white paper and we'll see what the future the military and RCN is, no doubt lots of peacekeeping, unicorns and rainbows.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 05, 2016, 15:00:05
Impunity indeed.

Quote
Saturday 1st May

HMS Alacrity - slightly damaged by bomb near misses

HMS Arrow - slightly damaged by cannon fire

HMS Glamorgan - slightly damaged by bomb near misses, all off Stanley by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.

Tuesday 4th May

HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May.

Wednesday 12th May

HMS Glasgow - moderately damaged off Stanley by unexploded bomb (1) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Bomb passed through hull but damage took some days to repair and she shortly returned to UK.

Friday 21st May

HMS Antrim - seriously damaged in Falkland Sound outside San Carlos Water by unexploded bomb (2) dropped by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6. UXB removed but damage took some days to repair.

HMS Broadsword - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6.

HMS Argonaut - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by rockets and cannon fire from Aermacchi MB.339A of CANA 1 Esc, and then seriously damaged by two unexploded bombs (3/4) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Removing the UXB's and carrying out repairs took a number of days and although declared operational, she soon sailed for the UK.

HMS Brilliant - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6. (Different attack from "Broadsword")

HMS ARDENT - badly damaged in Grantham Sound by bombs - hits, UXB's (5+) and near misses - dropped by Daggers of Grupo 6, then mortally damaged by bombs from A-4Q Skyhawks of CANA 3 Esc off North West Island. Sank the following evening.

Sunday 23rd May

HMS ANTELOPE - damaged in San Carlos Water by two unexploded bombs (6/7) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5. One of the bombs exploded that evening while being defused and she caught fire and sank next day.

Monday 24th May

RFA Sir Galahad - damaged by unexploded bomb (8) and out of action for some days,

RFA Sir Lancelot - damaged by unexploded bomb (9) and not fully operational for almost three weeks,

RFA Sir Bedivere - slightly damaged by glancing bomb, all in San Carlos Water probably by A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4. 

Tuesday 25th May

HMS Broadsword - damaged north of Pebble Island by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5 bouncing up through her stern and out again to land in the sea.

HMS COVENTRY - sunk north of Pebble Island in same attack by three bombs.

ATLANTIC CONVEYOR - mortally damaged north east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and later sank in tow.

Saturday 29th May

British Wye - hit north of South Georgia by bomb dropped by C-130 Hercules of FAA Grupo 1 which bounced into the sea without exploding

Tuesday 8th June

HMS Plymouth - damaged in Falkland Sound off San Carlos Water by four unexploded bombs (10-13) from Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.

RFA SIR GALAHAD - mortally damaged off Fitzroy by bombs from A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 and burnt out. Later in June towed out to sea and sunk as a war grave.

RFA Sir Tristram - badly damaged off Fitzroy in same attack and abandoned, but later returned to UK and repaired.

LCU F4, HMS Fearless - sunk in Choiseul Sound by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5.

Saturday 12th June

HMS Glamorgan - damaged off Stanley by land-based Exocet missile.

http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Falklands-British_ships_lost.htm
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 05, 2016, 15:06:59
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbelgranoinquiry.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F03%2FBelgrano-Sunk-copy2.jpg&hash=f8b52e788ccff3a4e11c24f132943ea2)

One submarine pretty much cost Argentina the entire Falklands War.  The British Navy was able to operate with impunity following the attack on Belgrano.

Getting rid of the submarine program would be a very shortsighted decision.

Sure but we need to be able to actually fire a torpedo in anger, it took over 10 years for the Victoria Class to be able to. It took a lot of skill to torpedo a WW2 era cruiser filled with cadets.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 05, 2016, 15:13:55
Impunity indeed.

http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Falklands-British_ships_lost.htm

I'll elaborate.  The sinking of the the Belgrano forced the Argentinian Navy in to port, along with its aircraft carrier, Veinticino de Mayo. The Argentinian Navy spent the rest of the war in port which cost the Junta massive political points and also forced them to launch their air attacks from the mainland, at the very limit of their operational range.

The Brits lost a few ships but the war was, at the strategic level, pretty much won at this point.  One submarine used 3 torpedoes to sink a battle cruiser in 20 min and killed 323 Argentinian sailors (half their casualties in the entire conflict).  It also caused an entire Navy to run back home with their tails between their legs.  A perfect example of why the Submarine program should go nowhere anytime soon.



Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on January 05, 2016, 15:26:15
Sure but we need to be able to actually fire a torpedo in anger, it took over 10 years for the Victoria Class to be able to. It took a lot of skill to torpedo a WW2 era cruiser filled with cadets.

It's a tool in the toolbox and we need them all.  The program was managed in a piss poor fashion from the start, just like many of our other programs.  Last time I looked, many of our surface ships were in piss poor working order as well.

The entire defence portfolio needs to be carefully examined and rationalized.  Getting rid of submarines just because you "think" it would improve the short term fortunes of your surface fleet is a very stupid way of doing business.

It's how the Army now has no Anti-Armour, Air Defence, Mortars, Pioneers, B-Fleet, Bridge Laying a Equipment, etc...
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 05, 2016, 15:54:22
It's a tool in the toolbox and we need them all.  The program was managed in a piss poor fashion from the start, just like many of our other programs.  Last time I looked, many of our surface ships were in piss poor working order as well.

Of course it is I don't dispute that, but when your tool doesn't work you either get rid of it or get something new. Part of the reason the surface fleet is in piss poor shape as you said is because of the costs supporting the subs. Imagine if all that money saved was put into the assets that actually sail.

The entire defence portfolio needs to be carefully examined and rationalized.  Getting rid of submarines just because you "think" it would improve the short term fortunes of your surface fleet is a very stupid way of doing business.

Your opinion but the increased money to the surface fleet would improve moral immeasurably and provide us with badly needed personnel.

It's how the Army now has no Anti-Armour, Air Defence, Mortars, Pioneers, B-Fleet, Bridge Laying a Equipment, etc...

No commenting about what the army does or doesn't do, not in my arcs of fire

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 05, 2016, 17:31:09
Meanwhile back at Irving, via a friend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD8EtvWW8nw

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 05, 2016, 17:32:41
I would say within a year we will have a new white paper and we'll see what the future the military and RCN is...

It will be blank.  Well maybe Gov't of Canada letterhead....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on January 05, 2016, 18:02:14
SSNs...just like the '84 White Paper! ;)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 05, 2016, 18:13:54
It's a tool in the toolbox and we need them all.  The program was managed in a piss poor fashion from the start, just like many of our other programs.  Last time I looked, many of our surface ships were in piss poor working order as well.

The entire defence portfolio needs to be carefully examined and rationalized.  Getting rid of submarines just because you "think" it would improve the short term fortunes of your surface fleet is a very stupid way of doing business.

It's how the Army now has no Anti-Armour, Air Defence, Mortars, Pioneers, B-Fleet, Bridge Laying a Equipment, etc...

And just what sort of deterrent does a vessel that spends more time in the air than in the water project?  Hard to fear the towing company that always seems to have a truck or two in for repairs.  You might be able to call yourself a towing company, but really, are you in name only?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 05, 2016, 18:44:06
Once they get rid of the subs, they also cut back the budget, so that money won't come to the fleet, next they start thinking we only need a constabulary navy and then they start looking at the Halifax class. Careful about wishing away resources. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 05, 2016, 20:41:33
Once they get rid of the subs, they also cut back the budget, so that money won't come to the fleet, next they start thinking we only need a constabulary navy and then they start looking at the Halifax class. Careful about wishing away resources.

Sigh, its not like they'll admit that the subs were a boondoggle from the get go after all that money was spent so I doubt if they'll be gone. I would say more likely if there is another major accident or the discovery of unknown corrosion or something like that they'll be fast tracked to the scrap heap. The way things are going we're one step away from a constabulary navy now anyways.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: PuckChaser on January 05, 2016, 21:30:33
Sigh, its not like they'll admit that the subs were a boondoggle from the get go

Not for the next 4 years, anyways: Liberals are the ones that bought them.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 06, 2016, 14:20:02
CS, I am in agreement that the handling of the purchase was a dog's breakfast and cost us way to much in the long run. Sadly any lessons learned will be swept under the rug and carefully forgotten. My belief is we need both surface and sub fleet and we could actually afford them if our procurement system wasn't so borked. As it is now, we should be looking at the replacement of the Victoria class and tagging onto another nations purchase that most closely matches our need and have our boats built last. if that was the Aussie contract, I would estimate that would timeline would be around 10 years from now.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 07, 2016, 20:05:12
CS, I am in agreement that the handling of the purchase was a dog's breakfast and cost us way to much in the long run. Sadly any lessons learned will be swept under the rug and carefully forgotten. My belief is we need both surface and sub fleet and we could actually afford them if our procurement system wasn't so borked. As it is now, we should be looking at the replacement of the Victoria class and tagging onto another nations purchase that most closely matches our need and have our boats built last. if that was the Aussie contract, I would estimate that would timeline would be around 10 years from now.

Speaking of Aussie contract....jump on their procurement and make it cheaper for everyone.  Just a few (read massive number) mods for our torps and FCS.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Dimsum on January 07, 2016, 20:17:10
Speaking of Aussie contract....jump on their procurement and make it cheaper for everyone.  Just a few (read massive number) mods for our torps and FCS.

Would the requirements mesh well though (e.g. Aussies generally in warm-ish waters, us in cold-ish waters, etc.) ?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on January 08, 2016, 05:45:53
Subs are great, but until I went to FMF I did not have a real idea of how much of a money pit they can be.  I honestly can't say if their cost out weigh their utility or if the reverse is true.  That is above my comprehension, pay grade and need to know.

Well to give you a rough idea, I've read that in the late 80's under Mulroney, the RCN gave up a third wave of halifax's to get 4-6 nuclear subs, and well in the end we got neither. Even back then though the gov and navy saw the need for nuclear power in the arctic.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 08, 2016, 07:01:17
Well to give you a rough idea, I've read that in the late 80's under Mulroney, the RCN gave up a third wave of halifax's to get 4-6 nuclear subs, and well in the end we got neither. Even back then though the gov and navy saw the need for nuclear power in the arctic.

I'll counter that if it was such a hotshit idea, it would have happened.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: dapaterson on January 08, 2016, 08:23:07
Speaking of Aussie contract....jump on their procurement and make it cheaper for everyone.  Just a few (read massive number) mods for our torps and FCS.

Probably cheaper to shitcan our torps and FCS, and use the same systems.  Sustainment for the C130Js and C17s is remarkably simplified since we didn't Canadianize the hell out of them, but maintain a common platform with our allies.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on January 08, 2016, 08:54:56
Is Vegas taking wagers yet?  I wouldn't be surprised, based in part on the factors recently exposéd in FrontLine magazine (that Irving isn't the 'Tier 1' ship-builder many people think) if Canada goes Aegis with some Flight-IV Arleigh Burkes license-built by Irving.  That would solve the interoperability issue and we could continue playing significant roles in Allied (read U.S.) naval task forces...

#wouldthatbesuchabadidea

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 08, 2016, 11:20:53
I'll counter that if it was such a hotshit idea, it would have happened.

It came very close to happening, the problem from my reading is that they did not have well laid backup plan if the pitch did not work, and things unraveled quickly. Go look at the history of procurement in this country and we have a long history of going for the best and then jumping off the cliff at the moment of signing mainly due to politicians worried about getting re-elected, which is the driving force behind all our major defense procurement decisions. If someone convinced them that we needed rainbow unicorns for going into battle and it would means jobs and vote, they would go for it.   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 08, 2016, 11:25:43
Oh I know it came close to fruition, but it didn't in the end.  Just like it came close to fruition for getting into the Amphibs game about 10 years ago.  Close only really counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and sex.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on January 08, 2016, 11:29:55
What is the reason for the high operation costs for our subs.  Is it simply that modern subs are simply more expensive to operate than surface ships, because the Victoria Class are old and have an unsupported supply chain, because of the "Canadianization" done to them, or a combination of the above?

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 08, 2016, 12:11:14
What is the reason for the high operation costs for our subs.  Is it simply that modern subs are simply more expensive to operate than surface ships, because the Victoria Class are old and have an unsupported supply chain, because of the "Canadianization" done to them, or a combination of the above?

Three kills, one torpedo. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on January 08, 2016, 15:02:20
So...if an eventual replacement of the Victoria's was a tag-on order to an in production foreign design with very minimal "Canadianization" (i.e. weapons, sensors, fire control unchanged...maybe just key electrical standards, etc.) would the capability likely be affordable along side a credible surface fleet, or are subs simply too expensive to operate without a major increase in the CF budget?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: suffolkowner on January 08, 2016, 15:24:50
So...if an eventual replacement of the Victoria's was a tag-on order to an in production foreign design with very minimal "Canadianization" (i.e. weapons, sensors, fire control unchanged...maybe just key electrical standards, etc.) would the capability likely be affordable along side a credible surface fleet, or are subs simply too expensive to operate without a major increase in the CF budget?

the Canadian Naval Review article suggested that operating costs for modern subs should be 30% of say a Halifax class ship but I didn't see any supporting documentation
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 08, 2016, 15:41:18
A good tag on would obviously be the Australian's Collin's class replacement.

The Australians currently use the Mk 48 as fish, as do we, and employ American Fire control system (the Raytheon CCS Mk2, which is a derivative of the AN/BYG-1 of the US Los Angeles class) as do we (even though ours is a modified  LockMart Librascope). By getting a sub built for these systems from the start, instead of a retrofit, the cost would be acceptable.

The Australian replacements are expected to be in the 1.2 to 1.4 b. US$, which is favourably comparable to a GP frigate. After that, the ops/life-cycle cost is about the same as a frigate, even though they carry a smaller crew. In my book however, a submarine - even a classic one - is a greater defence asset than a GP frigate, especially where applying pressure by threatening is concerned (same difference as a queen vs a bishop - and I mean in chess).

For instance, IMHO, Canada would have a stronger Naval posture if it operated 12 GP frigates and 8 SSKs than 12 GP Frigates, 3 AAD/command destroyers and no submarines. Yet building either fleet would likely cost about the same.

In any event, and even though all of the above is a very interesting topic, have we not strayed far from the thread's original purpose?   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on January 08, 2016, 15:44:34
The Canada class SSN's came close with the RCN even sending personnel on nuclear engineering coursing but opposition from our own country and surprisingly the United Sates killed the deal.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on January 08, 2016, 15:59:30
The Canada class SSN's came close with the RCN even sending personnel on nuclear engineering coursing but opposition from our own country and surprisingly the United Sates killed the deal.

any yet due to politics we didn't get the third flight of halifaxs back, though i bet if we did, the liverals of the 90's would of cancelled it
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on January 08, 2016, 16:32:57
In any event, and even though all of the above is a very interesting topic, have we not strayed far from the thread's original purpose?   

We are and we aren't off topic in a way.  The CSC budget does not exist in a vacuum and as has been noted, the more we spend on them the less we have to spend on other areas (including SSKs).

The program itself isn't going anywhere but is there the possibility of modification?  What if the AAD version were to be dropped (at least to start) and we simply produced 12-15 GP Frigates to replace the Halifax Class? 

Simplify the design by not having to accommodate two versions and the weapons/sensors will be cheaper as well.  Once those ships are built we can re-examine our next priorities which may be a small number of AAD ships to augment our GP frigates (either look then at a modified CSC design now that our ship yards have re-learned their skills in building the GP ships, or purchase off-shore), a new non-conventional design using high-energy weapons or rail guns which may be coming into service by then, or SSKs, or Amphibs, or, or... (or a mix of the above).
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 08, 2016, 16:34:29
the Canadian Naval Review article suggested that operating costs for modern subs should be 30% of say a Halifax class ship but I didn't see any supporting documentation

Halifax Class - Complement 225

Seawolf Class - Complement 140
Astute Class - Complement 98
Soryu Class - Complement 65
Collins Class - Complement 58
Victoria Class - Complement 48
Gotland Class - Complement 24 to 32

Take the crew of one Halifax (or Iroquois) and man 4 Victorias or 8 Gotlands or even 2 Astutes.

For that matter take the crew of one Halifax and man one Huitfeldt and two Victorias 

Or take the crew of one Halifax and man one Seawolf and a pair of AOPS.

Generally speaking labour (and its support and training) is a major part of the operations bill.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 08, 2016, 16:47:52
Ship size used to improve stability for AD guns, what components are the deciding factors in hull designs for AAD vs ASW, vs GP?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 08, 2016, 19:00:29
Here's a thought -

Task Group 2001

HMCS Preserver / HMCS Iroquois / HMCS Halifax / HMCS Winnipeg

Manned by 1020 crew all ranks including Air Dets.

Offensive capabilities

7x CH-124
16x Harpoons
28x Mk 46 Torpedoes (Ready to Launch)

AAW capabilities

29x Standards
32x ESSM (I know - anachronism - bear with me)

Troop Lift Capability

Limited to air dets.




Alternate Task Group 2021

HMCS Chateauguay / HMCS Iver Huitfeldt / HMCS Collins / HMCS Collins / HMCS Absalon / HMCS Holland / HMCS Holland

Manned by 556 all ranks (excluding Air Dets) - 45% reduction in manning costs

Offensive capabilities

7x CH-124 - 0 change in capacity
54x Harpoons  - 238% increase in capacity
22x Mk 46 Torpedoes - 21% loss of capacity
22x Mk 48 Torpedoes - New Capability

AAW capabilities

32x Standards - 10% increase in capacity
60x ESSM - 88% increase in capacity

Troop Lift Capability

308 full time berths
330 overload berths

Preserver's steam turbines and the gas turbines in Iroquois, Halifax and Winnipeg replaced by a common, modular diesel plant across all hulls, a common Integrated Platform Management System and a common Combat Management System.

And the Collins is not the Collins but the Collins Replacement.







Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 08, 2016, 21:35:14
Would the requirements mesh well though (e.g. Aussies generally in warm-ish waters, us in cold-ish waters, etc.) ?

The subs they are looking at buying are Japanese, French and German.  And water below 100m is generally 2 degrees anyway.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 08, 2016, 22:03:26
I believe range both in fuel and crew stamina is the major factor for dealing with the Pacific, which eliminates a lot of the current subs out there.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 11, 2016, 09:25:07
Technical question ...

Is it the case that a major surface combatant needs to displace, say, 5,000 tons because that's about as small as a ship can be and still conduct air operations (maritime helicopter) on the high seas?

Does that means that a, say, <2,000 ton corvette cannot do that under the sorts of cirumstances we see as being "operational?"

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fproducts.damen.com%2F%7E%2Fmedia%2FProducts%2FImages%2FClusters%2520groups%2FNaval%2FOffshore%2520Patrol%2520Vessel%2FOPV%25201800%2FOffshore_Patrol_Vessel_1800.ashx%3Fh%3D767%26amp%3Bw%3D1300&hash=7100acb48457dad9879b83293f3198eb)
Damen 1800 OPV displaces 1890 tons, speed of 20 kts, crew of <50 and range/endurance of 5,000nm/30 days
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: SeaKingTacco on January 11, 2016, 10:20:03
Edward,

I cannot see something that small doing anything other than just surviving in the North Atlantic or North Pacific in the winter.

That boat deck aft looks very low to the waterline. In any kind of seas, I foresee one losing boats from that location in rapid succession.

There does not appear to be a haul down system for the flight deck, which pretty much limits you to flat calm seas to launch and recover a helicopter.

I am not sure what the lower limit is for a warship that can do helo ops in bad weather. We used to do it with 3800 ton St Laurents, that were never designed from the beginning to have a helicopter.

This particular OPV looks more suited for near shore work- particularly in the Carribean.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 11, 2016, 10:42:27
Comments pulled from lack of coffee......
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 11, 2016, 11:05:14
SKT:

The Sallyrands were 2,800 tons. Even Annapolis' were only 3,200 tons and designed specifically as DDH's.

The real issue, in any event, is not displacement. With a stabilized ship (and stabilizers are now much improved) and Bear trap, you can probably operate medium helicopters (Sea king/Cyclone) up to sea state 6, maybe sea state 7 (pushing the envelope here) from a roughly 2,300 tons vessel and up.

The real issue is why are we fixating on hull size? If we were to review the cost of building warships, we would note that the more general split would likely look like this: Combat systems (electronics), including software development and integration: about 50% of the cost; weapons and weapons handling equipment: about 25%; Hull and machinery: about 25%.

The real reason why OPV's are so much cheaper is that they carry very little in terms of weapons and have little in terms of integrated combat systems. Thus, you are down to the cost of hull and machinery, mostly. But at that point, building a small OPV (under 2000 tons) or a larger one (like the Holland's at 3,700 tons), doesn't make much difference in price so, if you are going to operate far from your coast (and in particular in the North Atlantic or North-West Pacific), you may as well go for the larger hull. There is just no real big savings to be had by building small OPV's as opposed to  large one, other than some people's fixation on size (or on always carrying soldiers onboard, right Chris  ;) ).   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 11, 2016, 11:14:06
Oh! To answer your question, Edward, I would say that the major driving forces on the size of major surface combatant being about 5,000 tons has more to do with the fact that nowadays, we lob missiles at one another, especially anti-air missiles, and you need that volume to carry enough of them and the larger sized ones in particular, also, the accompanying radar systems (AEGIS or APAR) have become very large and top heavy, so again, you need the hull size to have a stable platform. The fact that such increased size make helicopter operations in higher sea states less dangerous is just an added bonus.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 11, 2016, 11:24:10
....There is just no real big savings to be had by building small OPV's as opposed to  large one, other than some people's fixation on size (or on always carrying soldiers onboard, right Chris  ;) ).   

Stop trying to pick a fight OGBD.  [Xp

I happen to agree with you across the board.  And I like big cheap hulls precisely because there is more room for muddy boots, (or to accommodate Churchill's Naval Traditions). 

That being said - on the Software side of things - why can't the FELEX system be ported holus bolus to the AOPS and the CSC and maybe an OPV?  Or at least used as the basis of a CMS/IPMS system that can be ported.  Again, just as my buddies the Danes decided with their fleet.

Quote
From technical specifications to functional demands.
• Use of Flex concept in all ships design since the millennium.
• Use of DNV, NAVAL standards.
• Reuse design elements between different ship classes.
• Use of civilian standards whenever possible especially with
 IT.
• Redundant passive fiber network for multi purposes.
• Same Combat Management System in all lager units.
• Standard Racks for all weapon, sensor, communication and
 IT systems in all lager units.
• Same Integrated Platform Management System in Frigates
 and Flexible Support Ships.

http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/International/Documents/U.S.-Denmark%20Defense%20Industry%20Seminar/Danish%20frigate%20program%20visit%20USN%20May%202014.pdf

And this one.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf

Why do we keep paying to re-invent wheels?


And further to your last - if you are going to be stuck with all that top hamper you might find some self-loading ballast useful.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 11, 2016, 11:31:05
Many a career is based solely around ways to reinvent the wheel while trying to appear to do something new.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 11, 2016, 11:37:03
Thanks, SKT and OGBD. I'm still mightily concerned about costs (and, therefore, quantities) and I remain attracted to the notion that we are better off with 3n/5 major surface combatants (the 5,000 ton heavies ~ I know it's not a good term, but I'm a simple soldier) and n/2 OPVs (or corvettes, as I prefer) which might even, in the not too distant future, embark a RPV rather than a big, manned maritime helicopter, instead of n CSCs and maybe a Kingston class replacement sometime in the future ... perhaps. It seems to me that the n CSCs the Navy needs is more than the n the Government of Canada can afford and it also appears that corvettes, doubtless for the reasons OGBD explained, can be had for, say, 25% of the cost of the heavies (or even less).

I know we need capable major surface combatants ... but not for FishPats and not for Op CARIBBE and not for a lot of other tasks.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 11, 2016, 12:00:58
Stop trying to pick a fight OGBD.  [Xp

I happen to agree with you across the board.  And I like big cheap hulls precisely because there is more room for muddy boots, (or to accommodate Churchill's Naval Traditions). 

That being said - on the Software side of things - why can't the FELEX system be ported holus bolus to the AOPS and the CSC and maybe an OPV?  Or at least used as the basis of a CMS/IPMS system that can be ported.  Again, just as my buddies the Danes decided with their fleet.

http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/International/Documents/U.S.-Denmark%20Defense%20Industry%20Seminar/Danish%20frigate%20program%20visit%20USN%20May%202014.pdf

And this one.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf

Why do we keep paying to re-invent wheels?


And further to your last - if you are going to be stuck with all that top hamper you might find some self-loading ballast useful.
I doubt it would be that difficult to put 1-2 mk41 launchers on something like the Holland, even if one has to lengthen the hull by 20ft and at the same time increase the fuel load for the helo, increasing capability. Most of the ships these days are designed to carry the mission modules, so it wouldn't take much tweaking to add a 2-3 spots for the systems. None of this should be that difficult, given the Holland is a good sized platform.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 11, 2016, 13:36:00
Further to Modularity, Flexibility and Cost Control.....

Quote
What the U.S. Navy Could Learn from Danish Frigate Design

By: Megan Eckstein
March 5, 2015 5:47 PM


As the U.S. Navy’s requirements and engineering communities look at upcoming ship classes and attempt to build in flexibility, they first need to decide what it means to be a “flexible ship” and how much to prioritize that flexibility, one admiral said.

During a panel at the American Society of Naval Engineers’ ASNE Day 2015, Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, chief engineer for Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), said it is important to decide what flexibility means to each program early on, and how much of it is needed – is there a core capability that ship class revolves around, or should it strive for ultimate flexibility, like the Danish Navy’s StanFlex system and its Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate?

Several panelists compared American ships to the Danish frigates, including panel moderator retired Vice Adm. Paul Sullivan. He said he had the chance to see the ships up close last fall and was impressed.

The Danish navy took its Absalon-class support ship hull design and reconfigured it to include a 76mm gun. Both the support ship and the frigate subscribe to the Danish navy’s StanFlex modular mission payload system, which Sullivan said allowed the navy to put legacy weapons systems on the Iver Huitfeldt-class instead of having to develop new systems right away, like the Navy did with the Littoral Combat Ship.

The StanFlex buzz was you could put the new gun in and 24 hours later you’re ready to go to sea,” he added.

This ultra-flexible system may not sound like it would be relevant to some American ship classes, such as cruisers and destroyers, but Capt. Thomas Halvorson, deputy director of the Navy’s surface warfare directorate for Ballistic Missile Defense, Aegis and Destroyers, said there were still lessons to be drawn for future surface combatants.

Halvorson said the Aegis Baseline 9 upgrade effort had been a great accomplishment for the Navy’s cruiser fleet, but it was also a work-intensive accomplishment. A more flexible ship design could allow the Navy to upgrade the computers on a future surface combatant more routinely, rather than having to wait for a massive midlife upgrade.

One of the other ideas I heard [the Danes] talk about, Adm. Sullivan, was they can change out the computer program completely in 90 days,” Halvorson said. “We all have a little bit of a part to play in the two-year upgrade that involves ripping out pieces massive pieces of ship infrastructure to change out every server in the room. We need to get closer to that Dane mentality.”


Also during the panel, Program Executive Officer for Ships Rear Adm. David Gale explained the importance of building in enough flexibility from the beginning of a program. With the Mobile Landing Platform design being used as the basis of the Afloat Forward Staging Base design, the latter ship only has as much flexibility in it as the former – which in this case is a lot of flexibility. Gale praised the AFSB team for achieving “80 percent of the requirement for 50 percent of the cost by just going to MLP and adding an aviation capability to the ship.”

In fact, the ship design has so much flexibility and extra margins built into it that Gale said, “in aviation and in [special operations] warfare areas, we’re already writing change documents to improve these ships.”

http://news.usni.org/2015/03/05/what-the-u-s-navy-could-learn-from-danish-frigate-design
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: quadrapiper on January 11, 2016, 14:44:33
...for FishPats and not for Op CARIBBE and not for a lot of other tasks.
The first one has definite benefits; is the other something that we should really be running our ships up and down the coasts to support? Or is CARIBBE more of a training opportunity than anything?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 11, 2016, 15:41:33
And one more for good measure:

This goes to the discussion of US vs Euro Costs (or Japanese Costs)

Quote
Zuko wrote:
Just saying US ships cost 3x as much as comparable Dutch ships is a simplistic and inaccurate thing to say.  Without detailed information which usually isn't easy to determine by public sources it is very difficult to compare costs of ships because you never know if you are comparing apples to apples.  There are tons of variables in how the numbers are calculated and what is "included" in a cost that is given to a ship.  You also seldom know if you are comparing the same years dollars to the same years dollars.  That's the case even when comparing ships within the US Navy, and even more so when comparing to other countries.  I would also differ with the idea that the ships are comparable. 
 
I'm not saying the US naval shipbuilding program doesn't have inefficiencies, it obviously does.  But the slides and the arguments made by the Damon rep are misleading and inaccurate.

1) Hein van Ameijden made it clear in his speech that while his data may not be absolutely correct and/or directly comparable, he does, however stand behind his main conclusions that the US Navy is paying far too much for its vessels.

2) Given his pedigree (see his biography here), it is safe to assume Hein van Ameijden to have a solid business insight and his conclusions to be based on much more than mere *public sources*.

3) Because of your excessive focus on costs (probably), you may not have noticed that yard hours were provided for both the DDG-51s and the LCFs in the slide posted earlier :

DDG-51 : 4.4 million manhours

LCF : 1.5 million manhours


4) The manhours mentioned above are very consistent wit those published in a 1995 NSWC comparative study of US & Japan shipbuilding :

Design manhours :

DDG-51 : 6.0 million

DDG-173 : 1.2 million

Construction manhours :

DDG-51 : 5.0 million

DDG-173 : 2.0 million 


5) And finally, a 2004 NATO study found the shipyard recurring cost accounting methods used by the Netherlands on the one hand and the USCG on the other hand to be very consistent each other for SWBS groups 100 to 700, i.e. :

SWBS 100 : Structure
SWBS 200 : Propulsion
SWBS 300 : Electrical
SWBS 400 : Electronics
SWBS 500 : Auxiliaries
SWBS 600 : Outfitting
SWBS 700 : Armament


Unsurprisingly, the shipyard administrative costs (SWBS Group 900) were found to be considerably higher in the US shipbuilding, reflecting, among other things, the infuence of commercial practices in the Dutch shipbuilding industry, as opposed to US shipyards which primarily produce naval or coast guard vessels.   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 11, 2016, 16:08:18
I think that, to a certain extent, we have strayed from what should be in the CSC RFQ to what type of Navy we should have. Talks of submarines and smaller vessels, be they corvettes or OPV's, is talk of what does the Navy has to accomplish (the missions), and then what is the best way to go about it (the mix - or lack thereof - of ship's types).

For instance, Chief Stoker spoke earlier of Roisin class vessels of the Irish Naval service (my choice would be their most current Samuel Becket class), which incidentally is Canadian designed. Those are nice gun boats and for things like the Fishpats and Op Caribe mentioned by ERC, they would be perfect vessels. But IMHO, they would need to replace the MCDV's, not the Frigates. But this doesn't mean that a mix of high end combatant and "Holland style" OPV's would not be appropriate as a replacement of the DDG and FFH's. However, this is in the realm of what type of overall Navy do we need and want.

And to my mind, only a proper, reasoned, analytical study, leading to hearings in Parliament and finally, the production of proper white paper on National Defence (Good lord! I am starting to sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby) can answer that question and give proper direction to the Navy in such matter.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 11, 2016, 17:25:39
....

And to my mind, only a proper, reasoned, analytical study, leading to hearings in Parliament and finally, the production of proper white paper on National Defence (Good lord! I am starting to sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby) can answer that question and give proper direction to the Navy in such matter.

Well done Humphrey!  I think we could all agree with that - and getting all parties (political) to come to the table and support the conclusions so that they survived changes of government.  It can't be impossible - others do it.

I also have to believe that a "modular" navy with a high-low range of vessels that can be upgraded easily to higher level combatants would allow the "peace-hawks" cover to support vessels that the "war-hawks" could upgrade when their turn at bat came.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 11, 2016, 20:16:33
Many a career is based solely around ways to reinvent the wheel while trying to appear to do something new.

I am of the strong belief that they need to eliminate "Leading Change" from the PER system for this exact reason   ;).  That one line has lead to so much grief over the years...
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 12, 2016, 13:22:25
Well as said here before(topic),"Holland"Class is so big because we wanted to be able to go to the cairbs. in comfort(seafaring+capable in bad wether)as important in the North-Sea actually.
Don't know about the oceans surrounding Canada but think they want that aswell(plus the space on board)
As for price(you akes me to look up a few things(KM-Dutch Navy)all i could find is this:

-the total cost for the series(4)is 529.6 million euros(stated on the site of "marineschepen.nl/navyships.nl)
-As for how they're equipped:(think you'll know this allready but ok)

Naamsein    Naam    In dienst    number(nato) -name-in active duty
P840    Holland    6-7-2012
P841    Zeeland    23-8-2013
P842    Friesland    22-1-2013
P843    Groningen    29-11-2013
Afmetingen    107,9 x 16,8 x 4,55      measurements(length-width-immersion)   
 Max. waterverplaatsing    3710 ton   (displacement)
Max. snelheid    21,5 knopen               (max.speed)
Bemanning    52 + 38 opstappers (heliktoptercrew, boardingteam, medisch team) of 100 evacues  (crew 52+38 extra,helcoptercrew,boardingteam,medicalteam)or 100 evacs.
Voortstuwing    2x 5400 kW MAN dieselmotoren(propulsion)
2x 400 kW elektromotoren
Wapensystemen    1 Oto Melara 76mm kanon (weaponsystems)
1 automatisch 30 mm Marlin WS kanon
2 Hitrole automatische machinegeweren 12,7 mm
2 watermonitoren
Sensoren    SMILE luchtwaarschuwingsradar
SEASTAR oppervlaktewaarschuwingsradar
GateKeeper infrarood/ electro-optisch waarschuwingssysteem
Mijnendetectie-sonar (mine-detection sonar)


Hope this helps(providing there's budget for these "baby's" ;D

gr,walter
 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 12, 2016, 13:28:03
This is helping Walter.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 12, 2016, 13:52:09
What I am reading from Walter's (Karel Doorman) posts is, disregarding year of build:

Holland OPV - 205 MCAD each
7 Provincien LCF - 815 MCAD each
Karel Doorman JSS - 631 MCAD each.

Or - a large OPV  is about 1/4 the cost of  AAW frigate, and given uses about 1/4 the manpower to crew (~50 vs ~200)
And a JSS is about the same cost as a frigate.

The Danes are sticking with the build price of their Absalons and Huitfeldts at about 300 MUSD (400 MCAD NOW!) with the AAW suite adding about another 100 MUSD to each of the Huitfeldts.

Which brings up the subject of the floating exchange rate and the merits of a homegrown shipbuilding industry.

The hulls built in Canada, with Canadian labour, from Canadian steel, with Canadian software are not subject to the vagaries of the floating exchange rate (though they are subject to inflation but that is a lesser matter).

New engines from Germany.  New radars from the Netherlands or the US.  New missiles.  New guns.  Those are all subject to exchange fluctuation. 

Therefore another argument for the Danish solution.  Build the hull locally.  Minimize the foreign content as far as possible.  Reuse existing systems where possible.

Buy new systems for plug in when the exchange rate, the budget and the political climates are aligned.

All of which makes a nonsense of the budget models based on Dollars / Tonne Displacement for new build in American style yards.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 12, 2016, 15:21:01
What I am reading from Walter's (Karel Doorman) posts is, disregarding year of build:

Holland OPV - 205 MCAD each
7 Provincien LCF - 815 MCAD each
Karel Doorman JSS - 631 MCAD each.

Or - a large OPV  is about 1/4 the cost of  AAW frigate, and given uses about 1/4 the manpower to crew (~50 vs ~200)
And a JSS is about the same cost as a frigate.

The Danes are sticking with the build price of their Absalons and Huitfeldts at about 300 MUSD (400 MCAD NOW!) with the AAW suite adding about another 100 MUSD to each of the Huitfeldts.

Which brings up the subject of the floating exchange rate and the merits of a homegrown shipbuilding industry.

The hulls built in Canada, with Canadian labour, from Canadian steel, with Canadian software are not subject to the vagaries of the floating exchange rate (though they are subject to inflation but that is a lesser matter).

New engines from Germany.  New radars from the Netherlands or the US.  New missiles.  New guns.  Those are all subject to exchange fluctuation. 

Therefore another argument for the Danish solution.  Build the hull locally.  Minimize the foreign content as far as possible.  Reuse existing systems where possible.

Buy new systems for plug in when the exchange rate, the budget and the political climates are aligned.

All of which makes a nonsense of the budget models based on Dollars / Tonne Displacement for new build in American style yards.

Could be a viable option for Canada,but to be fair(from what i heard on dutch forums)the price quote of the Absoloms is a bit...............well under priced,full option(sensors,waepons and all it would be closer the "zevens"/JSS prices but will look it up for you.
And ,a big and the Abs are not Frigates perse,if you get my drift.(more a support/frgate combo of som sorts,but i like them.

http://www.lieuwedevries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Karel-Doorman-refuels-ZrMs-Tromp.jpg

A pic in action "ZrMs Tromp" and "me"  [:p our JSS Karel Doorman

gr,walter



Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 12, 2016, 16:10:02
Point taken on the Absaloms versus the Huitfeldts.

But the point I was trying to make was about commonality and modularity and taking advantage of those to accommodate the available budget.  A point that I don't believe is lost on Damen....

Karel Doorman/Johan de Witt/Rotterdam/Enforcers

OPVs 950/1400/1800/2400/2600 - Hollands

Crossovers Combatant/Fast Combatant/Amphibious - Security/Fast Security/Logistics

Sigmas 10514/10513/9813/9113/8313/7513 (length x beam in metres).

Not every ship has to be identical to take advantage of economies of scale and commonality by using modules.

http://www.damen.com/en/markets/defence-and-security
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 13, 2016, 01:35:20
Point taken on the Absaloms versus the Huitfeldts.

But the point I was trying to make was about commonality and modularity and taking advantage of those to accommodate the available budget.  A point that I don't believe is lost on Damen....

Karel Doorman/Johan de Witt/Rotterdam/Enforcers

OPVs 950/1400/1800/2400/2600 - Hollands

Crossovers Combatant/Fast Combatant/Amphibious - Security/Fast Security/Logistics

Sigmas 10514/10513/9813/9113/8313/7513 (length x beam in metres).

Not every ship has to be identical to take advantage of economies of scale and commonality by using modules.

http://www.damen.com/en/markets/defence-and-security

Damen is great in,as you say,adjusting/evolving an existing design-see R'dam to Johann(Joh. is an enlarged evolved R'dam),as is offcourse the Karel(but then in the JSS role) same family.
Same goes for Holland to 2600 (and rest)axe bow,so perhaps is Damen the right yard to turn to for Canada(building in time and on budget,flexible,etc)
As for replacement for the M-class,the jury is still out on that.There are there who'll like to see the Crossover(and then especially for the ASW role)but the Fremm ASW version is also an option wich is i think the most capable(asw role)now availeble,maybe even an evolved Type-26. (own adaptation for the KM)

Another possibility would be if Canada was interested(since Germany go their own way,ASW role)to work together again(if these ships are needed offcourse for the Canadian Navy)

Glad you saw my point about the costs Absolom-Iver(wich is offcourse more like F124/sevens,f-100,etc)

gr,walter
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 13, 2016, 08:14:35
One complication with buying existing designs is that by the time the ship is built the design themselves are years old.  Not a show stopper, but there are annual updates to the various codes on the safety side that best practice is to try and integrate.  Also, a lot of the electronics have short life spans, so best to pick a capability range and pick equipment near the end.  A lot is standardized in terms of cabling, power, etc so not 100% plug and play but doable.

Also, we have different regulations for things ammo magazines and other items, so there is a bunch of work to compare what standards the design was done vice what we have in the RFQ plus updates over time, and some of that may require modifying different systems to meet our safety standards.

None of this is rocket science but it's not as easy as looking at the tonnage and load out and ordering 12 of them.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 13, 2016, 11:54:32
One complication with buying existing designs is that by the time the ship is built the design themselves are years old.  Not a show stopper, but there are annual updates to the various codes on the safety side that best practice is to try and integrate.  Also, a lot of the electronics have short life spans, so best to pick a capability range and pick equipment near the end.  A lot is standardized in terms of cabling, power, etc so not 100% plug and play but doable.

Also, we have different regulations for things ammo magazines and other items, so there is a bunch of work to compare what standards the design was done vice what we have in the RFQ plus updates over time, and some of that may require modifying different systems to meet our safety standards.

None of this is rocket science but it's not as easy as looking at the tonnage and load out and ordering 12 of them.
The ability to upgrade the ships needs to be a top priority, this is why I like the Ivers so much, as the missile bay is all about flexibility. The APAR and Smart-L can be upgraded when needed, the missile launchers can be changed when needed. There is room in the missile bay for mission modules. The ships are a platform that can be upgraded.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 13, 2016, 13:48:05
My view on eventual cooperation between Canada and (the northern)European navies.

-I deliberately say northen because the simple fact is all are in the North and face similar seastate conditions first (colder,possible ice ,etc)JSS for example is "ice strengthend" and in future the northern searoutes will open up further due to "global warming" and we all need to be able to protect those shipping lanes.
-Canada has always been more European "minded" compared to (offcourse)USA.
-I also think that the Canadian Navy is more closely matched(not the same though) to (for example)Dutch Navy in how they do things.(we also need to be able to go for long distances,Caribs,Indonesia,etc)
-Therefore i think they are ideally placed to do a lot together(designing is one of them)as has happened in the past(JSS,APAR,etc)
-Both have "huge" budgets  [Xp ,not really hey.

So in short i see a lot off possibilities between them hopefully the Governments see this too and act accordingly(and go the distance),for now and in coming years we need :M-Class replacement(specifically ASW capability),new Walruses,MCM ships and maybe even replacement for the Rotterdam, so in short a lot.

I see a lot of potential for working together.

gr,walter

AS for the designs now available and then building them to be not a "show stopper" or newest "kid" on the block,well is that allways important?
Will allways be the case,designing for let's say 10 yrs then building for 5 ,you end up with an "15" year old design.As said more important is it that there are poss. to upgrade all systems(design is big enough for that) 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 13, 2016, 17:38:48
There are some great pictures of the missile bay here, I would ditch the Harpoons and go with an anti-ship missile that can be fired out of the MK 41 launchers which would create additional space in the bay. It would then be possible to increase to either 48 or 64 cells on the MK41's and still have space left for the mission modules. And there would still be the additional ESSM launchers either side of the MK41's. In the future it would then be possible to rearrange the missile bay as systems evolve.

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/11/sleek-modern-and-built-on-a-budget-denmarks-latest-frigate/
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 17, 2016, 11:56:37
An interesting look inside of a FREMM, the Normandie.

https://youtu.be/PxSsHeiioG0
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 17, 2016, 14:49:29
There are some great pictures of the missile bay here, I would ditch the Harpoons and go with an anti-ship missile that can be fired out of the MK 41 launchers which would create additional space in the bay.

And what missile would be that?  There are currently no missiles that fit into a Mk 41 launcher that are dedicated to anti ship since they took the TASM out of service in the 90's.  Raytheon is working on a Block IV version of the Tomahawk but that's still on the drawing board.  The Mk41 for a Tomahawk is the longest version available (strike version), vice the tactical or self defence version.  However if you want SM-3 or SM-6 you need the strike version as well for launch.  So any of the AAW destroyers/frigates should probably have the the strike Mk41's.  As for the GP frigates the self defence version should be enough as all you need to do is be able to launch ESSM's (unless you want some ASROC's).  Which of course saves weight and space....

Lockmart is also working on a missile (AGM-158C) to attack moving surface and land targets that launches from a strike Mk41. 

All this to say the Harpoon is great and if its an add on the GP version of the CSC project its not that big of a deal.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 17, 2016, 15:43:50
And, it, and its launchers are already in the inventory and can be reused.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 17, 2016, 16:40:58
And, it, and its launchers are already in the inventory and can be reused.

Ah, not that again!  The launchers are 25 years old and aside from the steel box, need everything replaced with the new electronics!  And there is no guarantee the steel isn't fatigued at all the hard points!  And that would only give you a few sets, so you'd have some 30+ year old second hand launchers and still need to buy more, so there is really no cost savings, once you include overhaul and storage.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 17, 2016, 17:16:27
Ah, not that again!  The launchers are 25 years old and aside from the steel box, need everything replaced with the new electronics!  And there is no guarantee the steel isn't fatigued at all the hard points!  And that would only give you a few sets, so you'd have some 30+ year old second hand launchers and still need to buy more, so there is really no cost savings, once you include overhaul and storage.


Ooops.  Sore point is it?  :) Apparently you have heard that one before.  OK, I will retract reusing the launchers (which basically appears to be a bit of scaffolding and a bucket (???) ) but stand by the assertion that the missiles are already in the system and thus do not have to be re-justified.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 17, 2016, 18:16:31
Yes, Chris, it is a sore point.

A lot of people don't seem to understand what naval missiles systems are.

The actual "steel box" of the launcher are not the big expensive part, so when you go from one ship class to the next, reusing this "steel box" brings little saving, if any, especially if  you have to inspect it and repair it for metal fatigue.

The second part, more expensive, of the launcher is the electronics and, as Navy_Pete justly pointed out, replacing it altogether or updating the programming and micro-chip capacity (an overhaul, in other words) of the existing one is par for the course in terms of cost, so you may as well buy the new electronics altogether and be up to date in terms of micro-chips that you can then continually update with new software as it comes out during the lifetime of the new ships.

But your reasoning on the missiles themselves is the part that is the furthest from the possible.

Missiles are basically rocket-ships. In the case of naval missiles, they  are of the solid booster type (same as the side boosters on the space shuttle). As soon as they are produced and put in their launchers, they begin to age, the "powder" immediately begins to chemically change, the various seals and stress point of the missile begin to work themselves loose, any seal that depends on plastics or rubbers begin to decay, etc.

Basically, the older the missile, the more likely it is to deteriorate to the point that it will fail one way or another at launch time. And they do have a specific lifetime (expiry date, so to speak) on them. Now other than putting the ship in danger from an enemy, the actual failure of missile is unlikely to threaten the life of the seaman onboard the launching vessel, but if you get to the point where most of your missiles don't fire or misfire or self destruct on the way to the target, they are not of much use to you. Remember what happened to the Challenger just because one of the "o" ring froze?

So after a certain amount of time, missiles loaded in a launch system no longer offer a sufficient guarantee that they will actually work out. Either you carry out a complete overhaul at the production plant er you buy new ones. That time where you should do that is certainly somewhere close to the lifetime of the warship they are loaded on, So, when a new class of ship is brought in service, we just buy new missiles and dispose of the old ones.

BTW, your favourite Navy knows that. Contrary to what you may think, it does not use their modular approach as a cost saving measure. They use it because they simply do not have the financial capability of buying themselves full service frigates right off the bat. For instance, right now, of the three Iver Huitfeld in service (which is the totality of the class), only the first one is now fully kited out for AAW. The other two have their launchers (mechanical boxes portion) in place, but neither missiles nor the electronics, nor their combat system software to carry out any AAW duties. They will have all that in place and be fully operational on that aspect only in four years from now, at which point, the actual cost of each frigate will have risen to $900M USD each.  The Danish approach is basically one that lets a country with a GDP smaller than that of the Province of Quebec buy top end frigates by spreading the cost of getting them to full capacity over a much longer period of 12 years instead of three or four. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 17, 2016, 18:49:51
And what missile would be that?  There are currently no missiles that fit into a Mk 41 launcher that are dedicated to anti ship since they took the TASM out of service in the 90's.  Raytheon is working on a Block IV version of the Tomahawk but that's still on the drawing board.  The Mk41 for a Tomahawk is the longest version available (strike version), vice the tactical or self defence version.  However if you want SM-3 or SM-6 you need the strike version as well for launch.  So any of the AAW destroyers/frigates should probably have the the strike Mk41's.  As for the GP frigates the self defence version should be enough as all you need to do is be able to launch ESSM's (unless you want some ASROC's).  Which of course saves weight and space....

Lockmart is also working on a missile (AGM-158C) to attack moving surface and land targets that launches from a strike Mk41. 

All this to say the Harpoon is great and if its an add on the GP version of the CSC project its not that big of a deal.
As it will be years before we have ships in the water it isn't really an issue of what is available now, there are some in development, such as,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM

The Naval Strike Missile (Joint Strike Missile) will also be able to launch from the MK41.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
and
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on January 17, 2016, 19:34:03
Ok,

I'll jump in on this one.

The missiles in our canisters get sent ashore, shipped to the US Depots, and back to us after major refurbishments.

There are locations in Canada (I had a tour on my QL6B course) where DND personnel do take the missiles out of the canisters, inspect, test, replace, and re-pack them.  I sailed with one of the former FC techs that now does that for a living.

The older the missile, the more likely it is to fail the routine checks, and the components are replaced/life-cycled on a specific schedule from what I recall.

So, the old RIM-7P's that we stripped off the ships when we upgraded to the RIM-162 ESSM got sent back to the US, they were stripped of useable parts, and what could be re-used, was.  *NOTE* this was pre-FELEX, I was on STJ when we refitted her for the ESSM in 2004.  The transition to the ESSM was not concurrent with the HCM project. 

The RIM-162's have a test/inspection cycle, as do the Harpoons.  Every missile comes with a log book (as does each torpedo, and HOTTORP).  (Separate from Ammo Data Cards.)

I know that which I speak of here....I was a Magazine Custodian until this past June on one of the Frigates.

So, the lifespan of the missiles is controlled, and monitored.  That's honestly not a big deal.

NS


But your reasoning on the missiles themselves is the part that is the furthest from the possible.

Missiles are basically rocket-ships. In the case of naval missiles, they  are of the solid booster type (same as the side boosters on the space shuttle). As soon as they are produced and put in their launchers, they begin to age, the "powder" immediately begins to chemically change, the various seals and stress point of the missile begin to work themselves loose, any seal that depends on plastics or rubbers begin to decay, etc.

Basically, the older the missile, the more likely it is to deteriorate to the point that it will fail one way or another at launch time. And they do have a specific lifetime (expiry date, so to speak) on them. Now other than putting the ship in danger from an enemy, the actual failure of missile is unlikely to threaten the life of the seaman onboard the launching vessel, but if you get to the point where most of your missiles don't fire or misfire or self destruct on the way to the target, they are not of much use to you. Remember what happened to the Challenger just because one of the "o" ring froze?

So after a certain amount of time, missiles loaded in a launch system no longer offer a sufficient guarantee that they will actually work out. Either you carry out a complete overhaul at the production plant er you buy new ones. That time where you should do that is certainly somewhere close to the lifetime of the warship they are loaded on, So, when a new class of ship is brought in service, we just buy new missiles and dispose of the old ones.

BTW, your favourite Navy knows that. Contrary to what you may think, it does not use their modular approach as a cost saving measure. They use it because they simply do not have the financial capability of buying themselves full service frigates right off the bat. For instance, right now, of the three Iver Huitfeld in service (which is the totality of the class), only the first one is now fully kited out for AAW. The other two have their launchers (mechanical boxes portion) in place, but neither missiles nor the electronics, nor their combat system software to carry out any AAW duties. They will have all that in place and be fully operational on that aspect only in four years from now, at which point, the actual cost of each frigate will have risen to $900M USD each.  The Danish approach is basically one that lets a country with a GDP smaller than that of the Province of Quebec buy top end frigates by spreading the cost of getting them to full capacity over a much longer period of 12 years instead of three or four.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 17, 2016, 20:55:19
Thanks NS:   I was hoping you weren't sailing with 30 year old missiles in rusting out launchers.  :)

I think one of the things that apparently I am not getting across is that I would like to be able to separate the ship, the platform, from its "cargo" (cargo of death?).

It may not make sense in a fighter, which is basically an engine with a bunch of stuff wrapped around it.  But in the naval world I have difficulty understanding the need for such a finely balanced design that moving a tonne weight from here to there, or even off loading 10 tonnes, is going to materially affect the performance of the vessel.  Most vessels, outside of the Navy I grant you, are built to accommodate variable and shifting loads.  Either through pumping ballast or through active stabilization, or both.

That is why I keep coming back to the Danes OGBD.  They, in my view, have sacrificed 5 knots or so for a stable platform that is flexible and can be variously configured.  And, though it is not my butt on the line, I don't see how 5 or eve 15 knots is going to make a difference against guided projectiles manouevering against the ship at 500 km/h and up.  It would seem to me a larger cargo of decoys and 20mm ammunition would be my best friend under those circumstances.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Half Full on January 18, 2016, 11:04:54
  They, in my view, have sacrificed 5 knots or so for a stable platform that is flexible and can be variously configured.  And, though it is not my butt on the line, I don't see how 5 or eve 15 knots is going to make a difference against guided projectiles manouevering against the ship at 500 km/h and up.  It would seem to me a larger cargo of decoys and 20mm ammunition would be my best friend under those circumstances.

Speed, although important in Anti-Ship Missile Defence(ASMD) in order to displace the ship from the decoys/chaff, it is absolutely critical is Torpedo Counter Measures (TCM) manoeuvres.  A missile is a damage control problem...a torpedo is a survival problem.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 18, 2016, 11:58:33
Speed, although important in Anti-Ship Missile Defence(ASMD) in order to displace the ship from the decoys/chaff, it is absolutely critical is Torpedo Counter Measures (TCM) manoeuvres.  A missile is a damage control problem...a torpedo is a survival problem.
So it's possible to evade a modern torpedo?? I'm aware of decoys but wasn't sure how effective they are. I've always been surprised that more hasn't been done to develop torpedo defensive systems.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Half Full on January 18, 2016, 12:32:19
So it's possible to evade a modern torpedo?? I'm aware of decoys but wasn't sure how effective they are. I've always been surprised that more hasn't been done to develop torpedo defensive systems.

With the proper combination of decoys, manoeuvre and speed...most definitely.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 18, 2016, 13:50:34
With the proper combination of decoys, manoeuvre and speed...most definitely.
The Iver Huitfeldt class has a top speed of around 30 knots which isn't bad, as they really are Destroyers and NATO will almost certainly classify them as Destroyers, as it has for the other similar designs.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on January 18, 2016, 14:28:26
With the proper combination of decoys, manoeuvre and speed...most definitely.

And, if testing works out as well as the costs going way down, it will soon be possible to engage a guided torpedo with...an anti-torpedo-torpedo.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/navy/2014sstd_tws_cat.pdf 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 18, 2016, 14:57:24
And, if testing works out as well as the costs going way down, it will soon be possible to engage a guided torpedo with...an anti-torpedo-torpedo.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/navy/2014sstd_tws_cat.pdf

Or like this Sea Spider ATT from Atlas Elektronik 

https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/what-we-do/naval-weapons/seaspider/
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 18, 2016, 15:05:36
Good to see anti-torpedo systems are becoming available.

My concept would be a sea mortar system, once you have a track on the torpedo, it would be fired in the air, then penetrate the water and detonate in front of or directly above the torpedo. Just a thought.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 18, 2016, 16:45:00
The Iver Huitfeldt class has a top speed of around 30 knots which isn't bad, as they really are Destroyers and NATO will almost certainly classify them as Destroyers, as it has for the other similar designs.

Is that the hull speed or a result of propulsion system design?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 18, 2016, 17:19:07
Is that the hull speed or a result of propulsion system design?
I would think it's propulsion, but I'm not sure.

This article suggests the top speed is based on the propulsion system, I can't imagine a hull speed of 30 knots.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivar-huitfeldt-class/
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 18, 2016, 18:43:50
From Wiki - but I verify these numbers from reviewing a number of other sources.

Class & type:   Absalon-class support ship
Displacement:   6,300 tonnes
Length:   137.6 m (451 ft 5 in)
Beam:   19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
Draft:   6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
Propulsion:   
2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines;
two shafts
22,300 bhp (16.6 MW)
Speed:   24 knots (44 km/h)
Range:   9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)


Type:   (Iver Huitfeldt) Air defence frigate
Displacement:   6,645 tonnes (full load)
Length:   138.7 m (455 ft)
Beam:   19.75 m (64.8 ft)
Draft:   5.3 m (17 ft)
Propulsion:   Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each.
Speed:   30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range:   +9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)

The hull form is supposedly the same for both ships.  The difference is the Absalon only has two (2) diesels generating 16.4 total MW while the Huitfeldt has four (4) of the identical diesels generating 32.8 MW combined.  The doubled power increases the speed by 6 knots, from 24 to 30.  Interesting the difference in draft - apparently the Huitfeldt sits a metre higher in the water at the same displacement?

For comparison sake here is the Dutch Zeven Provincien

Class & type:   De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate
Displacement:   6,050 tonnes (full load)
Length:   144.24 m (473.2 ft)
Beam:   18.8 m (62 ft)
Draft:   5.18 m (17.0 ft)
Propulsion:   
Combined diesel and gas
2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each
Speed:   30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)

A little longer water line, a little skinnier in the beam and with a 4.2 + 4.2 + 18.5 = 26.9 Edit: 4.2+ 4.2+ 18.5+ 18.5 = 45.4 MW of power, a little bit less lot more power to the props than the Huitfeldts.

Edited per Walter's correction.

 


Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 18, 2016, 18:45:38
Says "over 28kts" which could be 30 or more. Depending on the hull, getting more might mean a substantial increase in BHP, with a cost against sea-keeping and low speed handling and fuel consumption. There is rarely a free ride in ship design. 

As Chris shows that last bit extra comes at a bigger cost
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 18, 2016, 19:07:23
Is there a problem with having a top speed of 30 knots?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 18, 2016, 19:16:40
From Wiki - but I verify these numbers from reviewing a number of other sources.

Class & type:   Absalon-class support ship
Displacement:   6,300 tonnes
Length:   137.6 m (451 ft 5 in)
Beam:   19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
Draft:   6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
Propulsion:   
2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines;
two shafts
22,300 bhp (16.6 MW)
Speed:   24 knots (44 km/h)
Range:   9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)


Type:   (Iver Huitfeldt) Air defence frigate
Displacement:   6,645 tonnes (full load)
Length:   138.7 m (455 ft)
Beam:   19.75 m (64.8 ft)
Draft:   5.3 m (17 ft)
Propulsion:   Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each.
Speed:   30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range:   +9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)

The hull form is supposedly the same for both ships.  The difference is the Absalon only has two (2) diesels generating 16.4 total MW while the Huitfeldt has four (4) of the identical diesels generating 32.8 MW combined.  The doubled power increases the speed by 6 knots, from 24 to 30.  Interesting the difference in draft - apparently the Huitfeldt sits a metre higher in the water at the same displacement?

For comparison sake here is the Dutch Zeven Provincien

Class & type:   De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate
Displacement:   6,050 tonnes (full load)
Length:   144.24 m (473.2 ft)
Beam:   18.8 m (62 ft)
Draft:   5.18 m (17.0 ft)
Propulsion:   
Combined diesel and gas
2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each
Speed:   30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)

A little longer water line, a little skinnier in the beam and with a 4.2 + 4.2 + 18.5 = 26.9 MW of power, a little bit less power to the props than the Huitfeldts.

Chris one thing thought about the RR Speys:

   
Combined diesel and gas
2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each(each one)
4 × Wärtsilä-Deutz D620 V12 diesel-generators, 1,680 kW (2,250 hp) each

2 × propeller shafts, 5-bladed controllable pitch propellers

So it's actually ;18.5+18.5+4.2+4.2=45.4 MW

gr,walter,

ps,it's the plan to replace the two "Speys" with the newer Rolls-Royce WR-21 ,even more power( allready taken in account when building these ships,but engines where not there yet)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 18, 2016, 19:24:02
Thanks for the correction Walter.  Mea maxima culpa.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 19, 2016, 16:57:56
I like the mix of turbines and diesels. You can cruise on just the 2 diesels, but if you are likely to need the turbine, then you need to have it up and running and running turbine sucks a lot of fuel even if it's not doing anything. The advantage of the 4 diesels is you can swap the pairs so you can service one set while underway and spread out the hours and the overhauls. Turbines generally weigh less than comparable power diesels and would have a faster response time if running. Anyone here have experience with the time difference between bringing up a modern ship diesel and modern marine turbine up to usable power from cold?

Most of my turbine knowledge comes from our very ancient Gnome Turbine of the SRN6 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 19, 2016, 17:40:13
All icould find is some common knowledge:

Rated power: 25.2 MW
Specific fuel consumption: ~190 g/kWh
Main module wet weight: 45974 kg
Twin-spool design + free rotating power Turbine
Six-stage LP compressor
Intercooler
Six-stage HP compressor
Exhaust heat recuperator
Nine radial combustors
Single-stage HP turbine: 8,100 rpm (135 Hz)
Single-stage LP turbine 6,200 rpm (103.33 Hz)
Five-stage free power turbine 3,600 rpm (60 Hz)

So for "the Sevens" it would then be :

25.2+25.2+4.2+4.2=58.8,

Don't know what this would mean for topspeed but they're(WR-21)are also much more efficient(fuel)

gr,walter
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 20, 2016, 10:37:56

Glad you saw my point about the costs Absolom-Iver(wich is offcourse more like F124/sevens,f-100,etc)

gr,walter

Its Absalon...and while both the Absalon and Huitfeldt classes are substantially more expensive than officially qouted , they are nowhere near the pricetag of a Sachsen or LCF class. 

The Absalon cost just shy of ~300M million US dollars in 2007, including sensors,MU90 torpedoes, the 5" mk45 and 2 35mm millenium guns, but sans Harpoon and ESSM missiles which were already in inventory. The cost of 16 Harpoon and 36 ESSM is roughly $70M. A fully kitted out Absalon would probably cost 400-450M in todays dollars.
The Iver Huitfeldt is naturally somewhat pricier but is still more than $200M cheaper than De Zeven Provinciën.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on January 20, 2016, 12:08:04
Its Absalon...and while both the Absalon and Huitfeldt classes are substantially more expensive than officially qouted , they are nowhere near the pricetag of a Sachsen or LCF class. 

The Absalon cost just shy of ~300M million US dollars in 2007, including sensors,MU90 torpedoes, the 5" mk45 and 2 35mm millenium guns, but sans Harpoon and ESSM missiles which were already in inventory. The cost of 16 Harpoon and 36 ESSM is roughly $70M. A fully kitted out Absalon would probably cost 400-450M in todays dollars.
The Iver Huitfeldt is naturally somewhat pricier but is still more than $200M cheaper than De Zeven Provinciën.
Hey Mike, any idea what the hull speed is on the Huitfeldt?  Also, the MK41 launchers, do you know what size they are, Defense, Tactical or Strike version? I imagine any of the three could be used.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 20, 2016, 12:31:14
Contrary to what you may think, it does not use their modular approach as a cost saving measure.

The rationale behind the Standard Flex concept and its continued usage is well documented AND available online, so i will refrain from posting a wall of text reciting its history. What i can say is that your conclusion is wrong ( StanFlex was and still is ,very much a cost saving measure....among other things. Its also much more than just containerized weapons and equipment)
 

Quote
they simply do not have the financial capability of buying themselves full service frigates right off the bat.

We have plenty financial capability, but not the will to spend it on Defence. Not unlike Canada i suppose ;-) ...
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with StanFlex however.
 

Quote
For instance, right now, of the three Iver Huitfeld in service (which is the totality of the class), only the first one is now fully kited out for AAW.

Actually none of them are yet. We wont get long range Standards (SM-2 or 6) til next year at the earliest. The mk56 ESSM launchers are operational aboard all 3 frigates however so they have basic AAW capability at least.

 
Quote
The other two have their launchers (mechanical boxes portion) in place, but neither missiles nor the electronics, nor their combat system software to carry out any AAW duties.

That is incorrect ! ..electronics and combat systems software is in place, but integration of SM-2/6 into the mk41 will likely take place sometime in 2017.

Quote
They will have all that in place and be fully operational on that aspect only in four years from now,

Pardon my french , but bollocks ! Where do you get your info from ?  Regardless i would suggest you get some better sources .

The 4 year plan is not about AAW but the upcoming BMD upgrade which is scheduled for completion in the 2019-20 timeframe.

Quote
the actual cost of each frigate will have risen to $900M USD each.

BS!...you would have to cram the mk41s full of SM-3s to get near 900 million USD.

As delivered from the shipyard(OSS) the huitfeldts was $165M USD each in 2010 dollars. That cost is indisputable.
The AAW suite from Thales Netherlands came in at ~$110M USD in same year dollars.  Also indisputable
The Atlas Sonar,Star Safire mk III FLIR, surface and navigational radars,ESM system,link&communications systems,the combat system and the MK41 launchers etc makes up the remainder of the price quoted officially at ~$325-330M USD (2010)
What isnt included is :
2x76mm Oto Melara SR
1x35 mm Millenium CIWS
2xMk56  VLS with 24 ESSM
2xMk141 Harpoon launchers with 16 Harpoon block II missiles.
SM-2 missiles.
2xCEROS 200 Fire control directors
Most of the outfitting and integration of these sensors,weapons and military electronics was carried out by RDN technical personel or civilian subcontractors. As such that work was not accounted for in the acquisitions project but with funds taken from another budget (the navy's operating budget)

All that adds up to another 200-250 million USD on top of the official purchase price.
But even with the $100M USD BMD upgrade (radar and CMS) you are well short of the $900 million you claim.

Quote
  a country with a GDP smaller than that of the Province of Quebec

Riiight.....But no
Quebec GDP   : ~360 billion CAD
Denmark GDP : ~420 billion CAD
And Quebec has a population almost 50% larger than Denmarks (8,2 vs 5,6 million)
 
Quote
by spreading the cost of getting them to full capacity over a much longer period of 12 years instead of three or four.
Its actually more like 6 years ....and name me 1 navy (other than the US) that goes from commission to FOC in 3 years ?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on January 20, 2016, 12:46:39
This probably isn't the ideal topic to post this question in, but it is somewhat related to these discussions on desired CSC capabilities...

How much of the increased cost of modern multi-role Frigate/Destroyer designs is based on increased defensive capabilities (air search radars, AAW missiles, point missile defense, signature reduction technologies, etc.)?  It seems (from an uneducated outsider anyway) that the offensive capabilities of the latest designs are not significantly different than the ships from 1-2 generations ago but the AAW systems and capabilities have increased significantly.

I happened across an article the other day in the Canadian Naval Review by Ken Hansen (Canadian Naval Review Broadsides Forum, "What can be done to salvage the Canadian Surface Combatant program?", posted 07-Jan-2016...I have not included a link because it references an article by "he whom may not be named").  The article references an older (updated 1999) book by Wayne P. Hughes Jr. "Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, 2nd Ed." which Hansen summarizes as:

Quote
The survivability of medium-sized warships against modern weapon systems is questionable. Modern anti-ship missiles, and especially torpedoes, are one-shot kill weapons if they hit their intended target. Wayne Hughes, Jr., in his seminal book Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, provides conclusive evidence that modern weaponry has produced what he calls a “fundamental point,” the implications of which are poorly understood:  “modern missiles have brought into question and sometimes overturned the principle of massing forces.” In his section on “Missile Equations” (pp. 268-84), analysis of 222 anti-ship missiles fired in hostilities produced the following probability of achieving a hit per shot:
.913 – against defenseless ships;
.684 – against defendable warships that failed to react; and
.264 – against defendable warships that did attempt to defend themselves.
With a one-shot kill capability and a minimum ‘leaker’ rate of more than 25%, the idea that larger and more expensive ships are more survivable than smaller ships should definitely be challenged. Hughes shows that a warship must be over 10,000 tonnes in displacement before it merits more than one missile hit to put it out of action (the rate is one additional hit per 10,000 tonnes of displacement). Even more challenging anti-ship systems are in the offing and it is unlikely self-defence systems will keep pace. Building very expensive warships that will be vulnerable in combat may not be an effective use of resources and, at the very least, will impose severe restrictions on operators. In a high threat environment, it is likely that only submarines will be able to operate there and be considered ‘survivable’.

Does this older analysis of the effectiveness of AAW systems vs. missile threats still hold true in a modern context?  Are we building ever more expensive ships which may be mission-killed by (on average) four relatively cheap missiles, or are current AAW systems more effective against current anti-ship missiles? 



Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 20, 2016, 12:58:53
Hey Mike, any idea what the hull speed is on the Huitfeldt?

Yes, its 28 knots, or put another way , the requirement was for a sustained speed of 27,6 knots  at 90% MCR in sea state 3 (IIRC). Just like with the Absalons that are a knot or 2 faster than their design speed(+25 vs23-24kts) , the Huitfeldts have turned out to exceed requirements, achieving +31knots on trial runs. At end of life displacement (~7000t) 26-27 knots is probably max speed.
Contrary to popular belief, the IH's are actually quite different from their older siblings below the waterline despite the apparent similarity. One of the reasons why they achieve a respectable speed despite the relatively modest propulsion power. In pure acceleration however, they cant quite match their gasturbine powered peers. One of the trade-offs in going to an all diesel setup. Gives them unparalleled range though.



 
Quote
Also, the MK41 launchers, do you know what size they are, Defense, Tactical or Strike version? I imagine any of the three could be used.

They are Strike length.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2016, 13:38:43
Thanks for all of that MKP -

On a different tack, are you picking up any sense of why our Canadian pricing may be at such variance compared to the OSS/OMT pricing?

The price you quoted for the vessel seems to me to be reasonable for what I believe the civilian world would know as "a bare bones charter" vessel - before all the tools of the trade and cargo is brought aboard.

Stanflex, in my understanding, separates the cost of the hull from the cost of the tools and cargo to a large extent.  Essentially it makes tools and cargo an "institutional" cost which the "institution", the navy, provides to the vessel as required, and can remove from the vessel to storage.

Cheers.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 20, 2016, 13:52:07

Does this older analysis of the effectiveness of AAW systems vs. missile threats still hold true in a modern context? 

I think it is somewhat overstating the lethality of anti-ship missiles. There are really 2 kinds of ASCM's , the conventional subsonic ones like Harpoon, Exocet, RBS-15, C-802 , NSM etc , and the truck size supersonic seaskimming type like the sunburn/moskit and Brahmos.

The first category missiles are highly maneuverable ( and in NSM's case also stealthy) but slow and relatively small carrying warheads ranging from 125-220kg in size.

Supersonic missiles like the Brahmos  are much larger (though not in warhead size) but also much less maneuverable. So you get shorter time to react and respond, but since these missiles have a more predictable flight path, they are also easier to shoot down. If they hit though i think even an Arleigh Burke would be toast.

Even corvette sized vessels of about 1200 tonnes have survived hits by harpoon class weapons, and in the 4000-9000 tonne range of warships there are numerous examples of vessels surviving hits from similar missiles. Whether a ship remains operational/combat effective is of course dependant upon where the missile impacts.

And while anti ship missiles have evolved greatly since the falklands war , i think you could well argue that the radars,optronics/IRST and ESM/ECM systems protecting modern warships have evolved even more so.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 20, 2016, 14:23:10
Quote
author=Chris Pook
On a different tack, are you picking up any sense of why our Canadian pricing may be at such variance compared to the OSS/OMT pricing?

Are you thinking of the AOPS or more in general terms ?

Quote
Stanflex, in my understanding, separates the cost of the hull from the cost of the tools and cargo to a large extent.  Essentially it makes tools and cargo an "institutional" cost which the "institution", the navy, provides to the vessel as required, and can remove from the vessel to storage.

Sounds spot on to me. In the real world of course it is a litlle less black and white and we dont always adhere completely to the StanFlex philosophy, but that is another matter.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on January 20, 2016, 14:28:25
I think it is somewhat overstating the lethality of anti-ship missiles. There are really 2 kinds of ASCM's , the conventional subsonic ones like Harpoon, Exocet, RBS-15, C-802 , NSM etc , and the truck size supersonic seaskimming type like the sunburn/moskit and Brahmos.

The first category missiles are highly maneuverable ( and in NSM's case also stealthy) but slow and relatively small carrying warheads ranging from 125-220kg in size.

Supersonic missiles like the Brahmos  are much larger (though not in warhead size) but also much less maneuverable. So you get shorter time to react and respond, but since these missiles have a more predictable flight path, they are also easier to shoot down. If they hit though i think even an Arleigh Burke would be toast.

Even corvette sized vessels of about 1200 tonnes have survived hits by harpoon class weapons, and in the 4000-9000 tonne range of warships there are numerous examples of vessels surviving hits from similar missiles. Whether a ship remains operational/combat effective is of course dependant upon where the missile impacts.

And while anti ship missiles have evolved greatly since the falklands war , i think you could well argue that the radars,optronics/IRST and ESM/ECM systems protecting modern warships have evolved even more so.

Thanks for the informative reply.  I suspected that the figures in the article could at the very least be "debatable". 

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 20, 2016, 14:38:52
From Wiki - but I verify these numbers from reviewing a number of other sources.

Class & type:   Absalon-class support ship
Displacement:    6639 tonnes
Length:   137.6 m (451 ft 5 in)
Beam:   19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
Draft:   6.3 m (20 ft 8 in) Under hull mounted sonar , draft under hull baseline 5,3 m
Propulsion:   
2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines;
two shafts
22,300 bhp (16.4 MW)
Speed:   25 knots (44 km/h)
Range:   9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)


Type:   (Iver Huitfeldt) Air defence frigate
Displacement:   6,645 tonnes (full load)
Length:   138.7 m (455 ft)
Beam:   19.75 m (64.8 ft)
Draft:   5.3 m (17 ft)- 6,3m under HMS
Propulsion:   Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each.
Speed:   30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range:   9,300 nautical miles (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)

The hull form is supposedly the same for both ships. Look outwardly similar but isnt.   The doubled power increases the speed by 5 knots, from 25 to 30. 

For comparison sake here is the Dutch Zeven Provincien

Class & type:   De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate
Displacement:   6,050 tonnes (full load)
Length:   144.24 m (473.2 ft)
Beam:   18.8 m (62 ft)
Draft:   5.18 m (17.0 ft)
Propulsion:   
Combined diesel and gas
2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each
Speed:   30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)

A little longer water line, a little skinnier in the beam and with a 4.2 + 4.2 + 18.5 = 26.9 Edit: 4.2+ 4.2+ 18.5+ 18.5 = 45.4 MW of power, a little bit less lot more power to the props than the Huitfeldts.

Edited per Walter's correction.

I have just made some minor corrections , written in bold
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on January 20, 2016, 15:03:14
I think it is somewhat overstating the lethality of anti-ship missiles. There are really 2 kinds of ASCM's , the conventional subsonic ones like Harpoon, Exocet, RBS-15, C-802 , NSM etc , and the truck size supersonic seaskimming type like the sunburn/moskit and Brahmos.

The first category missiles are highly maneuverable ( and in NSM's case also stealthy) but slow and relatively small carrying warheads ranging from 125-220kg in size.

Supersonic missiles like the Brahmos  are much larger (though not in warhead size) but also much less maneuverable. So you get shorter time to react and respond, but since these missiles have a more predictable flight path, they are also easier to shoot down. If they hit though i think even an Arleigh Burke would be toast.

Even corvette sized vessels of about 1200 tonnes have survived hits by harpoon class weapons, and in the 4000-9000 tonne range of warships there are numerous examples of vessels surviving hits from similar missiles. Whether a ship remains operational/combat effective is of course dependant upon where the missile impacts.

And while anti ship missiles have evolved greatly since the falklands war , i think you could well argue that the radars,optronics/IRST and ESM/ECM systems protecting modern warships have evolved even more so.

Related question.  I imagine survivability numbers (like quoted in the original article) are greatly affected by whether the targetted ship is prepared for the attack and I presume has its radars activated to a) detect the incoming missiles in the first place, and b) to direct the AAW weapons and counter-measures launched to defend the ship.

Is there not a bit of a catch-22 in this?  If you don't have your radars active you may not detect the incoming attack in time to be able to effectively counter it which greatly decreases your survivability.  If however, your radars are active you are giving away your position to the enemy and letting them know where to attack...which again presumably decreases your survivability (vs. not being detected in the first place).

In light of advances in things like the sensor fusion in the F-35 where a group of aircraft will share a combined sensor picture of the battlespace, has there been any discussions in the naval world about possibly separating the sensors from the most expensive asset which is the warship and instead putting them on cheaper platforms (manned aircraft, UAV's, cheap drone ships, etc.?) and having those sensor platforms communicate with the warships?  Would that allow you to use smaller (and cheaper?), harder to detect warships as stealthy (or at least stealthier) weapon platforms in conjuction with more numerous (and more easily replaced) sensor platforms?

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2016, 15:34:22
Are you thinking of the AOPS or more in general terms ?

In general terms, although the AOPS immediately springs to mind.

Sounds spot on to me. In the real world of course it is a litlle less black and white and we dont always adhere completely to the StanFlex philosophy, but that is another matter.

Thanks and understood

And I appreciate the modifications to the data comparison.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on January 20, 2016, 15:35:29
Related question.  I imagine survivability numbers (like quoted in the original article) are greatly affected by whether the targetted ship is prepared for the attack and I presume has its radars activated to a) detect the incoming missiles in the first place, and b) to direct the AAW weapons and counter-measures launched to defend the ship.

This is one of the fundamentals of Above Water Warfare. Balancing the risk of being detected against the need to have you radars on to detect incoming missiles. There is no straight answer to this. It is all situation dependent. I can give you scenarios if you wish, but there are a ton of different possibilities.

In light of advances in things like the sensor fusion in the F-35 where a group of aircraft will share a combined sensor picture of the battlespace, has there been any discussions in the naval world about possibly separating the sensors from the most expensive asset which is the warship and instead putting them on cheaper platforms (manned aircraft, UAV's, cheap drone ships, etc.?) and having those sensor platforms communicate with the warships?  Would that allow you to use smaller (and cheaper?), harder to detect warships as stealthy (or at least stealthier) weapon platforms in conjuction with more numerous (and more easily replaced) sensor platforms?

This is already standard naval tactics. You have radar pickets deployed away from the force or Long Range Patrol Aircraft (LRPAs) providing radar coverage to a huge area. They pass this information along to the ship's in the force over what is called "Link", which allows everyone radar and tactical picture to look exactly the same.

Using a small/cheaper "off-board" radar vessel is a possibility, but I don't think such a concept yet exists. There a large list of problems with such an idea. If its  a really small craft such as a remote vehicle, who's going to carry it? How fast is it going to be? How are you going to launch and recover it? Up to what sea-state are you going to operate it in? When do you launch it? The biggest issue would be that small vessel like that has a very small radar horizon because it's so low to the water. If you are talking about a small vessel, such as a corvette or even smaller (literally carrying nothing but radars and radios), then you still have some of the issues like speed and endurance (can it keep up with the fleet?), survivability.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 20, 2016, 16:18:01
Is there not a bit of a catch-22 in this?  If you don't have your radars active you may not detect the incoming attack in time to be able to effectively counter it which greatly decreases your survivability.  If however, your radars are active you are giving away your position to the enemy and letting them know where to attack...which again presumably decreases your survivability (vs. not being detected in the first place).

Well thats what your passive ESM systems are for, "listening"for any  emissions from say a missiles targeting radar. On a lot of modern warships you also have Infrared surveillance systems scanning for thermal signatures , like the hot exhaust plume of a missile . In some cases though, say in confined littoral waters close to the coastline, these warning systems will not alert you in time . So you have to go active and use your radars, giving away your presence and position. But trying to hide a +6000 tonne +130 meter warship in that environment is damn near impossible anyway in this day and age so you are not really losing a lot by going active anyways. The most important thing is being alert and ready for action in the first place. You can have your weapons systems ready, your CIWS, and decoy systems on and in automatic mode, all hands at battle stations AND your radar turned on WITHOUT emitting but ready to.

Quote
In light of advances in things like the sensor fusion in the F-35 where a group of aircraft will share a combined sensor picture of the battlespace, has there been any discussions in the naval world about possibly separating the sensors from the most expensive asset which is the warship and instead putting them on cheaper platforms (manned aircraft, UAV's, cheap drone ships, etc.?)

Absolutely, UAV's on ships is happening as we speak and is going to become an integral part of future naval warfare, just like a warships organic helicopter capability is used as an ISR asset, qua their very capable sensors.

Quote
and having those sensor platforms communicate with the warships?

Already happening ....in grand scale this is what the US CEC( Cooperative Engagement Capability) system is all about. It gathers information from multiple sensors on land, sea,air and space and creates an overall picture of the battle space (sensor fusion) , allowing you to separate sensor and shooter.

 
Quote
Would that allow you to use smaller (and cheaper?), harder to detect warships as stealthy (or at least stealthier) weapon platforms in conjuction with more numerous (and more easily replaced) sensor platforms?

The problems with smaller combatants is the inherent limitations they bring with them, like short range and endurance, lesser habitability and survivability

As a niche weapon used as a supplement to larger warships or for smaller states operating only in the littorals they make sense , but they can never be a substitute for the modern large surface combatant
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on January 20, 2016, 16:36:25
Excellent education.  Thank you both.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on January 20, 2016, 16:37:51
The missile conversation is interesting and informative, it should be in another thread though.

I have a question about the CSC program. What steel is being cut, where, and when will it materialize into a useful object? I see lots of paper and RFQ and re-thinking of capabilities, costs, use scenarios etc. But no ships being built, while in half a decade those that still float will be quite close to being older than their XO's. And they still may be flying Sea Kings. Why are the Admirals not pushing this issue as hard as they can, and as publicly as allowable both pre- and post career retirement?   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 20, 2016, 18:06:45
There's a gloomy report, which I find distressingly believable, on the "predicted failure [in the] introduction of the Canadian Surface Combatant" here (http://www.cgai.ca/canadas_hidden_plan_for_predicted_failure).
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 20, 2016, 18:10:06
In general terms, although the AOPS immediately springs to mind.

With my limited insight into Canadian industry and shipbuilding practices i can only guess as to disparity in cost. Most obvious would be the difference between a civilian yard accustomed to the build-to cost model and utilizing cheap eastern european/baltic labour in subsidiarys or subcontractors, in contrast with the Halifax based Irving Shipbuilding with its , shall we say , somewhat lesser commercial experience and success(though its hard to argue the fact that OSS no longer exists and Irving is still around) .
Still to survive as long as it did building large container ships and tankers ,in increasing competition with dirt cheap Asian yards, required the Lindø Yard (OSS) to become ever more efficient and develop new cheaper and faster shipbuilding procedures and practices. They were also among the front runners in automation and use of robots in the shipbuilding industry, and by the time they closed, ironically the Odense yard was probably one of the most advanced and efficient in the world. Against heavily subsidized South Korean and Chinese yards, however it was not enough. They could still build far cheaper vessels AND in numbers OSS could not match.

Another difference might be in the detail of the design specifications. For the Absalon/Huitfeldt classes specifications on the hull/platform design itself was actually very general in nature only listing  requirements and then letting the experienced yard decide how to best comply with those requirements. Compared with say Norwegian practice where they(as in the Navy/ project office) specify every single detail of every single nut and bolt and the standard it has to comply with, resulting not only in a much longer and more costly design process but also a much more expensive and troubled build.
As most navies in the anglosphere, as far as i can tell, have design practices much along the lines of the Norwegians, i would imagine Canada does as well.
And the Harry DeWolf is based on the Svalbard afterall.

In the RDN we also often make do with cheaper 90% solutions where best in class performance is not perceived to be vital, for instance in choosing CODAD instead of the more expensive CODAG or CODLAG propulsion.

Emphasis on COTS/MOTS components also help to keep costs down.

And finally , as we have already established , our ships are not always as cheap as they seem, because of hidden costs and a bit of  "creative accounting" ;-)

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 20, 2016, 18:53:24
There's a gloomy report, which I find distressingly believable, on the "predicted failure [in the] introduction of the Canadian Surface Combatant" here (http://www.cgai.ca/canadas_hidden_plan_for_predicted_failure).

Is the program costs quoted in Canadian or US dollars ?.....30 Million CAD is "only" 20M USD . So 15 CSC would mean ~1,3 billion USD each, expensive to be sure but not totally ludicrous if you are talking about something like a modern "mini-Burke" DDG. 

As to the AOPS, i thought the DeWolf class was going to be bigger and build to a higher spec than the Svalbard?( which is built to purely commercial standards) 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2016, 19:10:46
With my limited insight into Canadian industry and shipbuilding practices i can only guess as to disparity in cost. Most obvious would be the difference between a civilian yard accustomed to the build-to cost model and utilizing cheap eastern european/baltic labour in subsidiarys or subcontractors, in contrast with the Halifax based Irving Shipbuilding with its , shall we say , somewhat lesser commercial experience and success(though its hard to argue the fact that OSS no longer exists and Irving is still around) .
Still to survive as long as it did building large container ships and tankers ,in increasing competition with dirt cheap Asian yards, required the Lindø Yard (OSS) to become ever more efficient and develop new cheaper and faster shipbuilding procedures and practices. They were also among the front runners in automation and use of robots in the shipbuilding industry, and by the time they closed, ironically the Odense yard was probably one of the most advanced and efficient in the world. Against heavily subsidized South Korean and Chinese yards, however it was not enough. They could still build far cheaper vessels AND in numbers OSS could not match.

Another difference might be in the detail of the design specifications. For the Absalon/Huitfeldt classes specifications on the hull/platform design itself was actually very general in nature only listing  requirements and then letting the experienced yard decide how to best comply with those requirements. Compared with say Norwegian practice where they(as in the Navy/ project office) specify every single detail of every single nut and bolt and the standard it has to comply with, resulting not only in a much longer and more costly design process but also a much more expensive and troubled build.
As most navies in the anglosphere, as far as i can tell, have design practices much along the lines of the Norwegians, i would imagine Canada does as well.
And the Harry DeWolf is based on the Svalbard afterall.

In the RDN we also often make do with cheaper 90% solutions where best in class performance is not perceived to be vital, for instance in choosing CODAD instead of the more expensive CODAG or CODLAG propulsion.

Emphasis on COTS/MOTS components also help to keep costs down.

And finally , as we have already established , our ships are not always as cheap as they seem, because of hidden costs and a bit of  "creative accounting" ;-)

While your ships may not always be as cheap as they seem they still seem to be as cheap as they come - and apparently function. 

On the Irving efficiency front I will tread lightly while pointing out that they have limited current experience in the manufacture of large vessels and the yard is essentially a new one.  A steep learning curve perhaps?

Your point about detailed specs vs general specs I personally find very interesting.  Having worked with Danish and Swedish engineers in a very different design field I find the "general" approach to be very familiar.  Having also worked with Canadian engineers as well I find them detail oriented to a fault.  They show an abundance, and often an over-abundance of caution.   

It is my personal opinion that the zeal shown for detail does not show material benefits.  Again this is only my personal opinion based on some years of observation, it drives timelines to the right, drives budgets higher and does little to guarantee that the end product will be any better than the "general spec" product.

Personally I prefer a 90% solution in my hand that I can trim and craft to achieve my desired endstate, than a 100% solution sometime in the never-never.  But that is just me.

To be fair to the "detail oriented" engineers though the "generalist" approach demands three things:  educated vendors,educated clients and trust.  And in an environment where ships are built once a decade or so I presume it is very hard to find any of those things in Canada.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 20, 2016, 19:23:58
Re the gloomy report - I think the cynical response is - "plan for the worst, hope for the best".  Until a firm CSC plan and schedule is finalized it probably is wise to maintain plans in being based on the Halifax.   

The one thing that continues to bother me is the lack of a Stanflex type plan for all these additional capabilities that the Halifaxes/CSC/AOPSs might share if they were in service at the same time.

With respect the AOPS/Svalbard:  It is my understanding that the AOPS, as designed on the West Coast by Aker/BMT/STX, originally followed Civilian guidelines.  It is also my understanding that when the design was handed off to the East Coast there was considerable discussion about Navalizing the specifications. The final design is apparently civilian.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on January 20, 2016, 21:23:07
Re the gloomy report - I think the cynical response is - "plan for the worst, hope for the best".  Until a firm CSC plan and schedule is finalized it probably is wise to maintain plans in being based on the Halifax.   

My money is on the following:
-the CSC project will be killed off as legacy Harper era tomfoolery (which it turned out to be anyway).
-a study will be commenced to determine if we even need a surface fleet with anything more than very light armament, and restrict the vessel to Canadian littoral waters for "surveillance";
- the MCDV's will fill the above role for the next 5 (hundred) years;
-the Halifax fleet will be declared not currently required, a few will be placed in some sort of extended ready reserve, the rest we will be shaving with;
- the subs are literally going to disappear under the surface;
- the JSS/AOR Berlin class will not be built and penalties will be paid;
-The AOPS will be built, then half the fleet laid up and the other half tied up.

The Cyclones and Auroras will be our main maritime assets for patrolling the coasts and if necessary, dropping the odd practice torpedo.

Time will tell, but I have a feeling absolutely NOTHING will be built other than the AOPS.

 


 
 

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 21, 2016, 07:35:52
My money is on the following:
-the CSC project will be killed off as legacy Harper era tomfoolery (which it turned out to be anyway).
-a study will be commenced to determine if we even need a surface fleet with anything more than very light armament, and restrict the vessel to Canadian littoral waters for "surveillance";
- the MCDV's will fill the above role for the next 5 (hundred) years;
...

The Cyclones and Auroras will be our main maritime assets for patrolling the coasts and if necessary, dropping the odd practice torpedo.

Time will tell, but I have a feeling absolutely NOTHING will be built other than the AOPS.


I hear ya' .... but:

     1. There are a couple of important ministers from Atlantic Canada who will remind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that they, Atlantic Canadians, gave him a majority; and

                   (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parl.gc.ca%2FParliamentarians%2FImages%2FOfficialMPPhotos%2F41%2FBrisonScott_Lib.jpg&hash=31006320f08df86a4fa710403ae09ae2)   (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitwitter.ca%2Fimages%2Fmp%2Fdominic-leblanc.jpg&hash=ff953fca380cb14b5c2b4ad0799a4f3b)
                    (Important ministers from Atlantic Canada:
                    both infinitely better qualified to be PM, but ...)

     2. There is still a right wing in the Liberal Party, the so-called Manley Liberals, and it does care about foreign and defence policies. I'm sure PMJT is aware of the fact that his father, PMPT, faced a mini cabinet revolt in 1969/70,
         over foreign policy, and that his own ministers approached German Defence Minister, later Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to have a chat with PMPT about socialist policy vs practical politics.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 21, 2016, 11:14:00
Ok,

I'll jump in on this one.

The missiles in our canisters get sent ashore, shipped to the US Depots, and back to us after major refurbishments.

There are locations in Canada (I had a tour on my QL6B course) where DND personnel do take the missiles out of the canisters, inspect, test, replace, and re-pack them.  I sailed with one of the former FC techs that now does that for a living.

The older the missile, the more likely it is to fail the routine checks, and the components are replaced/life-cycled on a specific schedule from what I recall.

So, the old RIM-7P's that we stripped off the ships when we upgraded to the RIM-162 ESSM got sent back to the US, they were stripped of useable parts, and what could be re-used, was.  *NOTE* this was pre-FELEX, I was on STJ when we refitted her for the ESSM in 2004.  The transition to the ESSM was not concurrent with the HCM project. 

The RIM-162's have a test/inspection cycle, as do the Harpoons.  Every missile comes with a log book (as does each torpedo, and HOTTORP).  (Separate from Ammo Data Cards.)

I know that which I speak of here....I was a Magazine Custodian until this past June on one of the Frigates.

So, the lifespan of the missiles is controlled, and monitored.  That's honestly not a big deal.

NS

NS, I certainly did not mean for people to think that the missiles were put in the launchers at acquisition and never touched until they "expired". Obviously there is maintenance that is done on an ongoing basis. But such maintenance cannot touch some of the elements, such as the actual solid fuel and all of its casing. The electronics, the sensors the programming, the ignition subsystems can and obviously are maintained. As you indicate yourself, however, the older the missile, the more often they fail their testing, and at some point they get sent back to the manufacturer for disposal and new ones are bought.

My point was exactly that this point where the majority of the missiles need replacement roughly corresponds to the expected service time of frigates and destroyers of 25 to 30 years. Thus, you cannot introduce the next class of warships in service expecting to be able to re-use the older class' missiles for the next 25-30 years again. Unless the older class of ship's missiles were recent replacements, you have to buy new ones anyway.

This is different than the more mechanical/electrical/hydraulic weapons systems, such as guns and torpedoes, which, if maintained properly and repaired when necessary, can go on almost in perpetuity (like the 40mm Boffins that are about to be removed from the MCDV after more than 70 years of service, though no one said they were not just going to be crated until "next use"  [:) ). So for instance, if it was decided that the main gun on the CSC was to be the Bofors 57mm, we could re-use the ones on the HAL's.

That was my point on missiles. I used it to counter the perception some people have that the Danish Stanflex concept is saving money because they are re-using the same missiles. They are not: They are re-using the launchers. As for the missiles themselves, in the Stanflex concept, they get acquired and replaced on an ongoing basis as they get to the end of heir life, so all you have done, is make them a separate item from the ship (and therefore probably accounted for somewhere else) and spread their acquisition cost over longer budgetary time frame than if you just purchased a new ship all inclusive of its brand new armament. As for re-using the launchers, well, someone else here chimed in on the fact that it may not be such a big savings after all considering the metal fatigue and other aging factors on the launchers that need fixing and maintenance. 
 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 21, 2016, 12:39:36
I think some of the points below need adressing.

First of all, and this is not meant as a disrespectful comment against MKP, but simply as a warning to some in these fora who seem to take his (her?) point of view as fully knowledgeable of the Danish Navy, MKP is actually and by his (her?) own admission a lance-corporal in a Danish Army tank regiment. He (she) may well have valid information and knowledge, but the source is unstated.

My comments are in yellow in his (her) post below.

The rationale behind the Standard Flex concept and its continued usage is well documented AND available online, so i will refrain from posting a wall of text reciting its history. What i can say is that your conclusion is wrong ( StanFlex was and still is ,very much a cost saving measure....among other things. Its also much more than just containerized weapons and equipment)
 
I will not refrain. The Stanflex concept came about in the early 1980's because the Danish Navy could not afford to replace its 22 attack crafts, mine hunters and coastal patrol vessels that were becoming obsolete on a one-for-one basis. So they came up with the "single class" hull Flyvefisken class and the Stanflex concept. The modules covered mine warfare, basic ASW, main gun and missiles modules for AAW (Sea-Sparrows in Mk 56) or Harpoon ASuW. The ship could be configured for one form or warfare or the other but no more than one at a time. Overall, it was a budget constraint that imposed the solution on the Danish Navy, but it still ended up with less ships and as a result, as a lesser simultaneous capability to carry missions.

Does it save money with the Iver Huitfeldt? Re-using any weapons system usually saves money. However, you could re-use guns, for instance, wether they are in Stanflex containers or mounted on board the usual way (We did resell the Otto Melara 5 inch guns of the IRO's and they have been re-used by the acquirer). The same goes for the missile launchers, but as per my recent past post above, the missiles themselves have to be changed from time to time no matter what. So it saved money, but only to the extent that re-using weapons system already in your inventory does, and not necessarily because it is Stanflex.

IMHO, Stanflex was, and is, a Danish solution to a Danish situation, and more power to them if it provides them with their defence needs in a way that satisfies them, but it may not be the solution for all. Stan flex has been discussed at length - incensed then discredited, then incensed again, by all sort of people since it came out in the 1980's. However, since that time, just in the "western" world, Australia, Canada, the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, France, the UK, Spain, Japan, South Korea and, yes, Denmark's neighbour Norway have all developed and introduced new frigates and destroyers into service. Not a single one of them adopted a Stanflex concept. Perhaps there is a reason. My personal view is that, maybe Stanflex doesn't save you money as much as it lets you spread out the outlay of money.

We have plenty financial capability, but not the will to spend it on Defence. Not unlike Canada i suppose ;-) ...
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with StanFlex however.
 
For the reasons I indicated above, Stanflex was developed specifically because Denmark did not have the financial capability to replace its fleet of smaller vessels. With the Iver Huitfeldt, it does not even give them flexibility, since (other than mid-life refits) there is no intent on changing the weapons suite as they go, except for maintenance. Once the guns and launchers are in place, they will remain and constitute the weapons suite of the ship - period)

Actually none of them are yet. We wont get long range Standards (SM-2 or 6) til next year at the earliest. The mk56 ESSM launchers are operational aboard all 3 frigates however so they have basic AAW capability at least.

I thought Iver herself was full up, but OK, I'm probably wrong on this one. However, about six months ago, Niels Juel came over to exercise with the US Navy. She carried her Harpoon launchers and her Mk 56 launchers, had her Mk41 launcher installed but they were all empty of missiles.

 That is incorrect ! ..electronics and combat systems software is in place, but integration of SM-2/6 into the mk41 will likely take place sometime in 2017.

That is exactly my point: When you integrate the SM-2 and SM-6, upgrading and reprogramming of the combat system for AAW must occur, then lots of testing before operational. You may do that internally within your Navy since it happens step by step and after commissioning, but in ours and most others, all combat suites (weapons and combat systems are built, installed and integrated from the start and by the contractor. Thus, you hide your cost in you annual Navy budget, but the value, which other navies have to pay in their shipbuilding budget, must count against the actual cost of the ship. I note here that you yourself mention in one of your post that your country does some creative accounting and cost hiding.

Pardon my french , but bollocks ! Where do you get your info from ?  Regardless i would suggest you get some better sources .

The 4 year plan is not about AAW but the upcoming BMD upgrade which is scheduled for completion in the 2019-20 timeframe.

BS!...you would have to cram the mk41s full of SM-3s to get near 900 million USD.

Let me use your own numbers below: You say 330MUS$ in 2010, plus 100MUS$ for the BMD update I take as current $, then you put the non included weapons systems, including missiles at about 250MUS$. I can tell you you are off on that last one (but note that you only buy SM-2's when your Navy will have SM-2 and SM-6). Using current most recent price for missiles and a mix of 12 SM-6 to 20 SM-2's in the Mk-41, the missiles alone [all - harpoons, at 1.2M$; ESSm at 1.4M$ -for 48 which is the real final capability -; SM-2 if you stick to block IIIA at 1M$ and SM-6 at 4.5M$ - all these prices are based on the latest sales of those missiles]  (no integration work and none of the guns and other items you mention) will set you back 162M$US. But even then, I will accept your 250M$ figure.

Now, assuming this last 250M$ and the 100M$ BMD as today values, but correcting the 330M$ to bring it in 2015 dollars (using RAND corporation accepted inflation rate for naval systems of 11%/year) it becomes 540M$. Add the $350 already in current dollars and you get $890 Millions: Thus my about 900 millions. And note that I did not try to include your hidden costs within the Navy general budget by doing work yourself that is in fact contractor work in our own countries. 

As delivered from the shipyard(OSS) the huitfeldts was $165M USD each in 2010 dollars. That cost is indisputable.
The AAW suite from Thales Netherlands came in at ~$110M USD in same year dollars.  Also indisputable
The Atlas Sonar,Star Safire mk III FLIR, surface and navigational radars,ESM system,link&communications systems,the combat system and the MK41 launchers etc makes up the remainder of the price quoted officially at ~$325-330M USD (2010)
What isnt included is :
2x76mm Oto Melara SR
1x35 mm Millenium CIWS
2xMk56  VLS with 24 ESSM
2xMk141 Harpoon launchers with 16 Harpoon block II missiles.
SM-2 missiles.
2xCEROS 200 Fire control directors
Most of the outfitting and integration of these sensors,weapons and military electronics was carried out by RDN technical personel or civilian subcontractors. As such that work was not accounted for in the acquisitions project but with funds taken from another budget (the navy's operating budget)

All that adds up to another 200-250 million USD on top of the official purchase price.
But even with the $100M USD BMD upgrade (radar and CMS) you are well short of the $900 million you claim.

Riiight.....But no
Quebec GDP   : ~360 billion CAD
Denmark GDP : ~420 billion CAD
And Quebec has a population almost 50% larger than Denmarks (8,2 vs 5,6 million)

Here is my sources: The World Bank (data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD).

I am using their figures for 2013 (last available) in US$. Denmark = 342bUS$. I then use their figure for Canada and apportion Quebec's GDP by referring to Statscan figures for provincial/territorial GDPs for that same year, which gives us 344bUS$ for that same year.

 Its actually more like 6 years ....and name me 1 navy (other than the US) that goes from commission to FOC in 3 years ?

Actually, from commission to FOC in about 1 years: France, UK, Canada, Spain, Italy, just to name those I know of in the last 15 years.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 25, 2016, 00:02:33

I hear ya' .... but:

     1. There are a couple of important ministers from Atlantic Canada who will remind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that they, Atlantic Canadians, gave him a majority; and

                   (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.parl.gc.ca%2FParliamentarians%2FImages%2FOfficialMPPhotos%2F41%2FBrisonScott_Lib.jpg&hash=31006320f08df86a4fa710403ae09ae2)   (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpolitwitter.ca%2Fimages%2Fmp%2Fdominic-leblanc.jpg&hash=ff953fca380cb14b5c2b4ad0799a4f3b)
                    (Important ministers from Atlantic Canada:
                    both infinitely better qualified to be PM, but ...)

     2. There is still a right wing in the Liberal Party, the so-called Manley Liberals, and it does care about foreign and defence policies. I'm sure PMJT is aware of the fact that his father, PMPT, faced a mini cabinet revolt in 1969/70,
         over foreign policy, and that his own ministers approached German Defence Minister, later Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to have a chat with PMPT about socialist policy vs practical politics.

The CSC will go through hell or high water, and it will always be called an overbudget over time failure no matter how well it is run.  There is no accounting for defence tech inflation. It's quite frankly insane how expensive equipment is increasing year over year.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 25, 2016, 09:22:51
Just look at the figure for inflation in naval systems I quote above, Underway. The RAND Corporation pins it at 11% a year.

That means that the price of system (which includes a whole ship) doubles every seven years. Which also means it quadruples in 14 years. Fourteen years is not an unusual number of years for a naval construction project to go from start of the development phase to completion of the first ship in class.

And I agree: It's crazy.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: quadrapiper on January 25, 2016, 16:29:52
Anything to be said for decoupling the (relatively) unchanging stuff - hulls, hotel services, engines, etc. - from the constantly evolving, when it comes to procurement?

Contract the yards to produce x hulls at size y with wells and reinforcements for equipment z, on a properly long-term basis? Not an in-service "flex" system like the Danes, but something that will keep the heavy-metal side of things active independent of what, exactly, we can afford to bolt on to the relatively cheap part? Would require some canny decision making regarding types of systems (Aegis-esque panels? Tall mast with rotating radar? Both? - etc.).

Barring a complete drawing-in of the RCN, "we" will have long-range blue water vessels with helo(es), shorter-haul coastal defence (MCM, etc.) vessels without hangars, and armed ice-capable or ice-breaking vessels (and subs, but can't imagine those being designed as anything but a single system) to make up the fighting fleet.

Would, if we're going to be running around after drug smugglers and what-not, a "constabulary duties" vessel be worth looking at?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 25, 2016, 16:50:23
....

Barring a complete drawing-in of the RCN, "we" will have long-range blue water vessels with helo(es), shorter-haul coastal defence (MCM, etc.) vessels without hangars, and armed ice-capable or ice-breaking vessels (and subs, but can't imagine those being designed as anything but a single system) to make up the fighting fleet.

...

In the Canadian context I don't see the purpose in a vessel without a helicopter capability.  Ships don't move fast.  We will never have enough of them to be everywhere.  And it is farther from Halifax to Tuktoyuktuk by sea than it is from Halifax to London.

On the other hand ships make great operating bases for helicopters and permit the government to get all sorts of resources by way of those helicopters to the 70% of the land mass that doesn't have access by roads and to 100% of the 7.1 million square kilometers that is Canada'a ocean estate - equivalent to the inaccessible land mass.

And for that matter they should have room for a couple of long range high speed interceptors like the CB-90.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 25, 2016, 17:26:03
Building a half-priced ship that can do almost nothing(cough*LCS cough*), is worse than building a more expensive one that is quite flexible. Now if you can save a few dollars and build more hulls that we can man and still have 80% of the high priced ship, then we can talk. However when the government says you can only have x number hulls or you can X number of PY's to man ships, then you better maximize that ability.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: quadrapiper on January 25, 2016, 18:08:06
In the Canadian context I don't see the purpose in a vessel without a helicopter capability.  Ships don't move fast.  We will never have enough of them to be everywhere.  And it is farther from Halifax to Tuktoyuktuk by sea than it is from Halifax to London.

On the other hand ships make great operating bases for helicopters and permit the government to get all sorts of resources by way of those helicopters to the 70% of the land mass that doesn't have access by roads and to 100% of the 7.1 million square kilometers that is Canada'a ocean estate - equivalent to the inaccessible land mass.

And for that matter they should have room for a couple of long range high speed interceptors like the CB-90.
Good point - had seen comments that suggested properly basing a helicopter off a ship was something of a dividing line for tonnage. I seem to recall seeing "folding" hangars (possibly as a test) - worthwhile for smaller vessels, to keep the helicopter-related real estate down?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: quadrapiper on January 25, 2016, 18:21:36
Building a half-priced ship that can do almost nothing(cough*LCS cough*), is worse than building a more expensive one that is quite flexible. Now if you can save a few dollars and build more hulls that we can man and still have 80% of the high priced ship, then we can talk. However when the government says you can only have x number hulls or you can X number of PY's to man ships, then you better maximize that ability.
Was that in response to my comment about "constabulary" vessels? Had an idea that a robust, simple class with no special fittings (Z-drives, etc.) might make more sense than putting miles on something more complex and specialized.

Might also provide a platform suitable for a "training and..." approach - the PCTs will wear out eventually.

Really, I'll be happy if the RCN gets a one-for-one replacement for the frigates, and a PY/training/recruiting arrangement that ensures everything not in the ditch is properly manned.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 25, 2016, 18:23:01
More to Chris Pook comment
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 25, 2016, 18:29:36
More to Chris Pook comment

Clarify?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 26, 2016, 12:58:24
My wording is bad, it was to support your comments that spending a whack of money on a hull that can't do much is a waste.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 26, 2016, 13:06:54
Phew.  [:D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on February 11, 2016, 19:58:23
Quote
Irving Shipbuilding’s $26-billion warship procurement deal under review, senior source says
John Ivison | February 11, 2016 5:57 PM ET

Quote
Irving co-chief executive James D. Irving is understood to have met Dominic LeBlanc, the government’s Atlantic Canada regional minister, and Navdeep Bains, the economic development minister, in Moncton Thursday to discuss the situation. “There is a degree of nervousness” on the Irving side, said one industry source.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/irving-shipbuilding-26-billion-warship-procurement-deal-under-review-source-says

Quote
Liberal house leader Dominic LeBlanc subject to ethics ‘screen’ involving powerful Irving family
Glen McGregor, Ottawa Citizen | February 11, 2016 5:29 PM ET

Quote
Federal ethics commissioner Mary Dawson has told Liberal house leader Dominic LeBlanc he must avoid participating in any decisions involving the powerful Irving family of New Brunswick.

LeBlanc, a key political lieutenant to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, cited his friendship with James D. “Jim” Irving as a potential conflict-of-interest in an undertaking filed with Dawson last month.

His chief of staff, Vince MacNeil, must “screen” him from any dealings with Irving’s company, J.D. Irving Ltd., and its affiliates and subsidiaries. 

This will “ensure that I will abstain from any participation in any discussions or decision-making processes and any communication with government officials in relation to any matter or issue forming part of the subject matter of the conflict of interest screen,” LeBlanc promised in the written declaration.

LeBlanc refers to Irving as “my friend,” though he is believed to be closer to Irving’s son, Jamie, who runs the family’s chain of newspapers.

Irving is the president and chief executive officer of J.D. Irving Limited, part of the Irving family conglomerate that has interests in numerous industrial sectors, including shipbuilding.

Through Irving Shipbuilding, the company is also the beneficiary of substantial government contracts to build new vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy at its shipyard in Halifax.

The Irvings are involved in the proposed Energy East pipeline, which would bring oil from Western Canada to New Brunswick for refining. though this part of the family enterprise is separate and operates independently from the company controlled by Jim Irving. The government has promised a new approvals process to consider whether green-lighting the pipeline.

The ethics screen set up for LeBlanc covers “J.D. Irving Limited, its subsidiaries, affiliates, associates, divisions and or any legal form of business in which he or his companies may have a private interest.”


http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberal-house-leader-dominic-leblanc-subject-to-ethics-screen-involving-powerful-irving-family

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on May 19, 2016, 09:55:00
Some Industry Information (http://defence.frontline.online/article/2015/6/3705-NSPS-%E2%80%93-Combat-Systems-Integrator) on all of the NSPS pre-qualified bidders Combat system integrators.  This article (http://defence.frontline.online/article/2015/4/2143-NSPS-Warship-Design) is on the warship designers.  These articles are a little out of date, as the CSI and WD is now combined, leading to companies pairing up to bid together.  What I don't know is if Irving is still in charge of the selection process.  Without a SOR I'm concerned that we are just handing the new warship design/selection over to Irving and we will probably get what we get.  Or has that changed.

**note: placed this here because its not NSS specific but CSC specific**
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on May 20, 2016, 00:09:51
What I don't know is if Irving is still in charge of the selection process.

I'm almost certain nothing was changed in that regard.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on June 13, 2016, 13:00:26
I'm assuming that the change to an almost off the shelf foreign design now renders this competition null and void?  Or will they simply keep the warship designs they already prequalified?!
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Trumpeter42 on June 13, 2016, 13:42:42
I'm assuming that the change to an almost off the shelf foreign design now renders this competition null and void?  Or will they simply keep the warship designs they already prequalified?!

I suspect that the WD firm list will remain the same. One of the key criteria for the WD is the personnel requirement, which I read somewhere that they're looking for a ship with close to 100 complement... Half of the Halifax Class. It's not a coincidence that the hulls in the pre-qualified list are all in this ballpark. The WD firms in the list will either bid with their own CSI or partner to get it.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on June 13, 2016, 14:15:29
I suspect that the WD firm list will remain the same. One of the key criteria for the WD is the personnel requirement, which I read somewhere that they're looking for a ship with close to 100 complement... Half of the Halifax Class. It's not a coincidence that the hulls in the pre-qualified list are all in this ballpark. The WD firms in the list will either bid with their own CSI or partner to get it.

The WD and CSI have to be a team.  There will be no separate competition for each.  There will be one competition for both together.  Also an off-the-shelf modified (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/canadian-warship-replacement-plan-refined-1.3632161) design is official as of the announcement today, (well it was official before but its really official now...).

I also would not expect crew sizes to be as low as 100, more likely closer to 180.  With the doctrine, distances, environment etc... that Canada operates with we will probably have more crew than the Euro navies normally sail with.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: milnews.ca on June 13, 2016, 16:51:53
This from the info-machine (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?mthd=index&crtr.page=2&nid=1083659):
Quote
The Honourable Judy M. Foote, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, and the Honourable John McKay, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, representing the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, today announced a streamlined and transparent procurement approach to deliver the Canadian Surface Combatant to the Royal Canadian Navy up to two years sooner than originally planned.

The refined procurement approach will allow Canada to competitively and transparently select an existing warship design to modify, rather than continuing with the previous approach of selecting a Warship Designer and a Combat Systems Integrator to custom design the Canadian Surface Combatant.

The government used input from industry and Steve Brunton, its shipbuilding expert advisor, to develop the streamlined procurement approach. Canada will continue to work closely with the industry and remains committed to generating middle-class jobs, economic benefits and industrial growth for the country through the National Shipbuilding Strategy ...
From the Backgrounder (http://news.gc.ca/web/article-en.do?nid=1083659#bg):
Quote
The Government of Canada recently endorsed a streamlined procurement approach for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), simplifying the procurement process so construction can start sooner and can deliver ships up to two years faster.

This new approach stems from a review of the Royal Canadian Navy’s requirements that identified an opportunity to simplify procurement and design efforts, while maintaining all project objectives.

The review, conducted over summer and fall 2015, identified requirements that correspond more closely to existing warships. Rather than continuing with the previous approach, which consisted of selecting a Warship Designer and a Combat Systems Integrator to work together to custom design the CSC, the newly endorsed approach allows Canada to select and modify an existing warship design through a single competitive process.

A Request for Proposals to select a ship design will be released in summer 2016. While the opportunity for firms to pre-qualify will be reopened, the 12 firms that have already pre-qualified will not be required to reapply.

The government remains committed to leveraging economic benefits from shipbuilding by creating opportunities for Canadian content to be included in the vessels, while generating high-value investments in the marine and other sectors of Canada’s economy. The CSC procurement approach will create middle-class jobs for Canadians and opportunities for companies in Canada to showcase their world-class technologies and position themselves for further growth in global markets.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy’s long-term plan to renew the fleets of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard is a priority for the government. Canada has selected two centres of excellence, Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to build its large combat vessels and Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards in Vancouver, British Columbia, to build its large non-combat vessels.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 13, 2016, 17:33:58
Disingenuous of gov't--going to be foreign design for some time, just a question of how much foreign designs must be Canadianized (by the Combat Systems Integrator one assumes--the builders noted at the post weren't all going to come up with brand-new ship designs rather than refine existing ones!):

Quote
RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatant Will be Foreign Design
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/

Seems as if the Combat Systems Integrator separate contract is simply being ditched; but does this mean that the winning ship designer (which apparently might even be a new one) then must choose from the pre-qualified CSI firms (and any others that may now qualify)? 

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 13, 2016, 17:38:31
And how much say will Irving have in selecting the winning designs (ship, combat systems)?

Mar
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: PuckChaser on June 13, 2016, 17:46:37
Hopefully none. They can shut up and build what we tell them to build, and be thankful for the money.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on June 13, 2016, 17:56:06
Hopefully none. They can shut up and build what we tell them to build, and be thankful for the money.

They're still designated as the prime contractor, so, probably quite a bit.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GK .Dundas on June 13, 2016, 18:04:02
Oh to be king !
 If it were up to me I would visit the nice people at Gibbs & Cox in NYC and ask what they would charge me to build their design that lost the RAN AWD competition. As I understand it it was the actual winner up until the politicians got involved.
It has every thing we need and want in a DDG . I suspect for that very reason it doesn't stand a chance .
 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: PuckChaser on June 13, 2016, 19:43:57
Liberals won't commit to 15 warships, and a cabinet minister even suggests we can make do with fewer. Remember 15 warships is a 1 for 1 replacement for destroyers and frigates. So much for all that Real Change...

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/frigate-replacement-program-foote-1.3632858 (http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/frigate-replacement-program-foote-1.3632858)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 13, 2016, 20:13:24
Anyone who really believes in real change from the new overlords is a bigger sucker than even PT Barnum could have dreamt of.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: FSTO on June 13, 2016, 20:22:50
Anyone who really believes in real change from the new overlords is a bigger sucker than even PT Barnum could have dreamt of.

Yep. Nothing has changed. We as a military will continue to bumble along doing more with less. Our political masters are so clueless to the real amount of damage they are doing to us.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on June 13, 2016, 20:27:01
Yep. Nothing has changed. We as a military will continue to bumble along doing more with less. Our political masters are so clueless to the real amount of damage they are doing to us.

This will continue until someone, somewhere with half a clue about the military actually has the ability to do something and isn't just thinking how many of his friends can get contracts off the government for inflated rates.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on June 13, 2016, 20:39:48
I see two legs of the triangle:  Faster and Cheaper.  So I suggest that does not mean Better.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 13, 2016, 21:25:26
The Evolved Arleigh Burke was a nice design, but not for our needs.

I would suggest looking at the Canadian Military Journal • Vol. 16, No. 1, Winter 2015 "Off-the-Shelf or New Design? Considerations for the Canadian Surface Combatant Program" by David Rudd.
- the article specifically calls out the Absalon-/Iver Huitfeldt ships as the only platforms currently in existence that will meet the needs of the RCN under the current role set out for the navy and the apparent vision of the GoC in regards to the primary purposes of the military in general.
- the suggestion is " 6 of these and 4 of that" in terms of capabilities. 

I would agree that should these ships be acquired at all (and that remains highly doubtful), the numbers will result in a much smaller fleet but if done correctly could potentially end up with more expeditionary and utility capability with about the same capacity to generate naval forces for one substantial deployment at a time (i.e. a tanker and 2 or 3 CSC).   In my view, although the MEKO F125 as currently being built for the German navy is an excellent combat vessel, it's downfall in the RCN/CSC competition is exactly that: the MEKO design (along with the FREMM designs) have no other purpose other than naval warfare, something that the current government is not enthusiastic about. 

Cheers

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: PuckChaser on June 13, 2016, 22:21:35
Yep. Nothing has changed. We as a military will continue to bumble along doing more with less. Our political masters are so clueless to the real amount of damage they are doing to us.

Problem is, the majority of members in the CAF are too proud and professional to let anything fail due to the shoddy support we receive from all parties.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on June 14, 2016, 01:25:23
They pretty much have to buy new ships of some kind.  That they're trying to do it faster is a good sign.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 14, 2016, 10:59:35
Well, if the GoC really wanted a ship to defend just Canada, and chuck every other expeditionary mission over the side, they could go with just two of these ships, one for each coast. They probably wouldn't even have to leave the harbour, and for 26 Billion CAD, we could probably buy them.

HII Shows Off New BMD Ship Concept at Sea-Air-Space (Updated with video!): http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2013/04/hii-shows-off-new-bmd-ship-concept-at-sea-air-space/

"Using the basic LPD 17 hull designed for the U.S. Navy’s San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships — all of which are built by HII — the BMD ship incorporates an Aegis-type phased array radar atop the superstructure. The aft deck, devoid of much of the topside structure of the LPD 17, is ringed by 18 16-cell vertical launch system launchers, for a total of 288 missile cells. Like the existing Mark 41 and Mark 57 VLS launchers in the fleet, the ship’s VLS would presumably be able to launch a variety of weapons, including SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 Standard missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and other weapons."

https://youtu.be/VxJIizedUsU



It could accommodate up to 288 Mk41 VLS missile tubes and a radar with 1000 times the sensitivity of the SPY-1D radar of the Burke destroyers.:  http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-plans-huge-ballistic-missile-defense-ship-14920

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on June 15, 2016, 00:54:18
Well, if the GoC really wanted a ship to defend just Canada, and chuck every other expeditionary mission over the side, they could go with just two of these ships, one for each coast. They probably wouldn't even have to leave the harbour, and for 26 Billion CAD, we could probably buy them.

...

We could call them "HMCS Rainbow" and "HMCS Niobe".  Think of the happy Conservatives.  Think of the happy Liberals.  >:D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on June 15, 2016, 11:54:35
Despite the great history connections with the RCN, the sailors of the modern HMCS Rainbow will curse you into the grave for that name...
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on June 15, 2016, 12:08:46
Especially if the march past was "In the Navy" by the Village People.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on June 15, 2016, 12:12:04
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Unicorn_(I72)

Better?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 15, 2016, 12:29:59
FYI, Chris: We already have an HMCS UNICORN. It's the Saskatoon Naval Reserve Division.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on June 15, 2016, 14:15:26
Doh!

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 16, 2016, 20:37:21
Is tomorrow a decision day on some element of the program?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MMSS on June 17, 2016, 06:20:58
Despite the great history connections with the RCN, the sailors of the modern HMCS Rainbow will curse you into the grave for that name...

The sailors of the future HMCS Queenston and HMCS Chateauguay are already facepalming.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 17, 2016, 10:02:51
Could be worse ... the name considered for the third of class is HMCS CRYSLER'S FARM.

I kid you not: A ship named after a farm ... so appropriate.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on June 17, 2016, 10:09:03
Despite the great history connections with the RCN, the sailors of the modern HMCS Rainbow will curse you into the grave for that name...

If a new HMCS "DOUBLE"  (https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi92Mqkka_NAhWBGz4KHQyqChUQtwIIHDAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOQSNhk5ICTI&usg=AFQjCNGtggetW517m57TplhcjN265J30Lg)RAINBOW is a modern 7000 tonne AAW destroyer, with solid combat capabilities, open architecture and room to grow then I would happily sail on her.  Though I would prefer HMCS BIFROST (http://norse-mythology.org/cosmology/bifrost/) if we're going with rainbow type names.

Could be worse ... the name considered for the third of class is HMCS CRYSLER'S FARM.
I kid you not: A ship named after a farm ... so appropriate.

A ship named after a battle, which was named for the farm  ...   :P  They should have named it STONEY CREEK or LUNDY'S LANE which were far more important battles IMHO, and also sound way better.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 17, 2016, 10:17:32
I know it's named after the battle near the farm, but you will be driving these ship's all over the planet: How many time will the crew have to explain why their ship's name refers to a farm?

At least the other two,  Queenston and Chateauguay, sound like town names - which they are - and which is a naming convention found in many navies, so it is not surprising to people to see that on a ship.

So, yes, Stoney Creek would have been better for the third one.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: YZT580 on June 17, 2016, 14:01:07
What's wrong with, the Nancy?  Great story of triumph over adversity and the original is still with us (sort of)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on June 17, 2016, 14:03:04
Since these are supply ships, why not "Loblaws" and "Metro"?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Dimsum on June 17, 2016, 14:53:53
Since these are supply ships, why not "Loblaws" and "Metro"?

Or "Real Canadian Superstore" on the Esq-based one and "Real Atlantic Superstore" for the Hfx-based one   :nod:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on June 28, 2016, 14:58:17
Well this came out of left field a bit:  http://www.rheinmetall.ca/en/rheinmetall_canada/publicrelations_1/news_1/2016_05_25_cansec_mf_star_elta.php
 (http://www.rheinmetall.ca/en/rheinmetall_canada/publicrelations_1/news_1/2016_05_25_cansec_mf_star_elta.php)

And some analysis on the CASR site:  http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-canadian-surface-combatant-elta.htm (http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-canadian-surface-combatant-elta.htm)

Of note CASR completely screws up the difference between AESA and PESA radar.  The AN/SPY-1 is a PESA radar.  The new AN/SPY-3 is AESA IIRC.

I wonder if this is aimed at the gov't selection or the eventual winner.  We still don't really know how exactly the ship will be designed but all indications are that the bidder shows up with a complete combat systems package for us to chose from.

Overall it really depends on the overall missile/radar/combat package together.  If you go the SM2, ESSM route you need a fire control radar of some type.  That can be from a AN/SPG-62 type system  or a STIR like the US or Canada respectively.  Other option is an APAR type system with interrupted wave illumination like the Dutch, Germans, Danish.  If you go the Aster route (with PAAMS or something similar) system fire control radar is not required so you just need volume search radars.  Also you need to decide how many enemy aircraft you want to engage at a time and how you want that engagement to be organized, which would change the system combination you are using.

It's not an easy decision and I'm not sure if there is any domestic doctrine that would help the navy decide one way or the other.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 28, 2016, 17:46:31
One has heard the Pentagon, esp. NORTHCOM, would like the CSCs to have a missile defence capability:

Quote
...
SM-3 Cooperative Development Program is the joint U.S.-Japan development of a 21-inch diameter variant of the SM-3 missile, designated SM-3 Block IIA, to defeat longer range ballistic missiles. Deployment begins in 2018.

Future Capabilities

Engagement of longer range ballistic missiles.
http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html

Compatible with the air defence role for CSCs?

Mark Collins
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on June 28, 2016, 17:59:07
I'd like to know the range of the Aegis systems to compare with the 2000km Ballistic Missile detection range of the Smart-L.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/smart-l-ewc

http://www.janes.com/article/58958/smart-l-ewc-radar-produces-first-air-picture

They now have developed a data-link that allows the Smart-L/APAR system to work with the SM3.

http://defense-update.com/20130311_integrating-european-radars-with-aegissm-3-missile-defenses.html
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 20, 2016, 16:16:21
RN Type 26 likely competitor for CSC design--note Russian subs at end:

Quote
Crucial fleet of global-combat frigates is indefinitely delayed
Type 26 navy frigates do not have go-ahead, MoD says amid budget pressures, technical problems and jobs fears

A new fleet of frigates, described as “global combat ships” designed to play crucial roles, has been delayed indefinitely, the Ministry of Defence has said in testy exchanges with MPs over huge financial and technical problems facing the navy’s surface vessels.

Delays in building the Type 26 frigates – a project promised by David Cameron before the 2014 Scottish independence referendum – is threatening shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde in Scotland.

The project’s problems come on top of serious mechanical failures in the navy’s new fleet of Type 45 destroyers. Key tasks of the navy’s frigates and destroyers include protecting two new large aircraft carriers now being assembled in Rosyth as well as Trident nuclear weapons submarines approaching and leaving their base on the Clyde.
Destroyers will break down if sent to Middle East, admits Royal Navy
Read more

“I can’t give you a time or a date,” Tony Douglas, the MoD’s top official responsible for military equipment, said on Wednesday after he was asked by MPs on the Commons defence committee when the frigate design would be approved. “It could be next year.” Harriet Baldwin, a new junior defence minister, told the MPs: “We do not know yet.”..

The number of planned new frigates has already been cut from 13 to eight, though the MoD has the option to build five smaller and cheaper general-purpose vessels. One of the problems is how to make the frigates as quiet as possible to make it harder for them to be detected by Russian submarines…”
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/navy-fleet-global-combat-frigates-type-26-indefinitely-delayed-mod-mps-clyde-shipbuilding

Those Russian subs should be a major worry for the RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatants too:

Quote
USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on July 20, 2016, 17:35:05
I get the sense that part of the evolving Brexit strategy involves taking the 350 MUKP per week that was going to the EU for allocation and investing a significant portion of it in increased Defence capabilities.

The rest will go directly to farmers to continue their EU subsidies, to the NHS and to Education.

The recent vote on Trident Renewal I see as an interesting gambit going into the Brexit negotiations.  It was not strictly necessary as it required no new money to be immediately voted.  It had an interesting advantage, from the Tory point of view, of discomfiting Labour.  But I think the real purpose going into the EU negotiations was to remind the Euros that the UK has nukes, and a PM with a trigger and a willingness to use them, and they do not.    The French being an entity unto themselves.

Kind of like walking into a room, putting your gun on the table and then offering to start negotiations.  A point probably not lost on the Poles or the Americans.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on July 21, 2016, 00:51:31
RN Type 26 likely competitor for CSC design--note Russian subs at end:

Those Russian subs should be a major worry for the RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatants too:

Mark
Ottawa

I think that it has to be operational to be a candidate.  This seems to remove it.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on July 22, 2016, 12:29:13
 RE the Type 26 :
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3d64c74a-c94e-4864-9d3d-446e57500a29

In written form :
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/defence-committee/naval-procurement-type-26-and-type-45/oral/35261.html

Excerpt from above :
Quote
The design, as I indicated before, factually, is approximately 60% complete at the moment. There is a programme, obviously, to close out. There is a big part of that in the compartmentalisation of the ship’s internal structure and the manner in which many of the communications systems are completed and integrated

The T26 is not going to be hitting water anytime soon.....2025 at the earliest is my guess.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on July 28, 2016, 15:03:46
I'm not sure if I'd place money on OMT, Navantia, or DCNS (my personal favourite).
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 28, 2016, 16:05:03
Fincanteri will be looking for work for its yards, not ours.

I would like to see a variant of the F125 built by TK (apparently a 7200 tonne frigate!!! :))  with a little more punch such as at least 2 and preferably 4 MK 57 VLS tucked in wherever they might fit best.  Keep the OM 127mm and buy the Vulcano rounds, and that would be one mighty tough ship.

 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 28, 2016, 16:45:15
Oh, oh-IP glitch--trust in Irving?

Quote
Backroom battle underway over new frigate design data
Geek wars: Ottawa faces revolt among ship designers over intellectual property demand

A key behind-the-scenes battle, which could affect the future of the Trudeau government's multi-billion dollar frigate replacement program for decades, has been fought this week in the back rooms of Ottawa.

It relates to an overarching demand by National Defence and Public Services for ship designers to hand over virtually all their intellectual property data for the complex combat systems that would be installed on the warships.

A copy of the draft request for proposals, obtained by CBC News, shows the federal government is asking companies competing to design Canada's next generation of warships for all their foreground and background data.

The government will be the owner of the information — including critical software coding — but will license it to Irving Shipbuilding, the prime contractor on the project...

A series of closed-door meetings took place this week involving federal officials and Irving representatives. Another series of meetings will take place in Halifax on Aug. 15-16 with ship designers who want to bid on the Canadian Surface Combatant program, which is expected to cost $30 billion or more.

Among the companies in line to provide an off-the-shelf design include British-based BAE Systems Inc.; DCNS, the French warship-maker; and U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.
High stakes for taxpayers

The intellectual property issue is "huge," according to several government and industry sources who spoke to CBC News on background because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.

The data is crucial not only for ship construction, but for the lucrative long-term maintenance contracts that will follow.

If the government doesn't get the negotiation just right, it could cost taxpayers untold hundreds of millions of dollars down the road in licencing fees, and even restrict the military's ability to update and use its own equipment...

The fear among bidders is not necessarily what Irving might do with data as much as who among the shipyard's partners and consultants —  including the U.S. naval warship architecture firm Gibbs & Cox — will have access to the licenced information [emphasis added].

In a statement, Irving Shipbuilding said it was committed to safeguarding the data.

"For the CSC program, discussions with Canada have only contemplated that any long-term IP rights will flow to Canada, with Irving Shipbuilding having a right to use CSC IP to the extent required to satisfy its CSC design and build contracts," said spokesman Sean Lewis.

"There has been nothing discussed that would put Irving Shipbuilding at an unfair advantage or unique position during the operational life of the ships."..
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-data-1.3697942

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on July 28, 2016, 20:11:30
IP issues?

Colt - Diemaco?  Or am I mis-remembering something?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on July 28, 2016, 23:28:12
Hmm. Do we own all the IP for the Cyclone?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on July 29, 2016, 07:34:44
We have had our own software support section for many years.  Think back to Paramax days.

Having the ability to upgrade/modify our own software has been a critical piece in keeping the old CCS on the Frigates (Pre-HCM Ops Room stuff) running and working with newer systems.

If we didn't have that ability, we'd have had to go to the software company dozens of times over the years to help us incorporate various upgrades to our systems. 

Retaining that capability (in terms of the software support at least) is, in my opinion, a critical point.

Intellectual property rights for hull designs and forms is probably of much lesser importance, but IP Rights for points that are 'Canadianized' as part of the design process is probably a good idea.

Thinking back to the old Diemaco/Colt issues, our original C-7s were Colt Model 715's, and we paid a bunch of money for 'design' features that already existed but we were the first to integrate them into that model of rifle.

NS
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on July 29, 2016, 14:33:32
A critical component of software management is competent IT personnel - people that are intimately familiar with the electronics and the stuff it is supposed to control.

Who is better prepared to manage that - technicians responsible for a fleet of 10 or technicians responsible for a fleet of 1000?

Not saying that CAF personnel, or Paramax personnel aren't up to the task.  Just saying that Lockmart people will be doing more, more often - practice.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on July 30, 2016, 06:48:52
It wasn't (and won't be) the technicians that are responsible, it's the Software support cell, which has a bunch of programmers and folks that have probably been very busy checking and verifying and 'beta testing' updates to the new system.

They were the same programmers that did it for years with the old CCS.

That said, we don't have the same version as anyone else in the world.  It's a Canadianized software variant that's specific to us.  So we have about 15 sets of this software to support, total, in the world.  Having a few of our own software engineers involved is not a bad thing.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Half Full on August 10, 2016, 12:41:38
That "software support cell" was not CAF/DND personnel.  It was Lockheed Martin personnel who won the ISS contract.   We were entitled to so many version changes/year at a certain $ amount. When it came up for renewal, MDA bid as well...but lost.  The same will be true for CSC...that's why we need the IP...so that any company that meets the requirements can bid to provide the ongoing support, thus ensuring we get the best product for the best value for Canadian Taxpayers.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on August 10, 2016, 12:51:44
......that's why we need the IP...so that any company that meets the requirements can bid to provide the ongoing support, thus ensuring we get the best product for the best value for Canadian Taxpayers.

Disagree on that.

Once you have committed to a manufacturer you are committed to their solution.  If your concern is the rapid pace of change and the speed at which things become obsolete then you need to put that into your business model and plan to turn over your capital stock more frequently.

Don't plan on upgrading old kit.  Plan on buying new kit and selling old kit (if you can).
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on August 11, 2016, 12:27:46
Maybe ships are different?  ???

GoC never required provision of IP to Canada for C-17, C-130J or CH-147F.  Perhaps the In-Service Support Capability Framework (ISSCF) mandated a contracted ISS capability that ensured/ensures the provision of in-service support for these aircraft, without DND itself needing to do any specific engineering (hardware or software) work that would require IP?

Does the question as to how much would an FMF do for deep maintenance/repair, vice having the ISS contractor conduct the required services come into play here?

Regards,
G2G
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Half Full on August 11, 2016, 12:28:59
That would not be a very cost effective plan.  Why change your entire Command and Control System when all you need to do is upgrade the software? That's one of the advantages of high tech gear nowadays...we can improve the performance simply by upgrading its software.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Half Full on August 11, 2016, 12:29:44
that should have read "Command and control system"...sorry.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on August 11, 2016, 12:36:31
that should have read "Command and control system"...sorry.

You can edit posts after they've been posted....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on August 11, 2016, 12:41:21
That would not be a very cost effective plan.  Why change your entire combat control system when all you need to do is upgrade the software? That's one of the advantages of high tech gear nowadays...we can improve the performance simply by upgrading its software.
Upgrades are definitely the way to go, suppliers are constantly working on upgrades, it's what keeps them current.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 11, 2016, 12:47:41
Actually, Good2golf, the better analogy would be with the weapons and sensor systems integration on fighter planes rather than the various avionics on transport planes. I believe that the control of IP for the combat system of the CF-18 replacement is in fact, an issue for that very reason.

On the ship, all of the control of the weapons systems, such as they are and will be through the life of the ship, and all sensors and other information sources, are integrated into the Command and Control System software. That software almost constantly needs upgrading and maintenance (i.e. deleting past portions of code no longer required, or modified to increase processing speed, etc.)throughout the life of the system. And because such systems are open architecture nowadays, there will be numerous additions and deletions throughout the lifetime of the ship, as weapons or sensors are either replaced by a different one or are upgraded. All these require access to the full software and the authority to change it at our will, not that of the provider of the software. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on August 11, 2016, 14:27:27
OGBD, thanks for that.  Interestingly, all of the transport (FW/RW) types I mentioned are operated within "joint user group" constructs, and so there are economies of scale amongst users and the OEM as well as solidarity amongst the user Nations that drives responsiveness from the OEM(s) to also comply with STANAGs and JUG agreements/policies/etc...  Even the CF-18 support world currently has a significant interaction with the Boeing and NAVAIR folks, in addition to the support with LM and L3 MAS, and Future Fighter Capability, whatever it will be, would likely have a relatively robust arrangement of in-service support for all aspects of the weapon system, h/w and s/w alike.

So then does the RCN intend to program the CSC C2 system on its own then upon "release-to-service"?  Does the USN, for example, program all its ships?  I thought LMCO was significantly involved with ongoing support of AEGIS and other such systems.  RCN securing IP and going it alone seems to be a direction opposite towards the trend for formalized ongoing/continuous ISS relationships between GoC and respective combat system OEMs.

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on August 11, 2016, 15:08:42
I just want to jump in and state that when I was talking about replacing obsolescent kit rather than upgrading it I was talking about hardware and not software.

With respect to software - I am unaware of any software system that is sufficiently stable that it does not require a dedicated nursemaid. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 11, 2016, 15:52:27
I don't necessarily mean that Canada will be going it alone G2G, though we do have CSEs that are quite competent and capable, and MARS officers trained to program mission profiles into the systems.

What I am aiming at, to give an instance would be: Say we decide at some point, for reasons x, y or z, to change for the latest Exocet SSMs instead of Harpoons. Some upgrading of the system is required as a result. But LockMart, who has the in-service contract, is not trusted by MBDA because of  trade secrets and MBDA tells the RCN that they will do the integration work themselves. The last thing you want is LM telling Canada "Nay! Nay! I own the IP on the CCS and you are not touching it."

That's the type of thing I am looking at.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on August 11, 2016, 21:49:53
Fair enough, OGBD, but then a change from Harpoon to Exocet would have to be worth the USN likely I inviting us to contribute to/lead numbered TFs, non?

Yes it LMCO, but they did DOD's bidding to build AEGIS and I'm sure Uncle Sam would ensure LM played nice (if we chose not to turf AGM-84 for Sex-o-cet, that is... ;)

Cheers
G2G
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on August 11, 2016, 22:52:11
That "software support cell" was not CAF/DND personnel.  It was Lockheed Martin personnel who won the ISS contract.   We were entitled to so many version changes/year at a certain $ amount. When it came up for renewal, MDA bid as well...but lost.  The same will be true for CSC...that's why we need the IP...so that any company that meets the requirements can bid to provide the ongoing support, thus ensuring we get the best product for the best value for Canadian Taxpayers.

I will disagree with your point here.

I'm talking the old CCS, not CMS.

There were uniformed personnel working on the 4th floor of S-82, and there are DND employees working there.  Bill M comes to mind particularly.

I do agree though that we need the IP, not so much because of the ability to change companies mid-stream, more to have some control over the software that is "Canadianized".

NS
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on August 11, 2016, 23:16:24
Sorry, but I am failing to understand.  As usual.

Under what circumstance would LockMart (or any other company) supply you the details of their software with the understanding that at some point in time you will let General Dynamics (or any company) see and manipulate their software?

Or are you saying that the CAF will retain that capability in-house? 

In the event of a General Dynamics missile self-launching from a CAF ship operating a LockMart Control System that has been locally integrated by CAF personnel who are you going to call?

I have had enough experience trying to determine whether integration means a dry-contact, rs-232, USB or the flavour of the month bus, let alone integrating the control software, to be leary of anybody suggesting that a group of bodies operating on a two year career progression are not going to run into problems.  Especially if they are only operating a small fleet with infrequent changes.


Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 12, 2016, 09:05:14
In the event of a General Dynamics missile self-launching from a CAF ship operating a LockMart Control System that has been locally integrated by CAF personnel who are you going to call?

Well, Ghostbusters most likely.

I know that there is a fear out there that we are getting close to "terminators" for some robotics military systems, but I have yet to see a naval weapons system or command and control system get up, walk to the safes, retrieve the keys, insert them and turn the missile system on, all by itself.  ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Half Full on August 12, 2016, 10:24:47
I will disagree with your point here.

I'm talking the old CCS, not CMS.

There were uniformed personnel working on the 4th floor of S-82, and there are DND employees working there.  Bill M comes to mind particularly.


We used to have MARS- E who were software programmers...but we got rid of that sub-occupation years ago.  Any uniformed personnel who were working within S-82 since around 2000 were supporting the LM staff and doing very little if any coding.  As Tactics Staff we worked directly with the LM personnel who were resident in S-82 to update/upgrade the versions of the CCS.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 13, 2016, 17:54:41
Has the RFP for ship design been released yet? Per the last media release in June, it was supposed to be released this summer.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 15, 2016, 13:14:07
Should at least some CSCs have ballistic missile defence capability?  One suspects US NORTHCOM/NORAD (their side) would much like:

Report: South Korea Wants BMD Capability for Guided Missile Destroyers
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/15/report-south-korea-wants-bmd-capability-guided-missile-destroyers

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on August 15, 2016, 14:00:32
Should at least some CSCs have ballistic missile defence capability?  One suspects US NORTHCOM/NORAD (their side) would much like:

Report: South Korea Wants BMD Capability for Guided Missile Destroyers
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/15/report-south-korea-wants-bmd-capability-guided-missile-destroyers

Mark
Ottawa
If we have the APAR/Smart-L combination, both of which are currently being updated or have been updated, then at any time we could add the SM3 or we could direct missiles fired from other ships that carry the SM3.

http://missilethreat.com/raytheon-proves-apar-communications-for-sm-3-missile-in-netherlands-test/

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/netherlands/defence/press-release/excellent-performance-hms-de-zeven-provincien-international-0
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on August 15, 2016, 21:12:52
We used to have MARS- E who were software programmers...but we got rid of that sub-occupation years ago.  Any uniformed personnel who were working within S-82 since around 2000 were supporting the LM staff and doing very little if any coding.  As Tactics Staff we worked directly with the LM personnel who were resident in S-82 to update/upgrade the versions of the CCS.

As someone who worked 3rd floor of S-82, maybe things on the 4th floor (and in the CSTC) worked differently from how I understood them to?

I was under the impression that the personnel in there were DND with the occasional CAF Lt(N) in there for seasoning with their salt-n-peppers.

NS
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 22, 2016, 12:22:36
Irving certainly seems to have a lot of keys to the kingdom:

Quote
Irving Halifax Has Lead Evaluating RCN Canadian Surface Combatant Design/Weapons Systems Bids
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/mark-collins-irving-halifax-has-lead-evaluating-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-designweapons-systems-bids/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on August 22, 2016, 12:35:33
Irving certainly seems to have a lot of keys to the kingdom:

Mark
Ottawa

My first reaction, was "why the hell is a private company evaluating who can provide the best warship for the people of Canada," but after reading the article, I think we have the checks in place to have this done well... or "well enough"...
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on September 26, 2016, 14:44:52
I have a couple of conceptual questions about the CSC design that perhaps some experienced RCN types could answer.

The CSC program calls for the design to replace the AAD/Command capability of the Iroquis-Class destroyers in addition to replacing the Halifax-Class patrol frigates.  My understanding is that there is to be as much commonality as possible between the two variants.  How much of a driver of the overall design is the AAD portion of the requirement? 

For example, out of necessity due to the nature of the specialized AAD equipment (radars, types of missile launchers, etc.), is the structural design of the ship significantly different than for a ship only requiring self-defence capabilities.  Greater beam and/or draft to offset a larger mast and more topside weight, etc.?

Secondly, is there a difference between the performance of a given missile being directed by an AAD warship vs. a non-AAD warship in self defence?  For example, is an ESSM (or SM-2, or RAM, etc.) fired and directed by a Halifax-Class frigate in self defence less likely to hit an incoming missile that and ESSM (or SM-2, or RAM, etc.)  fired and directed by an AAD warship in self defence?  Or is it more the number of incoming targets that an AAD warship can engage in addition to being able to defend other ships in addition to your own?

Thanks,

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on September 26, 2016, 15:23:37
I have a couple of conceptual questions about the CSC design that perhaps some experienced RCN types could answer.

I was working on a long response to each of your questions, but I quickly came to the conclusion that there are just too many variables, and I could list a lot of them out, but it's mostly speculation. However, most modern weapons and sensors have the same space and energy requirements relative to one another (rail gun excluded). A Mk41 VLS can fire SM-2s as well as it can fire ESSM, SMART-L  is as big as a S1850M, a SAMPSON takes up as much space as a EMPAR. However, an AD version might need more of these, and the more advanced version might need better cooling and more processors. As such, I would imagine that the AD version could be built longer than the GP version, incorporating an extra hull section somewhere in the middle to house the extra cooling units and/or processors.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on September 26, 2016, 15:29:02
Thanks...I'm sure that's enough detail for a novice like me.  Was curious about how the AAD requirement might limit the number of existing designs that might be options for the CSC.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on September 26, 2016, 15:37:12
Thanks...I'm sure that's enough detail for a novice like me.  Was curious about how the AAD requirement might limit the number of existing designs that might be options for the CSC.

Well that also depends, would it be completely off the shelf, or are we just taking a design and modifying it?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on September 26, 2016, 16:50:08
Well that also depends, would it be completely off the shelf, or are we just taking a design and modifying it?

My understanding was that the revised procurement process was calling for an existing, off-the-shelf design.  I read that as an existing hull form, with possible modifications to accommodate the systems suite offered but not things like lengthening hulls, new propulsion systems, etc. but I could be wrong on that.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on October 01, 2016, 09:20:27
Would re-using the radars from the Halifax-Class Frigates be an option for the GP versions of the CSC?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 01, 2016, 10:31:06
I doubt it- They are long gone to wherever old radars go to die. Besides, that version of the SPS 49 was getting pretty long in the tooth.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Dimsum on October 01, 2016, 13:01:25
I doubt it- They are long gone to wherever old radars go to die.

Beside the CANEX in Naden?   >:D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 01, 2016, 14:39:20
I doubt it- They are long gone to wherever old radars go to die. Besides, that version of the SPS 49 was getting pretty long in the tooth.

That radar didn't survive the HCM project and was replaced by newer, better gear.  Besides, the CPF's will still be using their "new" radars when the CSC finally gets into production and they'll want the latest and greatest that fit (budget/training/capability) for the CSC.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on October 02, 2016, 12:24:25
That radar didn't survive the HCM project and was replaced by newer, better gear.  Besides, the CPF's will still be using their "new" radars when the CSC finally gets into production and they'll want the latest and greatest that fit (budget/training/capability) for the CSC.

If bidders are are expected to be submitting their proposals (in 2017?) for MOTS solutions are we likely to be offered systems much better than the SMART-S, Sea Giraffe, CEROS 200 systems currently installed on the Halifax-class for the GP versions of the CSC? 

If the new ships were to be one-for-one replacements of Halifax-class ships and the radars were to be re-used, could that leave a bidder proposing that more money to provide upgraded radars for the AAD versions? 

Is re-using a radar system from another ship even an option?  I can't say I've every read anything about it.  Do radar systems have a lifespan that would rule out their being used beyond a certain number of years? 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Furniture on October 03, 2016, 00:31:08
I believe part of the answer to your question lies in the fact that the proposals are for both the hull and the combat systems. Each of the bidding companies have partnered with or produce their own preferred systems, so to use the CEROS or SMART-S would require more "Canadianizing" which goes against the idea of the project. My understanding is that the "Canadianiazing" would be restricted to things  hotel services, fire fighting equipment, etc...

Sticking to what is out there already in service might just save enough money for us to get all 15 of the proposed ships.





Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 03, 2016, 07:55:26
If bidders are are expected to be submitting their proposals (in 2017?) for MOTS solutions are we likely to be offered systems much better than the SMART-S, Sea Giraffe, CEROS 200 systems currently installed on the Halifax-class for the GP versions of the CSC? 

If the new ships were to be one-for-one replacements of Halifax-class ships and the radars were to be re-used, could that leave a bidder proposing that more money to provide upgraded radars for the AAD versions? 

Is re-using a radar system from another ship even an option?  I can't say I've every read anything about it.  Do radar systems have a lifespan that would rule out their being used beyond a certain number of years?

I'm afraid I am not of the Ops world and that is not my swim lane, so I am not able to comment with any expertise beyond what I have already put out.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on October 03, 2016, 11:28:10
I'm afraid I am not of the Ops world and that is not my swim lane, so I am not able to comment with any expertise beyond what I have already put out.  Sorry.

You don't even know how apt your choice of words was, do you?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 03, 2016, 12:48:04
You don't even know how apt your choice of words was, do you?

Not a clue.  DC is more my bag, or what happens when the Ops Room guys have a bad day, in someone else's swim lane,  I presume.    :nod:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on October 03, 2016, 15:04:43
Not a clue.  DC is more my bag, or what happens when the Ops Room guys have a bad day, in someone else's swim lane,  I presume.    :nod:

The new Combat Management System (CMS 330) displays threats as well as weapons assignment plans in horizontal bars known as "Swim Lanes", hence your aptly, albeit ignorantly, chosen wording.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 03, 2016, 15:10:15
The new Combat Management System (CMS 330) displays threats as well as weapons assignment plans in horizontal bars known as "Swim Lanes", hence your aptly, albeit ignorantly, chosen wording.

I'm allll about the ignorance.   ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 03, 2016, 15:18:35
The new Combat Management System (CMS 330) displays threats as well as weapons assignment plans in horizontal bars known as "Swim Lanes", hence your aptly, albeit ignorantly, chosen wording.

From time to time a thesaurus comes in handy.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GK .Dundas on October 03, 2016, 17:39:58
G2G


G+C, (No clue)

[/quote Most likely Gibbs and Cox  designed the world fastest ocean liner , just about every America's cup winner and some loveliest warships to grace the World's oceans.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: E.R. Campbell on October 13, 2016, 11:26:31
Slightly  :off topic: but ...

Some time ago I came across something that complained that "we" (which ever country it was) was building yet another light cruiser sized destroyer that was to be armed like a frigate. My assumption was, and remains, that the complainer was talking about conventional guns and was thinking of warships circa 1960:

          (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.readyayeready.com%2Fships%2Fcruiser%2Fontario.jpg&hash=0583c59a437a1dd05596221b93205684) (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hazegray.org%2Fnavhist%2Fcanada%2Fpostwar%2Fpreston%2Fville.jpg&hash=a87629ea0b7f36e66237d9dba7c65668)
                  HMCS Ontario a light cruiser that served in the RCN until 1958                HMCS Victoriaville, a Prestonian class frigate that served in the RCN until 1973
                                                                8,800 tons                                                                                                              2,300 tons

Now, when I was serving, back in the 1990s, I had a very useful, UNCLASS, graphic that showed a ship with several "domes" over it showing very approximate radar coverages ("ranged" by time) and weapon coverage, ranged by type: guns missiles, etc. It wasn't terribly accurate but I found it useful, especially when briefing non-military audiences, to explain why we needed what many said was so much (too much) radio spectrum to detect, identify, track and engage various types of targets at various ranges. I also had another graphic, from the USN, as I recall, that showed something similar but for a carrier task force and I used it to explain that we could and routinely did integrate radar signals and fire control systems from several ships to get a complete picture and to engage the right targets with the right weapons at the right time.

Two questions:

     1. Do graphics like those, updated to take account of the 20 years that have passed since I retired, still exist? and, if they exist at all

     2. Can someone share them here, or are they "for official use only?"

I'm a bit concerned that some (many) people do not grasp the fact that modern warships need to be bigger to accommodate modern missile systems with all the paraphernalia that they have, and that putting bloody great radar antennæ on masts requires some "mass" beneath them just to keep the whole damned shebang upright.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 13, 2016, 12:02:05
For those who know more than I do....

Will it not cost more to custom design-fabricate-test a 2nd variant of the CSC, rather than just upgrade the entire build to 1 variant?

This feels like a make work project for higher profit margins for the suppliers, rather than an astute use of funds.


Matthew.  :salute:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on October 13, 2016, 12:35:08
For those who know more than I do....

Will it not cost more to custom design-fabricate-test a 2nd variant of the CSC, rather than just upgrade the entire build to 1 variant?

This feels like a make work project for higher profit margins for the suppliers, rather than an astute use of funds.


Matthew.  :salute:

My impression is that the intended difference between the two versions is likely to be more about sensors and specific weapons loadouts rather than significant structural and mechanical design differences.

For example, the Iver Huitfeldt Class is an AAD design with APAR/Smart-L radar and 4 x Mk41 VLS (32 x SM-2) and 2 x Mk56 VLS (24 x ESSM) for Air Defence.  A GP/ASW version could be acheived without much major re-design by adding a Towed-Array Sonar, downgrading the radars to something more suited for self-defence (maybe same Smart-S combo as on the Absalon Class?), and maybe reducing the total number of missiles carried (2 x Mk41 and 2 x Mk56 VLS for 16 SM-2 and 24 x ESSM). 

I remember reading somewhere that the AA components of the Iver Huitfeldt Class (presumably both weapons and sensors?) accounted for 31% of the total cost of the vessels.  So "downgrading" it to a GP/ASW version should result in reduced costs for that version.

Personally I'd like to see a bit more customization between the two versions.  A GP/ASW version of the Iver Huitfeldt would be a pretty good replacement for the Halifax-Class frigates.  This ship is basically an Absalon class with 4 instead of 2 diesel engines, one less deck (the "Flex" deck removed) and a modified superstructure having a single helicopter hanger and smaller flight deck.  I'd put the Absalon topside (including the Flex deck) on the 4-diesel Iver Huitfeldt hull using the sensors and weapons of the latter to give it the AAD capability.  Having two helicopters and the Flex deck (for UUVs and UAVs) would make it an excellent ASW taskforce command ship and the Flex deck would allow it to be very useful for all kinds of other non-combat missions.  But i guess we'll just have to wait and see what is offered by the various bidders.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 14, 2016, 13:37:50
Just my  :2c:....

I think I'd rather accept (1) less ship and ensure the remainder are full-kitted for ASW and AAD, then have the extra ship with reduced spec's.

Should the SHTF (which is what we should be procuring for with frontline ships), I don't think a Russian sub would eye up a GP version and say "Well, that's not their ASW version, so we should probably just leave them alone as it wouldn't be fair if we torpedo'd them."  Alternatively a Russian Tu-160 isn't going to analyze radar signals and defer unloading AShM's because the target doesn't have the upgraded Air Defense Radar.

The only other caveat is I hope we design based on probability that both UAV's and UUV's will become an ever-larger part of the ships' sensor suite, and build-in hangar, launch & electrical power capacity to accommodate.


M.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 14, 2016, 13:55:59
So:

Proposing an alternate way of looking at naval life.

Instead of looking at sailors and hulls, how about looking at sensors and weapons first?

How many radar pickets does the government want, and in how many places, and for what duration?
How many sonar pickets?
How many sigint pickets?
How many OPs?

Next.

Having determined what sense capabilities are desired/required what does the Government propose to do with the information?

Send a strongly worded letter?
Make a large noise?
Bright light?
Send a Mountie?
Hog tie the miscreant?
Blow it out the water/sky?

How speedily and how often does it expect to do these things? 

What support is available to supply the capabilities by other means?  ie rapid delivery of missiles/torpedoes/mounties from shore and/or air?

Having defined these things then consider the number of hulls, and the size of the hulls, necessary to provide the capabilities.

Finally decide on how few sailors you put to sea at one time to manage those hulls.

And not all sailors have to be at sea, nor do all hulls have to have sailors.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 14, 2016, 14:10:30

The answer to your questions are easy. I put them in yellow in your post below:

So:

Proposing an alternate way of looking at naval life.

Instead of looking at sailors and hulls, how about looking at sensors and weapons first?
That's usually how it's done - hence the determined need for two types of CSC's an AAD/Command version and a GP version.

How many radar pickets does the government want, and in how many places, and for what duration?
None: That is not how Navies work.
How many sonar pickets?
None: That is not how Navies work.
How many sigint pickets?
None: That is not how Navies work.
How many OPs?
None: That is not how Navies work.
Next.


I think I am wasting my time some times in here, trying to explain to Army guys that we don't work and fight along the Army way or approach. We do not guard lines or borders. We operate fully in the great common that is the sea, with a primary purpose of protecting Canadian interest thereon.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on October 14, 2016, 14:12:19
You will never get a straight answer from a government about what they want to do, not to mention want and need are different. I just saw a lecture where the Maggie demanded that the First Sea Lord send the Ark Royal to the Falklands immediately, she had to be reminded that they had scrapped it already.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on October 14, 2016, 14:25:39
Are you suggesting a larger number of cheaper, more specialized platforms to perform each role? 

For the price of a single multi-purpose frigate could you instead have a couple of maritime surveillance aircraft and an AEW aircraft supported by a bomb truck or two carrying a bunch of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, a "lilly pad" ship with a towed-array sonar and a pair of ASW helos and UUVs, a flex-deck corvette or multi-mission vessel with a helo or two and a couple of RHIBS for some embarked troops, etc.?

Maybe by separating individual sensor/weapons/effects you can cover more area than a single warship and you may have better overall survivablity as the loss of any one platform doesn't hurt you as much as the loss of one warship would.

However, does the cost of supporting such a wide variety of different platforms actually end up costing you more (especially in terms of overhead) than a single warship having all these capabilities?  And are these individual platforms on their own (and even in concert) going to be able to provide you with better results than the all-in-one ship? 

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 14, 2016, 14:36:44
The answer to your questions are easy. I put them in yellow in your post below:

I think I am wasting my time some times in here, trying to explain to Army guys that we don't work and fight along the Army way or approach. We do not guard lines or borders. We operate fully in the great common that is the sea, with a primary purpose of protecting Canadian interest thereon.

I got it.  You cruise around aimlessly on the briny until you bump into something.  Upon hearing the bump you then rush to plug the hole and then try to figure out what to shoot at. 

That about it?   [:D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 14, 2016, 14:38:42
Are you suggesting a larger number of cheaper, more specialized platforms to perform each role? 

For the price of a single multi-purpose frigate could you instead have a couple of maritime surveillance aircraft and an AEW aircraft supported by a bomb truck or two carrying a bunch of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, a "lilly pad" ship with a towed-array sonar and a pair of ASW helos and UUVs, a flex-deck corvette or multi-mission vessel with a helo or two and a couple of RHIBS for some embarked troops, etc.?

Maybe by separating individual sensor/weapons/effects you can cover more area than a single warship and you may have better overall survivablity as the loss of any one platform doesn't hurt you as much as the loss of one warship would.

However, does the cost of supporting such a wide variety of different platforms actually end up costing you more (especially in terms of overhead) than a single warship having all these capabilities?  And are these individual platforms on their own (and even in concert) going to be able to provide you with better results than the all-in-one ship?

Short form: Yep.  That is the approach.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 14, 2016, 14:55:29
I got it.  You cruise around aimlessly on the briny until you bump into something.  Upon hearing the bump you then rush to plug the hole and then try to figure out what to shoot at. 

That about it?   [:D

Annnnd we have a winner here.   ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on October 14, 2016, 16:37:34
hey it's a proven method (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2DXOxH9bsqg%2FTWO_oVW8gJI%2FAAAAAAAAEUI%2FAheYeEOPC0Q%2Fs1600%2FHMS%252BHarvester%252B5.jpg&hash=8ba68ec47d8cf9e01baa97a2cdb5a8ec)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: quadrapiper on October 15, 2016, 17:52:21
hey it's a proven method (https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-2DXOxH9bsqg%2FTWO_oVW8gJI%2FAAAAAAAAEUI%2FAheYeEOPC0Q%2Fs1600%2FHMS%252BHarvester%252B5.jpg&hash=8ba68ec47d8cf9e01baa97a2cdb5a8ec)
Need to come up with something like the ice-resistance/breaking scale for subs for the RFQ. "Must be able to ram five (5) Kilo-class without significan dockyard time?"
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: GR66 on October 17, 2016, 14:46:16
Short form: Yep.  That is the approach.

I understand the thought process behind this approach, but I think that the logic likely falls apart where the budget meets the area of operations.  I'm not sure how much of a cost savings (if any) you will actually get by splitting up the various sensors and weapons into separate platforms once you factor in the operating costs of purchasing and maintaining a bunch of different systems. 

Let's be extremely generous and assume that you could have double the number of each sensor type by splitting them up on to cheaper, single-purpose platforms.  It may sound like a huge capability increase (double the capability) but in real terms when you're talking about trying to cover an area the size say of the North Atlantic is it really a meaningful increase when we're talking about something like 20 vs 10 sensors in that area?  What about responding to any threats that you do locate?  What are the chances that you'll have the right type of weapon platform nearby to respond to what you detect?  If you plan on positioning weapons and sensors together in teams to avoid that problem aren't you really defeating the purpose of splitting the platforms in the first place?

If we were looking at a situation where we could afford dozens and dozens of UUVs, UAVs, Aerostats, "lilly pad" ships, missile-carriers, cheap ISR aircraft, arsenal ships and planes, etc. then I think what you are proposing could possibly work.  But if we can only afford a handful of each type of platform due to our budget limitations I think you risk not being able to respond to threats as effectively as with a smaller number of more robust platforms.

That doesn't mean that there aren't novel approaches (including smaller/cheaper elements to supplement the higher-end assets) that we could take to maximize our capabilities.  I think even the USN and RN with the issues with their Zumwalt and Type 45/26 classes are realizing that ultra-expensive, do-everything platforms aren't a feasible solution (even moreso with the RCN I'd say), so I think Canada should be more open-minded about possible solutions for our fleet.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 19, 2016, 12:23:25
Just in terms of sensor distribution, I would love to see what the CSC project would morph into if the RCN were allowed to take direct ownership of the Aurora's and have the right to procure and manage all aircraft/uav's (potentially systems like Tritons or Guardians) in the offshore environment. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on October 19, 2016, 15:02:06
The Royal Canadian Coastal Command?  [:D
Maybe we can get Viking to build us some flying boats.... :nod:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/97/1b/d5/971bd5efe4736ebcff222f0b314f7410.jpg)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 19, 2016, 15:17:27
Could RN Type 26 delays do in as candidate for RCN CSC?

Quote
Defence Minister Tight-Lipped On New Frigates' Time-Frame

A defence minister has refused to say when the next generation of Royal Navy warships will be built, amid warnings that axing them would be an "unforgivable betrayal".
 
Tory frontbencher Harriet Baldwin was unmoved by calls from SNP and Labour MPs to confirm a time-frame around cutting steel on Britain's eight new Type 26 frigates, insisting it would be "inappropriate" to give key dates as negotiations continue.
 
The ships are due to be built on the Clyde in Scotland, with SNP defence spokesman Brendan O'Hara predicting construction of the ships would not start until summer 2017 or possibly later...
http://forces.tv/03674409

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fforces.tv%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fcover_image%2Fpublic%2FType%252026%2520Global%2520Combat%2520Ship_0.jpg%3Fitok%3Dzt4twM08&hash=53a13d8ee981a2763854207230181d02)

Mark
Ottawa
 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 19, 2016, 15:42:06
With the falling British Pound, I'm betting they want it 'in mix' to drive all the competitors to ensure their pencils are as sharp as possible....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 19, 2016, 19:42:45
With as much Euro kit as there is likely to be aboard them, possibly even the steel,  and with labour (sweat equity) being a national thing, it may be that Canada could build them for less than the Brits because of that weak pound.

While I prefer the Danes or the Dutch my money with this bunch is on the Fremms.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 19, 2016, 20:41:20
FREMM is sweet.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 19, 2016, 20:55:08
FREMMs and F35s?

Straddling the Atlantic?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 19, 2016, 20:59:58
And depending on how many CSCs (whatever design) can be afforded, perhaps a few smaller frigates or OPVs--e.g.?

Quote
France Unveils New FTI Frigate Designed for the French Navy and Export

French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian unveiled the design for a new intermediate frigate Tuesday at the Euronaval trade show, and told reporters a budget of €3.8 billion ($4.2 billion) has been set to build five of the ships for the French Navy.

The Frégate de Taille Intermédiaire (FTI) is intended as a replacement for the fleet’s Lafayette-class frigates beginning in 2023. The government is also anxious that the design can be adapted for the international export market.

The ship’s design had been a well-kept secret until the unveiling of the model at noon in front of the defense ministry stand. The 4,200-ton frigate is a fresh design, different from the preceding Fremm multimission frigates, and features an unusual “inverted bow” intended to improve seakeeping in high sea states...

The multimission FTI frigate will carry a 125-strong crew – including a 15-person aviation detachment and with accommodation for another 50 -- displace 4,250 tons and come with a price tag 20-30 percent less than the 6,000-ton Fremm, which has entered service with the French Navy with more units under construction by DCNS. The ship has an overall length of 122.25 m and a beam of 17.7 m.

DCNS separately announced the export version of the intermediate frigate, dubbed Belh@rra...
http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-unveils-new-fti-frigate-ship-is-designed-for-the-french-navy-and-for-export

Image:

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffr.dcnsgroup.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F10%2Fbelhrra-by-dcns.jpg&hash=8e788b71c326d276500cdc3dd2cf6322)
http://en.dcnsgroup.com/news/dcns-devoile-belhrra-la-fregate-numerique-de-nouvelle-generation/

Mark
Ottawa



..
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 19, 2016, 21:44:48
Is not allowed.

Is not in water....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 19, 2016, 21:50:50
Chris Pook: Was suggesting well down the road--FTI or something else around that size--when money running out stifles planned CSC numbers.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 19, 2016, 22:11:12
Seen Mark:

Forgot the smiley.

I am of two minds on the acquisition strategy of only buying something that is already floating.

Plus:  It is already floating and it works and it is ready to build.

Minus:  This is Canada.  When it is built it is questionable if it will work, or if it will float.  The one thing for sure is that given our delivery schedule it will be a forty year old design when the last one hits the water.

Christ! Someone must have upped my dosage of cynical pills recently.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on October 20, 2016, 10:05:20
Seen Mark:

Forgot the smiley.

I am of two minds on the acquisition strategy of only buying something that is already floating.

Plus:  It is already floating and it works and it is ready to build.

Minus:  This is Canada.  When it is built it is questionable if it will work, or if it will float.  The one thing for sure is that given our delivery schedule it will be a forty year old design when the last one hits the water.

Christ! Someone must have upped my dosage of cynical pills recently.

When I first saw MarkOttawa's post, I thought, "Wait... that can't be right. They are replacing the Lafayette's? They just build the damn things!"

So I checked.

Lafayette class: Commissioned in 1996, being replaced in 2023.
Halifax class: Commissioned in 1992, being replaced in... 2030?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on October 20, 2016, 11:15:28
Hull design is not going to change remarkable over the build life of the ships. The propulsion, weapon and sensor systems will change considerably though. Ensuring the design can be easily retrofitted (cable runs, hard points, ammunition storage and lifts) is important. Some thought to be able to replace significant portions of the power plants and drive system would be nice, but worse comes to worse, cut the ship in half and replace them.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 20, 2016, 12:43:04
So I checked.

Lafayette class: Commissioned in 1996, being replaced in 2023.
Halifax class: Commissioned in 1992, being replaced in... 2030?

Good lord, Lumber! Are you telling me you just realized that for every class of warship Canada commissioned since WWII, our allies have gone through commissioning two or more different class of similar warship?

Look just at the Brits:

While we had the Saint-Laurent's (all categories) in commission, they went through three different batches of Leander's, the type 21, type 22 frigates, and began commissioning the type 23 frigates two years before we commissioned the first Halifax. With the last type 23 commissioning in 2002, why do you think that everyone in the U.K. is clamouring that they are way behind the 8-ball with the type 26's!

While we had the IROs in commission, they went through the type 82, type 42 batch 1, 2 and 3 and type 45 destroyers, not to mention that the batch 2 County class destroyers were only 2 to 6 years old when the IRO's commissioned in 1972.

The Americans and the Germans are even faster at switching classes and batches.

As they say in police work: "Move along! Nothing to see here!"
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on October 20, 2016, 13:00:27
Good lord, Lumber! Are you telling me you just realized that for every class of warship Canada commissioned since WWII, our allies have gone through commissioning two or more different class of similar warship?

Good Sir, I am still relatively junior and thus relatively naïve. I shall enjoy my ignorance whilst it is still bliss.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 20, 2016, 13:37:10
That's the attitude! A positive and optimistic outlook, even based in ignorance, will see you through any troubles!  ;D  :salute:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 20, 2016, 14:03:34
Corngradulations to both of you, Lumber and OGBD.

Cynicism needs a counter.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on October 21, 2016, 01:11:03
Is not allowed.

Is not in water....

Tell that to the Type 21
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 21, 2016, 01:50:02
Tell that to the Type 21   26

FTFY but yep.  Rules seem to be really funny things these days.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on October 21, 2016, 10:47:48
I wouldn't doubt the Type 26 being a paper bid, as much as it's a paper ship.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 21, 2016, 11:10:36
Forget the type 26. It'll never fly in Canada because BAE was clear when they tried to pawn them on the Conservatives: They will not allow them to be built outside of the UK. That rules them out for Canada.

As for the FTI of DCNS: They already have contracts for five of them by the French Navy, who is paying all the development costs associated with the new design. First delivery is 2023 - so it could be in the mix if they are wiling to build them outside of France, something which the french arms makers have been known to accept to consider in the past. But it doesn't mean that it would necessarily be in the mix, as they are also already proposing their FREMMs to Canada, and - at least for the Command/ADD version, the FREMM is more appropriate than the FTI (FTI has more restrictions on amount of missiles carried and radar suite that can be put topside (i.e. it relies on an upcoming, but yet unproven new radar suite).
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 21, 2016, 13:07:28
Forget the type 26. It'll never fly in Canada because BAE was clear when they tried to pawn them on the Conservatives: They will not allow them to be built outside of the UK. That rules them out for Canada.

As for the FTI of DCNS: They already have contracts for five of them by the French Navy, who is paying all the development costs associated with the new design. First delivery is 2023 - so it could be in the mix if they are wiling to build them outside of France, something which the french arms makers have been known to accept to consider in the past. But it doesn't mean that it would necessarily be in the mix, as they are also already proposing their FREMMs to Canada, and - at least for the Command/ADD version, the FREMM is more appropriate than the FTI (FTI has more restrictions on amount of missiles carried and radar suite that can be put topside (i.e. it relies on an upcoming, but yet unproven new radar suite).

The FTI is a much smaller vessel than FREMM is it not? 

Question for those in know:  Are there preferences in RCN between the French and Italian versions of FREMM?  My recollection is that both Italian and French shipyards are bidding.

 :salute:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 21, 2016, 14:20:23
Yes. FTI is 30% smaller than the FREMM, which is why for the ADD/command version it may not provide the same capability as a FREMM. And remember that the French themselves say that the FTI will only save you 20% on the cost of a FREMM. Considering how long we keep our warships in Canada, I would think that this 20% saving is not overwhelming, especially when you consider that, by definition, a 30% larger ship will give you that much more space for future weapons systems than a smaller one when mid-life upgrades come home to roost.

As of the Italian vs French version of FREMM, you have to keep in mind that they are proposing a design, which is the hull and machinery and general layout on the one hand, and the system integration on the other hand. This last aspect the combat systems integration may or may not be the one used on the French or Italian ships, but a different set altogether since we have Canadian requirements that are specific to ourselves. For instance, I think it very unlikely that Canada will want to switch the Aster family of anti-air missiles, which means that the most likely system will be a combination of standard missiles with Mk 41 launchers, rather than a combination of  Aster 15/30 with the Sylver system. Similarly, our communications suites will likely be different. But the integration of systems can still be evolved from the French/Italian underlying system.

Given that, I think (no specific knowledge here, just gut feeling) that given similarly priced bids, the RCN would prefer the Italian FREMM's CODLAG giving 29+ knots of speed to the French CODLOG giving only 27+, especially since the Italian propulsion system configuration gives an extra 700-750 NM greater range at economical speed (of 15 KTS in each case).
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 21, 2016, 14:28:23
Personally I would be in favour of the bigger hull across all variants.

But I am also in favour of saving costs by just leaving some of that space empty - against future requirements and flexibility.

As has been often stated previously.  The hull is the minor cost.  The major capital cost is in weapons, sensors, comms and connectors.  The major operating cost is crew.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: SeaKingTacco on October 21, 2016, 19:44:31
I would be somewhat cautious of the Italian designs, just because they build with the Med in mind.

The North Atlantic/North Pacific are altogether another kettle of fish when it comes to sea keeping. I would want to see the sea trial data before committing to them.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: cheeky_monkey on October 27, 2016, 11:44:19
Corngradulations to both of you, Lumber and OGBD.
Cynicism needs a counter.

You're not a cynic, you're a realist!  :)

Given that, I think (no specific knowledge here, just gut feeling) that given similarly priced bids, the RCN would prefer the Italian FREMM's CODLAG giving 29+ knots of speed to the French CODLOG giving only 27+, especially since the Italian propulsion system configuration gives an extra 700-750 NM greater range at economical speed (of 15 KTS in each case).

The last time I operated with a French FREMM they had very weird engineering restrictions when compared to the RCN. When going from their diesel to their GT, they had to slow down to (IIRC) obscenely slow speed to effect a drive mode changeover. If we end up with the FREMM, I hope it's with a more robust, more flexible engineering configuration.
Knowing that they have (had?) that restriction, I'm very happy with our SSS clutches, for what they allow.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 28, 2016, 17:22:18
How smoothly will process go?

Quote
RFP Finally Issued for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant: “eye-watering” Details Wanted
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/mark-collins-rfp-finally-issued-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-eye-watering-details-wanted/

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 01, 2016, 12:33:54
Process ripples, BMD mentioned (last para at quote):

Quote
Public works clarifies gag order as experts warn of chill in warship debate
Officials say restriction on communication meant to insure bidding not influenced by 'other information'

The Public Works Department has attempted to smooth the waters with the defence industry and issued a clarification on its demand that bidders, vying to design the navy's new warships, refrain from talking about the program in public and attacking each other in the media.

The Liberal government faced a backlash last week from contractors and business publications over the requirement, which officials insist was meant to ensure an orderly bidding process...

Normally cut-throat contenders, their subcontractors and employees are not allowed to make "any public comment, respond to questions in a public forum or carry out any activities to either criticize another bidder or any bid — or publicly advertise their qualifications," according to the leaked draft, dated Oct. 9, 2016.

The behind-the-scenes response was swift and prompted public works officials to issue a clarification late Friday that the industry is "free to communicate as it sees fit."

Debate chill

Danny Lam, an analyst in environmental engineering and defence issues, says regardless of the government's "backtracking" the restriction imposes a far-reaching chill over one of the most important military projects in a generation...

"The chilling effect of this clause effectively means there will be no informed debate in Canada especially on the Canadian specific issues," said Lam, who cited the politically-sensitive issue of whether the new warships should come equipped with ballistic missile defence against rogue nations such as North Korea...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-gag-order-1.3830144

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 01, 2016, 15:28:48
I get two points from that article:

First, it is ridiculous to claim that "you are free to communicate as you see fit" is a clarification of a gag order that clearly stated you "are not allowed to make "any public comment, respond to questions in a public forum or carry out any activities to either criticize another bidder or any bid — or publicly advertise their qualifications".

Second: Is it just me, or does the last part of the article almost reads like an admission by the Liberals that they used misinformed opinions instead of facts to screw the Conservative's government choice of the F-35 (and they are now regretting it, as their "factual" review of what is available and at what cost is probably showing the F-35 to be the best choice  [>:(). 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on November 01, 2016, 15:36:01
OGBD

It isn't just you - on either call.

The difference between winning a popularity contest (promoting) and governing (restricting).  The problem with the revolution is how do you avoid Robespierre?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 05, 2016, 13:14:09
Lots of interesting points raised in piece linked to here:

Quote
RCN Canadian Surface Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-irving-intellectual-property-and-espionage-plus-fighters-and-trump/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 03, 2017, 17:03:33
This could be the new radar system for the surface combatants:(don't know whether it's been posted before)


APAR in a technical new look
July 04, 2016

Thales Netherlands presented in late May at the CANSEC exhibition in Ottawa APAR Block 2. Representatives of the most important shipyards in the world were very interested. The reason for this interest: the demands of the Canadian government for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program.

There is nothing fixed, but as the Royal Navy(Dutch) proceeds to replace the M-class frigates, the industry has already done the work. Thus Thales Netherlands also took the first steps to make technology available for these ships. Like the M-class frigates, the new ships will be multifunctional, but specializing in anti-submarine warfare. The threat levels as we knew it remained unchanged in many aspects of the Cold War. Threats have been added, are mostly located in the unpredictable spectrum. Threats such as shells fired from land, guided bombs fired by aircraft, small boats firing missiles, et cetera. With APAR in a technical new look all these threats can be addressed efficiently. APAR is capable in particular, to detect many, small, and fast clutter objects in a difficult-rich environment.

The interest in APAR block 2 is great, now that the Canadian government published its requirements for the CSC program: they are looking for a system like APAR. And of such a multi-function radar system that can track targets simultaneously and can control guns there is only one in the world: the APAR.The CSC programme involves 15 Area Air Defence vessels. These ships can not only defend itself but also other ships in the area. CSC is an important program, the largest acquisition of Naval surface ships currently worldwide. Canada would like a copy of an excisting ship(class) at this time. Large shipyards are interested in talking with Thales to be able to offer that together with the Thales APAR.

Thales Netherlands has been since the 60s the preferred supplier of various sensors on board Canada's ships. Canada participated in various development projects, from which Canadian industry benefited.From the start APAR also included  Canadian industry, but Canada has never bought APAR for themselves.Canadian industry is again involved in the development of APAR block 2. The coming months are used to approach potential strategic partners. There is already a partnership with Sanmina-SCI. The joining of forces should provide for the worldwide export of these systems, but focuses on a solid Canadian base system. Thales hopes for delivery to the Canadian Surface Combatant project (CSC).

Multi-function radar

The new aspect of APAR block 2 is that it is entirely digital, we use high-power gallium nitride (GaN) transmit / receive modules and the amount of space required is reduced considerably below deck. However, most important is that APAR Block 2 is able to detect all the potential threats, from very small to very large, and from slow to very fast. Under difficult atmospheric conditions.


Source(in Dutch): https://connect.thalesgroup.com/en/news/apar-in-een-technisch-nieuw-jasje
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 03, 2017, 17:52:51
Good lord, Karel! I hope you ran that article through Google-translate to obtain such a horrible translation. I think we get the gist, but many sentences make no sense at all.

Anyway, Happy New year and all the best for  2017, my friend.

And yes, APAR Mk2 is a very nice radar system and would certainly fit the bill for the surface combatants. BTW, the reason the original APAR was not selected for the Halifax modernization program is that we would have had to build an extra mast for it and the combination mast/radar for it and the accompanying SMART-L would have added too much top-weight. So we had to settle for SMART-S / upgraded sea giraffe combination.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 03, 2017, 18:49:22
Good lord, Karel! I hope you ran that article through Google-translate to obtain such a horrible translation. I think we get the gist, but many sentences make no sense at all.

Anyway, Happy New year and all the best for  2017, my friend.

And yes, APAR Mk2 is a very nice radar system and would certainly fit the bill for the surface combatants. BTW, the reason the original APAR was not selected for the Halifax modernization program is that we would have had to build an extra mast for it and the combination mast/radar for it and the accompanying SMART-L would have added too much top-weight. So we had to settle for SMART-S / upgraded sea giraffe combination.

Sorry,my friend i did(use Google) ;D

And for all of you a happy new year.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on January 03, 2017, 21:18:34
Does look like the results of a google-translate service.

Interesting to see the focus on the APAR, and the mention that the RFP seems to specify a RADAR system that can simultaneously track targets and control guns.  That's setting ourselves up for a sole-source via writing every other system out of the specs. 

Similar to writing the glock out of the specs of the GSP contracting by one of the clauses.

NS
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 04, 2017, 08:36:13
Does look like the results of a google-translate service.

Interesting to see the focus on the APAR, and the mention that the RFP seems to specify a RADAR system that can simultaneously track targets and control guns.  That's setting ourselves up for a sole-source via writing every other system out of the specs. 

Similar to writing the glock out of the specs of the GSP contracting by one of the clauses.

NS

Ok all, i tried to enhance the translation.So it should be readable now.   ;D  (see above)

gr,Karel.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 10, 2017, 15:19:28
Ok all, i tried to enhance the translation.So it should be readable now.   ;D  (see above)

gr,Karel.

Here's  Jane's  (http://www.janes.com/article/60639/phased-array-radar-scans-canadian-surface-combatant-cansec2016d1) report on the same situation.  All in original english... [;)

Repeated here for the link challenged.

Quote
With the planned Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) programme firmly in its sights, Thales Nederland is looking to bring Canadian suppliers on board for the development of a second-generation version of its APAR X-band multifunction radar.

Known as APAR Block 2, the new baseline would build on the existing APAR reference platform, but further improve performance through selected technology insertions in both the antenna ‘front end’ and system processing.

APAR (an acronym of active phased array radar) is currently in service on the Royal Netherlands Navy’s four De Zeven Provinciën class air defence and command frigates, the German Navy’s three F 124 Sachsen class air defence frigates, and the Royal Danish Navy’s three Iver Huitfeldt class frigates. In all three cases, APAR forms part of a Thales-supplied anti-air warfare system that also comprises the SMART-L D-band volume search radar and a fire control cluster.

Originally developed as part of the Trilateral Frigate Cooperation programme – which included the participation of Canada as a funding partner – APAR performs horizon search and air target tracking as well as back-up volume search. In addition, APAR provides interrupted continuous wave illumination guidance for the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile and SM-2 missile families.

While Canada did not procure the first-generation APAR, Canadian companies have remained a key part of the supply chain, For example, Sanmina has supplied gallium arsenide transmit/receive modules (TRMs) through the life of the programme.

According to Albert Wildenberg, Thales Nederland’s business development manager, APAR Block 2 would build on this successful heritage.

“As new and more demanding threats emerge, we have developed a technology insertion roadmap that upgrades APAR performance and sustainability, and reduces weight and space demands below deck,” he told the CANSEC Show Daily. “In parallel, this insertion will lead to overall costs reduction, which of course is a further benefit for the Canadian customer.

“So that means moving to a fully digital radar architecture, developing a new front end based on high-power gallium nitride TRMs, and substantially rationalising below-decks cabinets by moving to all COTS-based processing.”

With Thales Nederland ramping up its CSC pursuit, the company is looking to extend the participation of Canadian industry into its supply chain. “CSC is a 15-ship programme,” Wildenberg said.

“We want to use the in-country engineering, development and manufacture base, and grow local content and work-share, with the intent to make this a true Canadian system.”

Last year, Thales Nederland and Sanmina signed a memorandum of understanding for the development and manufacturing of subsystems for candidate CSC radar systems. “The participation of Sanmina in APAR Block 2 could be an extension of this agreement,” said Wildenberg.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 10, 2017, 15:48:49
Will CSCs get Raytheon SM-6, with missile defence role for at least some ships (NORAD and NATO would surely like)?

Quote
SM-6 Cleared for International Sale; Australia, Japan, Korea Could Be Early Customers

(https://news.usni.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/27DD_AEGIS_DDG_Destroyer_JMSDF.jpg)
An artist’s concept of the planned Japanese 27DD guided missile destroyer. Image via Navy Recognition

Raytheon’s Standard Missile 6 has been cleared by the Pentagon for international sales and a trio of potential Pacific nations are likely the first customers.

SM-6 — currently in limited initial production – is a key weapon in the both the Navy’s emerging distributed lethality concept and the service’s Naval Integrated Fire Control Counter-Air (NIFC-CA) for its ability to strike air, surface and limited ballistic missile targets.

Of the five international Aegis combat system operators, three are in the process to have the upgraded combat system to field the SM-6 – Australia, Japan and South Korea.

All three countries to have guided missile combatants upgraded to Aegis Baseline 9. Baseline 9 replaces the Aegis combat system older military specific computers with commercial-off-the-shelf servers to handle the data the ships absorb through its radar and adds a multi-signal processor. The modifications allow an Aegis ship to take targeting information from a third party to interdict air and sea warfare threats using the SM-6.

Concerns with both North Korean and Chinese military expansion have driven countries in the region to likewise expand their military capability — particularly at sea.

“These are international Aegis shipbuilding program that are under construction today or new construction,” Thad Smith with Raytheon told reporters on Tuesday [Jan. 10]...

While the three countries all could field the SM-6 its unclear if each country will be allowed to use all three modes of the missile – anti-air warfare, anti-surface and a limited ballistic missile defense capability [ https://news.usni.org/2016/12/15/mda-conducts-successful-ballistic-missile-intercept-ship-launched-sm-6 ].

While the missiles will all have the inherent capability for all three missions, the U.S. government will determine which of those features will be activated for international sales, Smith said...
https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/sm-6-cleared-international-sale-australia-japan-korea-early-customers

From a 2015 post at the Defence Muse blog:

Quote
...the RCN is in the design stages of the program that will see the construction of new Air Defence/Command and Control Destroyers. Work on those new ships will raise the questions of Ballistic Missile Defence once again. Should the ships be made capable of participating in the Anti-Ballistic Missile battle?

The real question should be “Can we responsibly prevent the ships from being capable in an ABM role?”

In examining radar, combat management and weapons capabilities of the equipment most likely to form the backbone of Canada’s new CSC Air Defence/Command and Control destroyers we notice an interesting pattern. They all have either a demonstrated ABM capability, or are developing one.

The US Navy’s AEGIS system is the best known capability, having demonstrated that ability during numerous tests. On February 20, 2008, the satellite US 193 was destroyed in low Earth orbit by the AEGIS-equipped USS Lake Erie. This demonstrated the systems ability to hit a target at an altitude of 133 miles. AEGIS is combined with the SM-3/SM-6 missile for its ABM capability. AEGIS will even see service on land as AEGIS ASHORE. This will see components of the AEGIS system built into structures on land, mimicking the shipboard installations...
https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/technology-and-politics-canadian-ballistic-missile-defence/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 15, 2017, 23:58:32
I honestly don't have a clue.  If the ship goes the VLS route for an ASW missile (which is coming soon) then the large version of the VLS's will be required.  Then really its going to be just a software+missile issue as all the ships in competition (except perhaps the Type 26) have BMD capability inbuilt in their missile defence systems.

What I really want to know is what are the "must haves" or design constraints (for those engineers in the building) for the CSC bidders.  We can probably extrapolate from some of the obvious ones and the ones that have been stated publicly:

Constraints:
-127-millimetre gun
-Crew accommodations from 165 to 200
-Capacity to carry Cyclone helicopters
-Medium-range radar (up to 200 nm)

The vague constraints:
-Anti-surface warfare capability, much like the RCN has in the frigates
-Long-range air defence capability, much like what is in the Iroquois-class (for the first 3-4 of the class)
-Anti-submarine warfare capabilities
-Passive and active decoy systems (what kinds?  are there specifics?)

Things we don't know:
-ASW system/requirements - must use CANTASS?? Use current torp family or switch to the MU90?
-ASuW missile type - is this a hard and fast requirement or something the designer can submit? Assume Harpoon, Exocet or LRASM (we've expressed interest in it, this means the strike Mk 41 boxes for launching thus leaving door open for AAW destroyer to have SM-6 capability).
-Radar specifications.  Does the navy want the two radar combo or something else.  This really depends on the AAW missile defence system.
-Damage control requirements.  We're usually pretty specific on these for the ships as they must usually match across the fleet.
-Navigation requirements.  Easy fix for nav systems.
-Speed - minimum?  Engineering setup? (CODLAG, CODOG, etc..??)
-Tonnage - bigger is generally better and most of the bidders run between 5400 to 7200 tonnes.
-Extra mission capability - multimission space (boarding party boats, SOF, humanitarian, UUV's etc...)
-RAS - probably a very specific equipment setup for the ships as there is a "Canadian way" to do this.  Not sure if the navy is flexible enough on this, perhaps we are...
-Chinook capability
-signature management
-comms
-C4ISR - cooperative engagement capability, Flag ship abilities

I realise that with a limited amount design constraints you give the engineers a large amount of flexibility to come forward with creative and competitive designs to cover off many different things.  Perhaps that's the point.  We have a tradition in Canadian procurement to over specify.  Also its going to be basically two different ships (AAW and GP) you might find that the radars for example are different or the amount of flight deck/multimission space is changed between the types.  I'd really love to see the SOR and compare them to each other.









Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on January 16, 2017, 02:21:42
In addition, could you ask for a Foreign Policy and a statement of how the Canadian Forces are expected to support it? 

(In case Dimsum is listening in, I'm still in the market for beachfront property)   >:D

Sorry for the interruption, Underway.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Journeyman on January 16, 2017, 09:14:13
.... the "must haves" or design constraints (for those engineers in the building) ....
It's also a term in higher HQ's guidance (for the military planners in the building)   ;)

constraint = must do
restraint = must not

/tangent
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on January 16, 2017, 12:15:02
It's also a term in higher HQ's guidance (for the military planners in the building)   ;)

constraint = how it must be done
restraint = must not

/tangent

[/pedant]
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Journeyman on January 16, 2017, 12:21:30
[/pedant]
Addressing a sailor, I was simplifying.  ;)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on January 16, 2017, 12:24:53
You should have greater respect for Her Majesty's Canadian Senior Service... :nod: ...you are likely now on their watch list.  ;) 

Yours, aye! :salute:
G2G
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Journeyman on January 16, 2017, 12:38:15
You should have greater respect for Her Majesty's Canadian Senior Service...  :nod:  ...you are likely now on their watch list.  ;)  
I'm not too worried about being on their watch list; I hear they're kind of busy at the top end of the food chain, dusting off succession lists and all....

About all I know of the Navy is, when some officer walks in the room and someone shouts "rounds," no one is actually buying drinks.   :'(


(Once the grizzled PO shooed the ASlt away and determined that we weren't sailors [just in town for the Dive course], he kept the officer away for the rest of time.   ;D )

/tangent
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 16, 2017, 15:17:44
About all I know of the Navy is, when some officer walks in the room and someone shouts "rounds," no one is actually buying drinks.   :'(

Sigh, always promising and never delivering... :nod:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 17, 2017, 15:37:07
Will CSCs get Raytheon SM-6,?
Mark
Ottawa

The question is if there is any choice?.....rumor has it that Raytheon has already issued a "last buy" notice on SM-2 missiles....ie they are ending production. Leaving only ESSM block 2,  SM-6 and SM-3 in their portfolio. 

As to the veracity of the rumor...i have no idea*, but it would make sense .....at ~$5 million a piece, the SM-6 is going to be a hard sell to anybody but the USN, at least as long as there are cheaper alternatives on the market.

* I heard it from a defence industry insider , someone who works very closely with LM and Ratheon on BMD systems.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on January 17, 2017, 15:54:39
MikeKiloPapa: Also question of how overtly, if at all, this gov't is willing to get a missile defence capabillty,

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on January 17, 2017, 16:01:15
MikeKiloPapa: Also question of how overtly, if at all, this gov't is willing to get a missile defence capabillty,

Mark
Ottawa

So, what? We're going to be as heavily armed as the USCG?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 19, 2017, 22:09:49
From the Cronicle Herald (http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1433665-vice-admiral-mark-norman-dismissal-document-leak-may-stall-irving-ship-work).  Ken Hansen (https://www.dal.ca/dept/cfps/fellows/hansen.html) was quoted saying the following:

Quote
He said it has long been known that the navy sees the Type 26 frigate that BAE Systems designed for the United Kingdom as the best pre-existing ship design to replace its Halifax-class frigates...

Wait... What??

Anyone else have eyes on this one before now?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on January 19, 2017, 22:51:41
I noticed that in the article also.  That leaves me wondering too.

My understanding of the whole "combatant" part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) was that we had a list of specifications and requirements and that, once the lead yard was selected, a ship designer was going to be selected, then a systems integrator, and those last two would come up with a design that would fulfill all the requirements. There was no indication that any of these new combatants would be a pre-existing design at all.

Then the new Trudeau government took over, a little more than a year ago, and for the first time in the whole CSC program, the idea of utilizing a pre-existing - proven because built - foreign design was adopted, supposedly to save time and make costs easier to evaluate.

I have never heard at any point that the RCN had a favourite, and even less that that favourite would be the type 26 design, a then non-existent ship and non finalized design which has only been completed very recently.

I do know that, shortly before the Harper government was to come out with the call for tenders for the selection of the shipyards for the NSS, the British RN was also embarking on the development of its next frigates with BAE and that they approached Canada to see if it could be a joint program. The Harper government declined once they found out that the British government wished, as part of that joint program, to ensure that all the ships would be built at BAE in the UK. However, at that point in time, the British frigates at issue were still the type 24 (GP) / type 25 (ASW) combination - not the further development of the idea resulting in the Global Frigate - type 26 program now in its infancy in the UK.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Half Full on January 20, 2017, 09:42:16
From the Cronicle Herald (http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1433665-vice-admiral-mark-norman-dismissal-document-leak-may-stall-irving-ship-work).  Ken Hansen (https://www.dal.ca/dept/cfps/fellows/hansen.html) was quoted saying the following:

Wait... What??

Anyone else have eyes on this one before now?

Take anything quoted or said by Ken Hansen with a grain of salt.  His commentary on anything naval related is many years passed its prime. The Type 26 is not a ship the Navy has been pushing for.  To be honest the RCN doesn't really care what ship it gets as long as it meets the SOR.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 20, 2017, 11:34:00
However, my boss, who is a Naval Constructor and has experience in PMO projects did say that the Type 26 makes sense as the others in the running are 15-20 year old designs.  The Type 26 is new, current and cutting edge so to speak.  A newer design is better than an older one and therefore it shouldn't be counted out as less desirable.

I should have added, that in dealing with folks that are on the CSC PMO, they are tight lipped on the subject of which platform they like.  I'm surprised at the thought of anyone outside of the project having any knowledge on what they're thinking.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Half Full on January 20, 2017, 15:28:16
I'm surprised at the thought of anyone outside of the project having any knowledge on what they're thinking.
Well, the Project is not the RCN...they progress the project on behalf of the RCN...but actually work for ADM(Mat), correct?  The RCN has never professed to prefer one design over the other.  If it came across that the RCN doesn't want the Type 26 that's not what I meant to say.  The RCN stands by their SOR and if whatever ship is ultimately selected meets the SOR...they will be content.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 20, 2017, 20:15:28
I have never heard at any point that the RCN had a favourite, and even less that that favourite would be the type 26 design, a then non-existent ship and non finalized design which has only been completed very recently.

Me neither, but it's not like I'm walking the halls of power...

Well, the Project is not the RCN...they progress the project on behalf of the RCN...but actually work for ADM(Mat), correct?  The RCN has never professed to prefer one design over the other.  If it came across that the RCN doesn't want the Type 26 that's not what I meant to say.  The RCN stands by their SOR and if whatever ship is ultimately selected meets the SOR...they will be content.

I believe the same.  It seems that the RCN really just wants the ships to do the job at this point.  And they are willing to cast the net wide to get it (and learned some stuff from the RCAF fighter replacement program).

I can see the attraction of the Global Combat Ship.  It's starting its build this summer, it's the right tonnage.  It's got that amazing "flex" space in the middle.  Reliable engineering configuration.  Military build standards.  Large enough flight deck to land a Chinook on.  Large hangar space (Merlins sized so can fit a Cyclone).  The 127mm gun space.  Designed for 12 self defence and 24 strike sized VLS canisters...   It's very nice on paper... 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 20, 2017, 21:37:43
Well, the Project is not the RCN...they progress the project on behalf of the RCN...but actually work for ADM(Mat), correct?  The RCN has never professed to prefer one design over the other.  If it came across that the RCN doesn't want the Type 26 that's not what I meant to say.  The RCN stands by their SOR and if whatever ship is ultimately selected meets the SOR...they will be content.
I may be wrong, but I believe they are RCN, not ADM(Mat).  Just as DNR are RCN and not ADM(Mat).   The PMO are not within our lines but over in Ottawa.   We do provide them with information and assistance as required as we do for the fleet.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: dapaterson on January 20, 2017, 21:52:04
DNR takes projects through Identification and Options Analysis phases.  Once the project enters Definition phase, DGMEPM in ADM(Mat) takes over, and takes the proejct through Definition and Implementation, then does the closeout.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 20, 2017, 22:55:55
Correct.  They identify the need and requirement to satisfy the need.  We act upon that to make it happen.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 23, 2017, 09:38:40
.  The Type 26 is new, current and cutting edge so to speak.

Ahh....but if you wait another 15-20 years to pick  a CSC design ,there will be even newer and cutting edgier warships to choose from  ;)....clever clever ;D

Quote
as the others in the running are 15-20 year old designs

Sorry, but that is simply not true ....The Italian and French FREMMs were launched in 2011/2010, so were the Iver Huitfeldts and TKMS is likely offering a version of their F125 , a brand new design not even commissioned yet (launched in 2013) .
Only Navantias bid, a Hobart class AWD based design. itself derived from the F100 class(Alvaro de Bazan )can reasonably be said to be somewhat outdated..(Dont know about the US submitted designs ? )

And lets not forget that the T26 is just the latest iteration of a line of warship design proposals, dating back to the beginning of the UKs Future Surface Combatant program in 1998. Even the current design of the "global combat ship" will be more than a decade old by the time the first hull hits the water.

Dont get me wrong, i want the best for the RCN and i can certainly understand the allure of the T26.....At 150x21 meters and 8000 tonnes it is the biggest and potentially most capable ship in the running.
But it is also by far the most expensive option and the one that carries the most risk.  Because it hasn't been built yet any design flaws revealed during construction is likely to translate into even more delays for the CSC program .
The question is how long you are willing to wait though, ....the "jam tomorrow" strategy has a history of not paying off. Maybe settling for the  90% solution will ensure that you actually get the full fleet of 15 warships on budget and on time.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 25, 2017, 09:15:46
Ahh....but if you wait another 15-20 years to pick  a CSC design ,there will be even newer and cutting edgier warships to choose from  ;)....clever clever ;D

Sorry, but that is simply not true ....The Italian and French FREMMs were launched in 2011/2010, so were the Iver Huitfeldts and TKMS is likely offering a version of their F125 , a brand new design not even commissioned yet (launched in 2013) .
Only Navantias bid, a Hobart class AWD based design. itself derived from the F100 class(Alvaro de Bazan )can reasonably be said to be somewhat outdated..(Dont know about the US submitted designs ? )

And lets not forget that the T26 is just the latest iteration of a line of warship design proposals, dating back to the beginning of the UKs Future Surface Combatant program in 1998. Even the current design of the "global combat ship" will be more than a decade old by the time the first hull hits the water.

Dont get me wrong, i want the best for the RCN and i can certainly understand the allure of the T26.....At 150x21 meters and 8000 tonnes it is the biggest and potentially most capable ship in the running.
But it is also by far the most expensive option and the one that carries the most risk.  Because it hasn't been built yet any design flaws revealed during construction is likely to translate into even more delays for the CSC program .
The question is how long you are willing to wait though, ....the "jam tomorrow" strategy has a history of not paying off. Maybe settling for the  90% solution will ensure that you actually get the full fleet of 15 warships on budget and on time.

True about the Type-26 but it's mainly an ASW ship,yet to be built(as said in the design phase)

If you're going that route the RCN might aswell consider the Dutch option,the vMFF(or replacement for the M-class)also mainly an ASW ship;(will be in the 4500-5500 tonns region,from what we know now)

Got a rendering of it:to give you all an idea(the plan is to buy 2 for the KM and 2 for the Belgian Navy,but it might be more for the KM,since there's a shortage on this sort of ships within NATO,we'll see)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi325.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fk390%2FWalterleever%2Fvervanger-m-fregat-computer-animatie.jpg&hash=05fc14a3a370ddadc97032b9f5f9b67f) (http://s325.photobucket.com/user/Walterleever/media/vervanger-m-fregat-computer-animatie.jpg.html)


I think again it looks beautiful,but hey i'm biased(Dutch)

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 25, 2017, 09:20:08
Ahh....but if you wait another 15-20 years to pick  a CSC design ,there will be even newer and cutting edgier warships to choose from  ;)....clever clever ;D

Sorry, but that is simply not true ....The Italian and French FREMMs were launched in 2011/2010, so were the Iver Huitfeldts and TKMS is likely offering a version of their F125 , a brand new design not even commissioned yet (launched in 2013) .
Only Navantias bid, a Hobart class AWD based design. itself derived from the F100 class(Alvaro de Bazan )can reasonably be said to be somewhat outdated..(Dont know about the US submitted designs ? )

And lets not forget that the T26 is just the latest iteration of a line of warship design proposals, dating back to the beginning of the UKs Future Surface Combatant program in 1998. Even the current design of the "global combat ship" will be more than a decade old by the time the first hull hits the water.

Dont get me wrong, i want the best for the RCN and i can certainly understand the allure of the T26.....At 150x21 meters and 8000 tonnes it is the biggest and potentially most capable ship in the running.
But it is also by far the most expensive option and the one that carries the most risk.  Because it hasn't been built yet any design flaws revealed during construction is likely to translate into even more delays for the CSC program .
The question is how long you are willing to wait though, ....the "jam tomorrow" strategy has a history of not paying off. Maybe settling for the  90% solution will ensure that you actually get the full fleet of 15 warships on budget and on time.

By they time they finalize a design cut steel on the CSC, a ship like the FREMM will be a 15+ year old design.  They were given the go ahead in 2005 for that ship and I am sure there was something on the boards before then.  It is at this juncture a 12 year old design at the very least.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 25, 2017, 09:30:48
By they time they finalize a design cut steel on the CSC, a ship like the FREMM will be a 15+ year old design.  They were given the go ahead in 2005 for that ship and I am sure there was something on the boards before then.  It is at this juncture a 12 year old design at the very least.

Yep that's the whole problem,it's just keeps going and going and....................(almost like overe here.)

Therefore  maybe the newest designs will be more interesting(Type-26/vMFF and whatever comes)

But as said before i think the new Dutch design will have APAR2 and that could be interesting for Canada.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: STONEY on January 26, 2017, 14:12:53
Where does some of the info on the T-26 come from. I do not say its wrong just that it does not agree with what I have seen.
6000 tons not 8000. Will power plant be a disaster like the T-45 and its quoted speed is slower than the Halifax class . It does not have a Air defence version so what happened to the Iroquois class replacement, in fact the missile, what am I missing here.s its design shows are only half the range of the Halifax class. Will the design have to be completely changed to suit Canada it does not even have a anti surface missile.
What am I missing here.

Cheers 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on January 26, 2017, 16:24:51
Where does some of the info on the T-26 come from. I do not say its wrong just that it does not agree with what I have seen.
6000 tons not 8000. Will power plant be a disaster like the T-45 and its quoted speed is slower than the Halifax class . It does not have a Air defence version so what happened to the Iroquois class replacement, in fact the missile, what am I missing here.s its design shows are only half the range of the Halifax class. Will the design have to be completely changed to suit Canada it does not even have a anti surface missile.
What am I missing here.

Cheers

What your missing is that this is all just speculation. Any ship that is chosen will have to fit the SOR as closely as possible.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 26, 2017, 18:35:10
By they time they finalize a design cut steel on the CSC, a ship like the FREMM will be a 15+ year old design.  They were given the go ahead in 2005 for that ship and I am sure there was something on the boards before then.  It is at this juncture a 12 year old design at the very least.

Yes....and the T26 design is, at best, a whopping 4 years newer.....hardly a generational quantum leap that is. With that line of thinking you will never get a new surface combatant. Even if you started on a brand new warship design today, it would still be more than a decade old by the time it is commissioned.

Australia seem to do fine with a 20 year old design, and the yanks soldier on with the 30 year old Burkes. In that context, claiming that the FREMMs and contemporary ships are obsolete is frankly absurd
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 26, 2017, 19:45:11
Yes....and the T26 design is, at best, a whopping 4 years newer.....hardly a generational quantum leap that is. With that line of thinking you will never get a new surface combatant. Even if you started on a brand new warship design today, it would still be more than a decade old by the time it is commissioned.

Australia seem to do fine with a 20 year old design, and the yanks soldier on with the 30 year old Burkes. In that context, claiming that the FREMMs and contemporary ships are obsolete is frankly absurd

My friend, I work in the procurement side of the navy at present, and we all wonder if we'll ever see the new ship.  I know I shall be retired before they "probably" start even cutting steel.  You're preaching to the choir.  Now, as to the "O" word. I never once said they were obsolete or even suggested it.  I said that my boss stated they were 15-20 year old designs and the Type 26 was newer and more cutting edge.  I just happen to agree with him more than I agree with you.  But that's OK, it's a free world and we're all allowed to have an opinion.

As an aside, all navies sail with what they are given as long as they can, to the best of their ability.  Unlike you, I can't get out of my ship and walk back to my lines if the damn thing breaks down.  The nearest point of land at sea is about several miles beneath the keel and I have no desire to see it, thank you very much.  In most first world, tier 1 navies our present CPF would be considered very long in the tooth and would be looking at a well deserved retirement and a new ship coming to replace it in the not to far distant future.  One of the reasons we use these things as long as we can and it takes so long to pick and deliver a new ship is that they are no longer the "relatively" simple beasts they were 40 or 50 years ago.  Lots of more Buck Rodgers stuff that needs to be taken into account nowadays in the design and manufacture not to mention the spiralling costs of things like steel etc. Thrown in all the red tape that goes with a major commitment like this and its a damn wonder we get anything at all, quite frankly.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 26, 2017, 20:19:16
Where does some of the info on the T-26 come from. I do not say its wrong just that it does not agree with what I have seen.6000 tons not 8000.

Well BAE themselves quote the T-26 as being  6900 metric tonnes. I think the 6000 tonnes was for the previous design proposal which was a smaller vessel ~25 ft shorter than the current version.
Now the 8000 tonnes displacement number has not been officially confirmed by either BAE or the RN , but it is supposed to be the the end-of-life full load displacement (ie the design max).
The 6900 tonnes would then be the standard displacement as built. The T-26 being both long and very beamy, almost as big as a 8300 tonnes Flt 1 Arleigh Burke, those numbers seem plausible to me.

Quote
Will power plant be a disaster like the T-45


Unlikely....the T26 will have a conventional diesel-electric propulsion system, precisely because of all the problems with the Darings IEP plant.

Quote
and its quoted speed is slower than the Halifax class

+26 kts could just as well mean 30 kts......anyhow, its a design speed....we wont know how fast it really is before its sea trials/SATs

Quote
It does not have a Air defence version

I think you could make the case that the basic T26 with Sea Ceptor, Artisan radar, a 5 " Mk 45 mod4 and 24 cell Mk41 vls, is at least as AAW capable as the FELEX'ed Halifax class...so its not like it doesn't have any air defence capability at all....and to be fair, it is easier to add a decent Area Air Defence capability to an excellent ASW ship , than the other way around.


Quote
in fact the missile, what am I missing here.s its design shows are only half the range of the Halifax class.

An ESSM fired from a Halifax or any other vessel employing a rotating 3D radar in conjunction with a CW illuminator , has a much shorter effective range than an ESSM fired from a ship using command guidance to control the missiles ...meaning ships equipped with either SPY-1 or APAR.
So the public data on range should be taken with a huge bucket load of salt.....its very dependent on the version of missile and the launching platform.

Now Sea Ceptor i dont know the real range of, but its a lighter missile ,its "cold" launched and because it is an active missile it has a more efficient flight profile....so all in all, the difference in effective range between the two missiles likely isn't all that great.   

Quote
Will the design have to be completely changed to suit Canada it does not even have a anti surface missile.

I am sure you could find somewhere to bolt on a Harpoon launcher or 2....But as an anti-ship missile the Harpoon is nearing obsolescence anyway and the LRASM meant to replace it, is launched from a MK41 vls container.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on January 27, 2017, 00:45:19
@MikeKiloPapa

I apologize as I'm no expert in missile or radar systems, but can you elaborate on the following as it seems counter intuitive.

"An ESSM fired from a Halifax or any other vessel employing a rotating 3D radar in conjunction with a CW illuminator , has a much shorter effective range than an ESSM fired from a ship using command guidance to control the missiles ...meaning ships equipped with either SPY-1 or APAR. "


Thanks in advance, Matthew.  :salute:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on January 27, 2017, 07:57:21
Yes, please.

I read that and would like a better explanation of why there's a shorter effective range.

Please explain so that  Weapons Engineering CPO2 with a good grounding in SONAR, NAV, and CCS (now CMS) can understand it. 

Oh, and please be careful to use open-source info to backup your answers.  We don't want anything out that shouldn't be.

NS
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 27, 2017, 08:41:24
My friend, I work in the procurement side of the navy at present, and we all wonder if we'll ever see the new ship.  I know I shall be retired before they "probably" start even cutting steel.  You're preaching to the choir.  Now, as to the "O" word. I never once said they were obsolete or even suggested it.

No you are right....my bad...it must have been the voices in my head  ;D

Quote
I said that my boss stated they were 15-20 year old designs and the Type 26 was newer and more cutting edge.


Its quite interesting that it has received a lot of criticism back in the UK for being too conventional and unambitious in its design. Aside from the ludicrously expensive automated loading system for the mk45 gun i must admit i too struggle to see the "cutting edge" in the Global Combat Ship platform design. The hull and superstructure is very conventional, almost indistinguishable  from its (older) european counterparts....its fancy "Mission Bay" is an unashamed rip-off of Danish, Dutch and German concepts and its general internal arrangement is also fairly standard. ...and although perhaps not terribly relevant to the RCN ....The T26s legacy weapons and sensors fitout is also decidedly modest (save perhaps for the 2087 sonar).

 In terms of damage control features, electrical infrastructure, PMS and bridge systems, accommodation standards etc...i'm sure that the type 26 is taking advantage of the latest developments.....but so would a future FREMM , Huitfeldt or F125 based CSC .


Quote
I just happen to agree with him more than I agree with you.  But that's OK, it's a free world and we're all allowed to have an opinion.

Why thank you  :)....though not all opinions carry equal weight.....in this case i'll admit, your position lends greater credence to yours.

Quote
As an aside, all navies sail with what they are given as long as they can, to the best of their ability. 
:nod: yes we do....its not like we have a lot of choice in the matter though.

Quote
Unlike you, I can't get out of my ship and walk back to my lines if the damn thing breaks down.

Ahh...you must be referring to my former occupation/career as a Tank mechanic.
Well this is what my "tank" looks like now :
(https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15440553_1179792695437882_9105074513120481401_o.jpg?oh=85ff39c22fbaab8b0287e5a4ab8fa38a&oe=591D02C6)

 :salute:   ;D,,,,6 months a year i'm a lot closer to Canada (and the ocean floor) than home.

Quote
  In most first world, tier 1 navies our present CPF would be considered very long in the tooth and would be looking at a well deserved retirement and a new ship coming to replace it in the not to far distant future.
I agree and i feel your "pain"....the Thetis class above has prowled the arctic and north atlantic for more than 25 years and will have to soldier on for a further 10-15 years before they are replaced. Canada is not the only first world nation with ancient ships 

Quote
One of the reasons we use these things as long as we can and it takes so long to pick and deliver a new ship is that they are no longer the "relatively" simple beasts they were 40 or 50 years ago.
  So very true, as a marine/naval engineer i know better than most....the ever increasing complexity of ships also requires much greater education, skill and know how of the naval personel involved in both design and construction of new warships.....and finding competent people with the right skill set can be a challenge.

Quote
Thrown in all the red tape that goes with a major commitment like this and its a damn wonder we get anything at all, quite frankly.
In your case the industrial considerations of the national shipbuilding strategy isn't making things any easier either....it seems to me that the interests of the naval/marine industry is sometimes at odds with those of the RCN.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on January 27, 2017, 09:07:17
It was said in the past that the NSPS is not a project to get ships for the RCN.  It's a jobs project, with ships being a useful by-product. 

I tend to agree with that assessment.  If we consider that the primary reason for the NSPS appears to be to employ some Canadians and build our industry, then the NSPS will probably succeed with flying colours. 

NS
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on January 27, 2017, 10:00:17
Yes, please.

I read that and would like a better explanation of why there's a shorter effective range.

Please explain so that  Weapons Engineering CPO2 with a good grounding in SONAR, NAV, and CCS (now CMS) can understand it. 

Oh, and please be careful to use open-source info to backup your answers.  We don't want anything out that shouldn't be.

NS

Alright i'll give it a shot....I'll admit when i first heard the claim from a USN officer on a cross-pol EX, i too was sceptical. But then i asked our own AAW experts (aboard HDMS Absalon) ...and they said the same thing. Later , on a visit to the Danish Navy's weapon center, they too confirmed it and the explanation i got was as follows :

On a surface combatant with a low update rotating radar ( like SMART-S mk2s maximum ~2s update rate ) , and no uplink capability to provide mid-course guidance ,....the fire control director (Ceros 200 for both RCN and RDN) has to illuminate the target from launch to impact. So after being launched to a predetermined point close to the ship the ESSM now needs the CW return signals bouncing of the target, to guide it towards that target.

Now of course the effective range is also affected by the bearing of the incoming threat..... on a head on target this guiding principle has less impact on range.
But against a crossing/ parallel moving target it means that the ESSM has to spend energy maneuvering all the way to impact, since it is just following the CW illuminator. This "curved" flight profile is what reduces range compared to an active or command guided missile which tends to fly in a straighter line to target.

An Arleigh Burke for instance, with its fixed faced arrays ...receives an almost instantaneous and continuous track of the targets bearing, speed and altitude and uses that information to generate what is called a PIP, predicted intercept point, ie the shortest route to impact. These coordinates are then fed to the ESSM via the S_band uplink and continuously updated based on the targets movements.(ie mid course guidance) On AEGIS equipped ships the version of the ESSM used also has an inbuilt s-band downlink to report its position back to the launch platform for better accuracy. Only a few seconds before it reaches the PIP it enters the terminal phase where it needs illumination from the AN/SPG-62 FCD.

The version used with APAR has an x-band uplink receiver but no downlink but otherwise the guiding principle is very similar. So in short,  in most cases, they achieve longer effective range because they travel in a shorter straight line to target and doesn't have to maneuver as much.

This explains it well :
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td2804/Cole.pdf

Now in the real world its probably a lot more complicated and with a lot more variables affecting relative performance.....but the overall principle should still apply.

Ps: all the above information is readily available in open sources , so i'm not breaking OPSEC.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on January 27, 2017, 10:19:34
Ahh...you must be referring to my former occupation/career as a Tank mechanic.
Well this is what my "tank" looks like now :
(https://scontent-arn2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t31.0-8/15440553_1179792695437882_9105074513120481401_o.jpg?oh=85ff39c22fbaab8b0287e5a4ab8fa38a&oe=591D02C6)

 :salute:   ;D,,,,6 months a year i'm a lot closer to Canada (and the ocean floor) than home.
I agree and i feel your "pain"....the Thetis class above has prowled the arctic and north atlantic for more than 25 years and will have to soldier on for a further 10-15 years before they are replaced. Canada is not the only first world nation with ancient ships 
  So very true, as a marine/naval engineer i know better than most....the ever increasing complexity of ships also requires much greater education, skill and know how of the naval personel involved in both design and construction of new warships.....and finding competent people with the right skill set can be a challenge.
In your case the industrial considerations of the national shipbuilding strategy isn't making things any easier either....it seems to me that the interests of the naval/marine industry is sometimes at odds with those of the RCN.

I had quite forgotten until after I posted that you're now a sailor, my apologies for thinking you're still a zipperhead.   :facepalm:  As we're both in the Marine Engineering world, I'm sure we more than understand each other's pain of keeping aging platforms afloat, moving and ready to fight. 

Money of course will always be the driver in what we get and use.  I know the project would love to be able to incorporate the new DC systems and gear that is really cutting edge on the Zumwalt class ships.  I understand the USN would love to retrofit it onto all of their platforms but the cost is prohibitive so they're going to get some of it on their Burkes.  Lucky bastards.

I do, btw, really like all of the ships in the running.  The European navies have fantastic ships.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 27, 2017, 12:30:40
Maybe old news for the experts here,but still wanted to post a bit of info between S-Band Radars and X-band radars.
In no way it's my knowledge,simply copied a piece placed on the dutch forum wich explained a bit,and why the X-band will be the common radar system.(It even seems that the Netherlands(Thales)is way ahead in this field,go fugure that small country.) ;) ;),post was by another,much more experienced than i am (as said i'm no expert)


Some more information:

X-band radar frequency which the APAR uses to designate targets. Until the Zumwaltklasse the Americans only did that with S-band (even though they had come to the conclusion that X-band actually is better).

ICWI is a technique from Thales in wich the active phased array' radar (APAR )  can send missiles simultaneously on multiple targets. It does this by switching rapidly between those goals without tangling the missiles in question. That was a trick the Americans did not know yet. It is now applied to the Zumwalts and the Japanese have it I believe licenced by Thales on their destroyers.

The rockets wich the Netherlands uses on the LCF (Standard and ESSM) were obviously allready adapted , otherwise they would never be able to shoot a missile with APAR;)

With the new dual-band data link (JUWL) All Standard missiles can easily be made adapteble for both systems (S- and X-band plus ICWI). That is a matter of replacing a circuit board or something like that.So now there's no need for two different versions of  missile to be kept in stock and is also convenient for export ...

Raytheon had JUWL in 2013 in Den Helder tested with APAR. See http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1794313

The test program with the US Navy can be found here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2016/navy-peds/0604366n_5_pb_2016.pdf

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on January 27, 2017, 14:54:02
Dammit that makes sense.

However, my understanding was the mid-course is something we can do.

Now I'm going to have to go talk to an engineer in FMF's AAW shop to settle my thoughts on this.  He'll probably expect coffee.

 :crybaby:

Alright i'll give it a shot....I'll admit when i first heard the claim from a USN officer on a cross-pol EX, i too was sceptical. But then i asked our own AAW experts (aboard HDMS Absalon) ...and they said the same thing. Later , on a visit to the Danish Navy's weapon center, they too confirmed it and the explanation i got was as follows :

On a surface combatant with a low update rotating radar ( like SMART-S mk2s maximum ~2s update rate ) , and no uplink capability to provide mid-course guidance ,....the fire control director (Ceros 200 for both RCN and RDN) has to illuminate the target from launch to impact. So after being launched to a predetermined point close to the ship the ESSM now needs the CW return signals bouncing of the target, to guide it towards that target.

Now of course the effective range is also affected by the bearing of the incoming threat..... on a head on target this guiding principle has less impact on range.
But against a crossing/ parallel moving target it means that the ESSM has to spend energy maneuvering all the way to impact, since it is just following the CW illuminator. This "curved" flight profile is what reduces range compared to an active or command guided missile which tends to fly in a straighter line to target.

An Arleigh Burke for instance, with its fixed faced arrays ...receives an almost instantaneous and continuous track of the targets bearing, speed and altitude and uses that information to generate what is called a PIP, predicted intercept point, ie the shortest route to impact. These coordinates are then fed to the ESSM via the S_band uplink and continuously updated based on the targets movements.(ie mid course guidance) On AEGIS equipped ships the version of the ESSM used also has an inbuilt s-band downlink to report its position back to the launch platform for better accuracy. Only a few seconds before it reaches the PIP it enters the terminal phase where it needs illumination from the AN/SPG-62 FCD.

The version used with APAR has an x-band uplink receiver but no downlink but otherwise the guiding principle is very similar. So in short,  in most cases, they achieve longer effective range because they travel in a shorter straight line to target and doesn't have to maneuver as much.

This explains it well :
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td2804/Cole.pdf

Now in the real world its probably a lot more complicated and with a lot more variables affecting relative performance.....but the overall principle should still apply.

Ps: all the above information is readily available in open sources , so i'm not breaking OPSEC.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 27, 2017, 16:00:58
On a surface combatant with a low update rotating radar ( like SMART-S mk2s maximum ~2s update rate ) , and no uplink capability to provide mid-course guidance ,....the fire control director (Ceros 200 for both RCN and RDN) has to illuminate the target from launch to impact. /snip

Really interesting.  So a ship with ESSM (or SM2) defending itself will not notice a range difference as the incoming target and the outgoing one are on reciprocal bearings, but shooting a crossing target would really reduce your range significantly. The mid-course uplink guidance seems to be the key from your article.  It's probably how the PAAMs system can work so well with a rotating radar.

This leads to the next question...

The difference between the AAW version and the GP version of the CSC is going to be...?  There certainly are different requirements.  Really from deck 1 down and aft of the stack its probably going to be near identical.  But the superstructure, sensors, and C4I might be completely different in the two ships.  I suppose the AAW sensors would be not as robust in the GP version for cost savings.  But if you build them all with the same sensors is it just the space for the Flag staff that changes them?  Or just the loadout in the VLS system?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: E.R. Campbell on January 27, 2017, 20:12:38
Thanks for this discussion.  :salute:  I love threads where I actually learn something. This sort of discussion is what makes Army.ca/Navy.ca/Milnet ... one of the very few of the best websites anywhere.

(Just think how much better it might be if a few more of us donated a few more dollars to help Mike keep the site "on the air.")
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on January 30, 2017, 18:51:11
On the "modern" vs tried and tested. Considering the failure rate in "modern designs" like the Type 45 and the LCS, the more "elderly" designs are looking pretty good. We would be able twek those designs based on user feedback and experience as well. I doubt hull form principles have changed that much, more so software and installed combat systems are where the biggest changes are.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on January 30, 2017, 23:29:54
On the "modern" vs tried and tested. Considering the failure rate in "modern designs" like the Type 45 and the LCS, the more "elderly" designs are looking pretty good. We would be able to tweak those designs based on user feedback and experience as well. I doubt hull form principles have changed that much, more so software and installed combat systems are where the biggest changes are.

You can make a pretty good argument for the Type 26 as being a safe, low-risk design.  There seems to be little that is new and nothing revolutionary or controversial (F125...) in the ship.  Definitely an evolutionary design using other modern frigates and destroyers for inspiration.  It might be more of a case of bringing mature technologies together in a different way that the other bids (though it could be argued the Sea Ceptor is new).

Best site I could find on the Type 26 (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/the-type-26-frigate/type-26-global-combat-ship-gcs-capabilities/) for your reading pleasure Colin P.  You keep championing the Danes and Dutch, I'll take the Type 26's corner....  :nod:

*edit for spelling*
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on January 31, 2017, 07:10:28
You can make a pretty good argument for the Type 26 as being a safe, low-risk design.  There seems to be little that is new and nothing revolutionary or controversial (F125...) in the ship.  Definitely an evolutionary design using other modern frigates and destroyers for inspiration.  It might be more of a case of bringing mature technologies together in a different way that the other bids (though it could be argued the Sea Ceptor is new).

Best site I could find on the Type 26 (http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/the-type-26-frigate/type-26-global-combat-ship-gcs-capabilities/) for your reading pleasure Colin P.  You keep championing the Danes and Dutch, I'll take the Type 26's corner....  :nod:

*edit for spelling*

Well if i might,sorry Dutch. [:D

I'm sure that the Type-26 will be an awesome ASW(mainly)ship,but there are a few buts(as well as for the new dutch ships class which we cal in the Netherlands the vMFF,or replacement M-class,since there is no official name for it yet)
1-Applies to the T-26 and vMFF,they're still being designed,so there's risk(weaponsystems,radaroutfit,etc)
2-Price for the Type-26 will be high from what i read and hear,over a billion a piece,that's why the number is down from what it was and that's why the Type-31 is designed.

But for the rest i'm sure as said it will be an awesome ship(i think the vMFF will be awesome too,but i'm biased) :gottree:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Navy_Pete on January 31, 2017, 16:16:08
Just got back from a deployment and we had the chance to work closely with both the Absalon as well as several variations of the FREMM class from both the French and Italian navies.  Both were really capable platforms and their sailors really enjoyed working on them. Absalon was particularly impressive; they did a lot of significant and completely different things well enough, and the modules they had for the command staff and extra mission staff all looked really comfortable. Great gym too, which was nice to see.

The modular approach for the combat systems is nice, and this way the powerplants could be common across all of them.  Doesn't really matter if it's full ISSC supported, standard support approach or something in between, common equipment will make logistic/engineering support and obsolescence management much simpler, as the MSE systems are really 95% of the kit on board, even if they don't have the same sex appeal as a missile system or a big gun.

Surprised they allowed the type 26 to be part of the bidding as it's an unproven design, but from talking to some RN guys in general sounds like they are sticking to proven methods (vice the type 45, which had some innovative ideas that didn't work out as well as planned), so should be pretty good once they get the initial bugs worked out.

As an aside, the ship building projects all fall under DGMPD (L&S) (Director general major project developments (land and sea) aka 'surf and turf') vice DGMEPM.  DGMEPM still provides technical support (design review, SOR input etc) but the actual PMOs fall under L&S and report to ADM(Mat).  There is a lot of work between the two but they are separate entities under the Mat umbrella.  The ISSCs will be fall under MEPM, so they had a lot of input into the RFP that went out for AOPs/JSS, as the PMO for that was pretty small (with input from the DMarP folks as well as PW and Industry Canada).  Not really sure what is the plan for any CSC ISSC, but guessing I'll find out in my next job back in the NCR in a few weeks.

It was interesting to see the perspectives between someone who just needs to deliver a product vice the folks that will have to support the product in the design phases.  Sometimes common sense prevailed, where you could justify an initial higher cost for a better product for a lower through life cost, but not all the time.  I think the sticker shock of including the through life costs for the procurement  was part of the political decision to split the two, but if you look at what is happening with the F35, where the different through life costs include all kinds of random things (pilots, fuel etc) makes it difficult to do in a meaningful way, unless you keep it at the system level for major pieces of equipment (ie DG sets, main propulsion engines, etc) vice doing it for everything.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Scott on February 06, 2017, 15:32:54
So all are aware, I removed a post that linked to a reporter we do not host works of here. I felt that for context I had to bin two posts following. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on February 06, 2017, 16:52:06
So all are aware, I removed a post that linked to a reporter we do not host works of here. I felt that for context I had to bin two posts following. Sorry for any inconvenience.

No problem,if i was wrong or caused inconvenience i'm deeply sorry.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Scott on February 06, 2017, 16:56:58
No problem,if i was wrong or caused inconvenience i'm deeply sorry.

It's no problem at all. I was making the public post in case the two that followed yours wondered where their posts went.

No more need for apologies, crap happens.

Cheers
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on February 06, 2017, 20:37:02
Well because of the previous misfire here's a story from the CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-design-deadline-1.3964566) on the frigate program delays...

Quote
Irving Shipbuilding consults with Ottawa on frigate design delay
Irving president says alleged RCMP investigation of vice-admiral has not affected frigate program
By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Feb 02, 2017 8:25 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 02, 2017 10:30 PM ET

The Trudeau government is considering an extension to a call for bids from defence contractors interested in designing and equipping Canada's next generation of combat ships.

Last fall, the federal cabinet approved the release of a long-anticipated request for proposals for an off-the-shelf warship design and combat systems.

Pre-qualified defence companies lined up for the opportunity to participate in the program, which is expected to run up to $40 billion over three decades.

A deadline of April 27 was set for bidders to submit their plans to Irving Shipbuilding Inc., which was selected in 2015 as the prime contractor.

The Halifax-based company is the federal government's go-to yard for combat ships under the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

But almost from the outset the competition, many of the warship designers complained about what they see as a tight turnaround time, even though the project has been in the industry consultation stage for years.

The notion of an extension is being examined, said Kevin McCoy, president of Irving Shipbuilding.

Ottawa to decide

"It's something we're in consultation with Canada on," he said in an interview Thursday.

"It'll be the government's decision. They'll get a recommendation from us, but we'll arrive at the right answer."

McCoy would not say whether Irving has asked for an extension or how many of the bidders have asked for extra time.

He did, however, downplay the discord among the notoriously cutthroat contenders.

"This is normal in a complex procurement that people think they need more time for a whole host of reasons," said McCoy, who testified before the House of Commons defence committee on Thursday.

A published report two weeks ago in The National Post — citing unnamed sources — said two of the bidders had asked that the entire process be delayed, and two others were considering such a request, in the aftermath of the suspension of the military's deputy commander.

Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was ordered to hand over his duties on Jan. 13 and is apparently under RCMP investigation for allegedly leaking classified information that may be related to shipbuilding.

Suspended vice-admiral being investigated for alleged leak of classified shipbuilding data

McCoy said Irving Shipbuilding has no knowledge about what is being investigated, nor has there been an effect on the bidding process.

"It's really not an issue in the [Canadian Surface Combatant] deliberations right now," he said.

Timing crucial

However, if the federal government does grant an extension to the bidding deadline, it raises concerns about keeping the frigate replacement program on track.

One of the questions officials are grappling with is how a delay might affect construction of the new warships, which are meant to replace the navy's 12 Halifax-class patrol frigates built in the 1990s.

The Irving-owned yard is slated to finish work on the navy's Arctic offshore patrol ships in 2019-20 and transition to the surface combatant project.

"We're very mindful of gap," said McCoy, who added work interruption raises the possibility of losing trained shipyard workers to other industrial sectors. "It's one of things we're constantly talking to the government about."

But he said the frigate replacement program is too important to rush.

"We've got to get the procurement right," McCoy said. "We want good submissions. We want the field to be well-represented and we want industry to feel they have been treated fairly."

Not a huge surprise, two bidders have asked for extentions and some stories have suggested that two others were going to ask for extentions.  If its only a couple of months I don't see a major issue.  There's no big surprise that there would be slippage.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 07, 2017, 10:25:33
As one of my old friend used to say (and trust me, it's the unofficial motto of commercial litigation lawyers): "It's not because i'm paranoid that they are not out to get me!"

I have learned that in negotiations and in politics, when you want to make a change and either not lose face or not let people notice you are changing, what you do is change your use of vocabulary ever so slightly.

Now, I don't know here if it is a proper reflexion of what is being said by officials or ISL personnel or if it is the journalist's writing but note the subtle changes:

It used to be that the "Canadian Surface Combatant" program was about replacing the fifteen surface warships with three AA/command ships and twelve GP combatant (the terms destroyers or frigates were never used). At the end of this article, the vocab used only mentions twelve replacement ships, and that they are frigates replacements only (GP for the Halifax's).

I think this may be the start of the government seeing us up for (1) less ships and (2) smaller/less capable ones.

But it's just me and I am paranoid when it comes to defence spending. :nod:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on February 07, 2017, 16:10:04
I kind of figured we'd only get 12, since that's been the general trend in western navies.  That doesn't mean that they'll be less capable though, and nothing that was said speaks to that.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 19, 2017, 15:01:20
Type 26 update--note Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! at end:

Quote
Major investment scrapped at Upper Clyde's last yards

 SHIPBUILDING in Scotland will wither in the global marketplace, it has been claimed, after BAE Systems scaled back much-vaunted investment plans that would have been a “game-changer” for the industry

The defence giant has confirmed it will no longer invest in a major new outfitting hall to build new frigates for the Royal Navy.

Instead it will this summer begin a series of less dramatic investments at both its facilities, Govan and Scotstoun, to enable it to carry out what is now a smaller contract than first mooted.

 Shipbuilding insiders stress that scrapping the giant shed, planned for Govan, is just the latest move to downgrade multi-million-pound investments on the Clyde mooted before the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.

Analysis: Why shipbuilders take the long view

The investment in shipbuilding had been much-trumpeted ahead of the vote on Scotland's future. Nine months before the ballot, Charlie Blakemore, who is now operations director of BAE Systems, could not have been more upbeat: "It will provide a capacity that is world-class," he said.

"We will be able to compete in a more level playing field."

Last year, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon boasted that the order for Type 26 frigates - eight rather than an originally proposed 13 - would secure jobs on the Clyde for 20 years. But unions believe underinvestment is threatening the yards' long-term future after that job is done.

The trade union convener for the yards, Duncan McPhee, said: "BAE is investing in infrastructure which is essential for the Type 26 programme and in facilities for employees which is welcome.

“However, the investments are not on the scale we had hoped for. This is not the game-changer it could have been and we have long argued that this is a missed opportunity to provide world class shipbuilding facilities in Glasgow which would have helped us secure future export contracts.

“Unfortunately, it still means we are constructing ships outside rather than under cover, which is not the way modern shipyards should operate."

...Irving of Nova Scotia, is building a warship dock hall similar to the ones abandoned by BAE Systems and is currently advertising to lure skilled Clydeside shipbuilders to Canada [emphasis added]...
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15101460.Major_investment_scrapped_at_Upper_Clyde_s_last_yards/?ref=twtrec

Current planning:

Quote
Work on eight Type 26 frigates to begin in Summer 2017
...
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fichef-1.bbci.co.uk%2Fnews%2F624%2Fcpsprodpb%2F033B%2Fproduction%2F_92272800_globalcombatship624cj.png&hash=12c6bc9e3a2ee8e0f5c94e4a6cacf5ce)
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-37861162

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on February 19, 2017, 16:33:09
Type 26 update--note Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Maybe we should call Australia and do a swap.... here are some type 26's you are looking at if you send a few subs our way.  I mean if the all singing and dancing shipyard at Irving is going to be everything the Scottish think it is....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on February 22, 2017, 21:28:28
The bid due date has been pushed back 2 months to June 22.

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/02/17/bidding-for-surface-combat-ships-set-back/ (http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/02/17/bidding-for-surface-combat-ships-set-back/)

Quote

Nestor Arellano   Feb 17 2017

Bidding for the Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program has been pushed back to the summer, according to the federal government.

The submission of proposals for the $26.2 billion program to source 15 new maritime combat ships for the Royal Canadian Navy was originally due on April 27th this year.

Twelve pre-qualified bidders had the opportunity to provide input on drafts of the request for proposal as well as the final version, prior to the RFP’s release on Oct. 27, 2016, according to the Public Service and Procurement Canada.

However, the PSPC and Irving Shipbuilding Inc., the prime contractor for the program, yesterday released a statement saying submissions will now be received until June 22nd.

According to the PSPC and Irving, companies interested in the project had requested the extension.

“In order to meet the requirement of the Royal Canadian Navy and provide economic benefits to Canada, it is important to ensure that the government receives the maximum number of bids that meet technical requirements and of high-quality economic benefits to Canada,” the statement said. “At this point, based on feedback from industry, an extension is the best course.

With this extension, the targeted completion for the procurement process remains the fall of 2017, with ship construction starting in the early 2020’s, according to the PSPC.
In addition to requests for an extension to the closing date, the procurement department said, bidders also submitted a range of questions about the procurement.

As of February 10, 2017, bidders submitted 164 questions and received 88 responses.  Bidders have until March 10, 2017, to submit additional questions, according to the PSPC. All questions received prior to this date will receive a response.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on February 22, 2017, 21:40:38
though that doesn't fix the problems, I think the fact that the Italians are threatening to pull out due to the colossal problems in managing the program should alarm people.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on February 22, 2017, 23:50:28
though that doesn't fix the problems, I think the fact that the Italians are threatening to pull out due to the colossal problems in managing the program should alarm people.

They're threatening to pull out because they want to build some of the ships.  That was never part of the deal.  Let them go.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on February 23, 2017, 11:13:20
They're threatening to pull out because they want to build some of the ships.  That was never part of the deal.  Let them go.
Evidence, please...

All the bidders "want" to build some of the ships esp DCNS.  So it has nothing to do with the fact they are selling a slightly different version of the FREMM so are essentially competing directly with DCNS, who have greater experience working outside of their own country?  Or that all the best "combat systems integrators" are teamed up with someone else?  Or maybe that the program is actually a gong show right now?   Or that they perceive bias for a specific yard?  Or even that the field is really crowded and that with a 1 in 7 chance of winning it might not be worth it?  Or maybe they are just playing politics like all programs of these type do.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on February 23, 2017, 14:41:15
Evidence, please...

I can't provide evidence, as the only evidence comes from someone whose stories we can't link to here.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on February 24, 2017, 13:53:50
BTW, for anyone that wants to find the evidence, look up Canada Shipbuilding Italy in Google.  That might get you there.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 24, 2017, 15:03:46
Actually, whilst it is a personal interpretation on the part of jmt18325, it is not unreasonable to interpret Finacantierri's recent letter to the Minister of National Defence and the minister responsible for procurement in that way.

Fincantierri indicated that, as currently conceived, they see little advantage for themselves, and probably for other bidders as well, in participating in the process unless there is a high probability of getting some return on the 10 to 20 million dollars they will have to spend to participate.

As currently structured with the "already designed" ship road elected by the Liberal government to reduce risks, it is important to know that Irving is basically asking other shipyards who have designed and build warships for their country to provide them with 100% of their design work and techniques but in a situation where they will then be responsible to Irving and the Government of Canada for the totality of the design - even if they have no say in actual construction as this will be done by Irving - and 100% responsible for the integration work of the combat system, even though they will have no say in the choice of this integrator (picked by Irving) or how that integration work will be done. Basically, Irving has discovered yet a new way with this Liberal modification to the acquisition process to make its money - and then cut any responsibility for its product.

BTW, such process means that Irving will take its profit, but the designer - because of its exposure - will build the risk it assumes into its price, making the overall project yet more expansive.

In its letter, Finacantierri proposed to the GoC, to reduce risk and costs, that the first three ships be build directly by the winning designer (whichever it may be) and those three units thoroughly evaluated by the GoC for suitability in regards to specs. Once the units have passed, then and only then, would the designer transfer all of the design, integration process and knowledge to Irving, who would complete the last 12 units.

Considering the responsibility the designer selected would assume, Fincantierri's proposal makes perfect sense: They build enough units at their own yard, under their own control, to prove the design fully satisfies the GoC. Then they teach Irving exactly how to do it. If there are problems with the last 12 units, then the government knows it should look at Irving as the cause, as the design is proven.

Moreover, with Fincantierri's proposal, the first three units could be built by whichever yard is selected as designer while Irving is still busy with the AOPS, thus saving time.

The ministers referred Fincantierri's proposal to Irving, which did not exactly make Fincantierri warm inside. I have no doubt this is the last thing Irving wants, since they would not be able to pass the puck for any flaw in the ships they would build.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on February 24, 2017, 15:11:03
Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: George Wallace on February 24, 2017, 15:14:51
Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.

My baseline for Irving Shipyards was the condition of the CN Marine ferry, the John Hamilton Grey, sailing between Borden and Cape Tormentine.  It was not very favourable.  It was disconcerting to see missing plates from under the Bridge on a ship that was less than a decade old. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 24, 2017, 15:20:41
Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Which is why it will never happen.  ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on February 24, 2017, 15:21:18
Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.

Indeed,you can't expect a yard(whichever one)to"fork" over their designs and knowledge and in the best case not get blamed if anything is stuffed by another yard. :-[

And it would be nice to be able to campare work.(who's able and who's not)

But i'm too logical.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on February 24, 2017, 17:48:30
I'm not really interpreting much.  They want to build 3 of the ships.  That was never part of the deal.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 24, 2017, 20:14:16
Earlier:

Quote
RCN Canadian Surface Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-irving-intellectual-property-and-espionage-plus-fighters-and-trump/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on May 27, 2017, 03:10:03
And with apologies to Little Orphan Annie "Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow..........."

Quote
Multibillion-dollar naval warship project hits another delay

LEE BERTHIAUME, THE CANADIAN PRESS  05.26.2017

OTTAWA — Hopes that the multibillion-dollar effort to replace the navy's warship fleet would move along quickly have taken a hit amid word the massive shipbuilding project has suffered another delay.

The federal government launched a competition last fall asking some of the world's largest defence and shipbuilding firms to design a potential replacement for the navy's 12 frigates and three destroyers.

Companies were given until the end of April to submit their designs, after which one would be selected and constructed by Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

Government officials warned at the time that there was little room for delays or other hang-ups.

But the federal public procurement department, which already extended the submission deadline by two months in February, says the companies have now been given even more time to enter their designs.

How much time?

"A new submission deadline will be communicated to the bidders shortly," Public Services and Procurement Canada spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold said in an email.


Officials say the latest extension was needed to finish answering the approximately 560 questions that participating firms have asked the department about the bidding process since the competition started.

But this latest delay in what is the largest military procurement project in Canadian history, with a value of up to $40 billion, is cause for concern, given past assertions about the need for speed.

The navy recently retired all its destroyers, meaning fewer ships to patrol Canada's coasts and operate overseas, as well as a shortage of air-defence capabilities, until the new vessels arrive in the mid-2020s.

But more importantly, government officials said in October that they wanted Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax to begin work on the new warships as soon as it finishes the last of five new Arctic patrol ships in 2019.

Officials have said a gap, which currently sits at about two years as work on the warships isn't expected to start until 2021, would cost tax dollars as workers and equipment sit idle and material costs go up.

"From a program perspective, we have not a lot of flexibility," Patrick Finn, the head of military procurement at the Department of National Defence, said in October.

"Right now, schedule is very important for us. There are some risks emerging that we need to deal with."

Irving president Kevin McCoy has also since warned of "significant layoffs" at the Halifax shipyard, unless the gap is closed or the government provides it with more work.

Bujold said minimizing the gap remains a high priority for the government and Irving and that "the extent and impact of the gap will continue to be analyzed and potential mitigation actions examined."

Irving spokesman Sean Lewis echoed that assessment, saying in a statement that the company was working with the government "towards minimizing any disruption to the workforce" because of the gap.

"It is important that we take time to listen to the short-listed bidders and respond to their questions," Lewis added. "This will ensure they are able to submit a thorough and well-informed response."

Irving was selected in 2010 to construct between six and eight Arctic patrol vessels for $2.3 billion and 15 warships, known in defence circles as Canadian surface combatants, for $26 billion.

Both projects have since been amended due to scheduling and cost issues. Irving is now committed to building five Arctic ships, though it may add a sixth.

Meanwhile, the Liberal government has said it will not discuss a price or how many warships it will buy until more information is available, after documents pegged the cost at closer to $40 billion.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/naval+warship+project+hits+another+delay/13399362/story.html

Meanwhile we have this suggestion

http://navy.ca/forums/index.php/topic,17282.msg1490083.html#msg1490083

Quote
I think we should ask Davie to provide a Turn key CSC alternative bid and see what they come up with.

But I think we are seeing some pushback on that front

The Globe and CTV seem to have decided Davie are not nice.

Quote
BARRIE MCKENNA
 Quebec’s Davie shipyard: the boondoggle that keeps taking

Quote
Quebec seeks probe of Davie shipyard as part of contract review
STEVEN CHASE, DANIEL LEBLANC AND ROBERT FIFE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, May 25, 2017 10:10PM EDT
Last updated Friday, May 26, 2017 7:16AM EDT

Together with Fife's previous "Tale of Two Shipyards"  and the CDR battle this is all starting to look really interesting.

Is it too much to hope that some light may penetrate stygian depths?  And we might discover that even with a paltry 20 BCAD per annum we might be able to buy appropriate quantities of suitable kit in a timely fashion.

Heading for another beer.  Anyone want pizza? 








Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on May 27, 2017, 11:48:04
This solution seems insanely simple.

Ask Irving what kind of ship or ships they can build over a 2-4 year period. Evaluate those designs against current market demand. Pay Irving to build however many of those vessels they can between the end of AOPS and whenever CSC starts. We have no use for these ships, so sell them on the open market to whomever needs them (hence the market research).

We may take a loss on this, but that loss is basically a premium laid to keep Irving and it's employees working. This sounds like another shitty bailout for Irving, but in the long run, keeping those employees working ensure they continue to build experience in shipbuilding, that we don't lose them together to other industries, it ensures Irving is 100% ready to hit the ground running when CSC does start, and it's good for the local economy.

Why is this so complicated?

Lots of places use ferries; just build some f*kkin ferries.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: serger989 on May 27, 2017, 14:54:55
I find it interesting that Irving is saying there would be layoffs after the bust if the government doesn't get the ball rolling and give them more work. Is it impossible for them to have more work outside of government contracts though? If so then their stance makes sense. If not... They need to build up a larger customer base and increase their capacity.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 27, 2017, 15:12:00
I find it interesting that Irving is saying there would be layoffs after the bust if the government doesn't get the ball rolling and give them more work. Is it impossible for them to have more work outside of government contracts though? If so then their stance makes sense. If not... They need to build up a larger customer base and increase their capacity.

Its all part of the game, plead poverty and all the layoffs if they don't get work.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 27, 2017, 15:44:24
KINGSTON  was laid down in December 94, and SUMMERSIDE hit the water in September 98. Basically 4 years to build the class when ISL was a crappy yard (allegedly) as compared to the ultra modern technology now at their disposal.

By 2019 (beginning of the alleged 2 year gap), SUMMERSIDE will have been in commission for 20 years, and KINGSTON for 22 years.

Two possibilities I can see: Use the gap to do major mid-life and upgrades on the MCDVs so they can go on for another 20 years. Or, in the next six months, come up with specifications for some sort of coastal defence vessel - keep it simple and let the designers come up with propositions (my preference would be around 1000t., 60 to 70 meters l.o.a., capable of 25 kts., no helicopter) that would become the next generation of vessels capable of providing gainful employment for reservists and keep their skill levels high without interfering too much in the operations of the main surface fleet), hold a design competition - these are simple vessels and a design can be developed, then reviewed and selected in a maximum of 18 months, to then let the contract to Irving to build them between 2019 and 2021, or up to whenever the gap is closed.

Then, if this second option: sell the MCDVs to other less fortunate navies, as there are always some looking for these kind of vessels.

As they say at Kayak: Problem Solved!
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 27, 2017, 16:05:48
KINGSTON  was laid down in December 94, and SUMMERSIDE hit the water in September 98. Basically 4 years to build the class when ISL was a crappy yard (allegedly) as compared to the ultra modern technology now at their disposal.

By 2019 (beginning of the alleged 2 year gap), SUMMERSIDE will have been in commission for 20 years, and KINGSTON for 22 years.

Two possibilities I can see: Use the gap to do major mid-life and upgrades on the MCDVs so they can go on for another 20 years. Or, in the next six months, come up with specifications for some sort of coastal defence vessel - keep it simple and let the designers come up with propositions (my preference would be around 1000t., 60 to 70 meters l.o.a., capable of 25 kts., no helicopter) that would become the next generation of vessels capable of providing gainful employment for reservists and keep their skill levels high without interfering too much in the operations of the main surface fleet), hold a design competition - these are simple vessels and a design can be developed, then reviewed and selected in a maximum of 18 months, to then let the contract to Irving to build them between 2019 and 2021, or up to whenever the gap is closed.

Then, if this second option: sell the MCDVs to other less fortunate navies, as there are always some looking for these kind of vessels.

As they say at Kayak: Problem Solved!

The Kingston Class were built to commercial standards and not all the ship was built as HSL, the bows were constructed separately in Georgetown PEI, floated up on a barge and mated with the superstructure thus the relative fast build time for 12 ships. The Class is still being looked at retention post 2019, most likely scenario some may be paid off however the rumblings I have heard is major items being refitted during their 60M docking. The intent is to use the Kingston Class to develop crews for the AOPS as I understand it.
Naval reservists are employed across across all classes of RCN ships. With the addition of AOPS, there is no immediate need of a coastal defence vessel.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on May 27, 2017, 17:22:49
KINGSTON  was laid down in December 94, and SUMMERSIDE hit the water in September 98. Basically 4 years to build the class when ISL was a crappy yard (allegedly) as compared to the ultra modern technology now at their disposal.

By 2019 (beginning of the alleged 2 year gap), SUMMERSIDE will have been in commission for 20 years, and KINGSTON for 22 years.

Two possibilities I can see: Use the gap to do major mid-life and upgrades on the MCDVs so they can go on for another 20 years. Or, in the next six months, come up with specifications for some sort of coastal defence vessel - keep it simple and let the designers come up with propositions (my preference would be around 1000t., 60 to 70 meters l.o.a., capable of 25 kts., no helicopter) that would become the next generation of vessels capable of providing gainful employment for reservists and keep their skill levels high without interfering too much in the operations of the main surface fleet), hold a design competition - these are simple vessels and a design can be developed, then reviewed and selected in a maximum of 18 months, to then let the contract to Irving to build them between 2019 and 2021, or up to whenever the gap is closed.

Then, if this second option: sell the MCDVs to other less fortunate navies, as there are always some looking for these kind of vessels.

As they say at Kayak: Problem Solved!

How about as above but with a flat spot but no hangar?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on May 28, 2017, 14:06:10
The Smaller vessels can also get into some harbours that the bigger ones cannot.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on May 28, 2017, 14:36:33
And up rivers that bigger ones can't.

I have this fantasy exercise of an RCN unit leaving from the Lakehead and ending up in Yellowknife.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on May 29, 2017, 11:33:07
And up rivers that bigger ones can't.

I have this fantasy exercise of an RCN unit leaving from the Lakehead and ending up in Yellowknife.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-j5iR_uUA4qs%2FTdk3pqPsKNI%2FAAAAAAAADaA%2FjgeeZ5eTNZM%2Fs1600%2F5433260155_47a689f04f_b.jpg&hash=a4839681a2545ca4858fa78422cb4e11)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on May 29, 2017, 12:18:19
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F2.bp.blogspot.com%2F-j5iR_uUA4qs%2FTdk3pqPsKNI%2FAAAAAAAADaA%2FjgeeZ5eTNZM%2Fs1600%2F5433260155_47a689f04f_b.jpg&hash=a4839681a2545ca4858fa78422cb4e11)

Is that Steve McQueen I see up against the taffrail?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 29, 2017, 15:37:24
And up rivers that bigger ones can't.

I have this fantasy exercise of an RCN unit leaving from the Lakehead and ending up in Yellowknife.

Well we are having RCN river craft going from Yellowknife to Hudson's bay this summer.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on May 29, 2017, 16:11:03
Canoes?  [:D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 29, 2017, 16:37:44
Canoes?  [:D

Jet boats I believe.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: quadrapiper on May 29, 2017, 18:31:35
Jet boats I believe.
Only thing fast enough to outrun the mosquitoes.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on May 29, 2017, 18:44:12
In the arctic, nothing outruns the mosquitoes!

All kidding aside, the RCN does not have "river" crafts per se. Moreover, you have to get the crafts up there to start with.

So what we are talking about is RHiBs, including possibly the protection ones used in Halifax and Esquimalt that have an enclosed small cabin, as those type of crafts are the only ones that we have that will fit inside a Herc or a C-17 for delivery to Yellowknife.

Even if it is the enclosed cabin ones, a trip from Yellowknife to the Arctic along the whole length of the MacKenzie river rates as Adventure Training, as far as I am concerned.

And for a Lake head to Yellowknife transit, I would not want to use the Brazilian river patrol vessels, like the RAPOSO TAVARES whose picture Colin provided. That thing has barge like flat bottom and it would keel over in any type of storm on the Great lakes, in the gulf of Saint-Lawrence or along the coast of  Labrador.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on May 29, 2017, 19:43:06
In the arctic, nothing outruns the mosquitoes!

All kidding aside, the RCN does not have "river" crafts per se. Moreover, you have to get the crafts up there to start with.

So what we are talking about is RHiBs, including possibly the protection ones used in Halifax and Esquimalt that have an enclosed small cabin, as those type of crafts are the only ones that we have that will fit inside a Herc or a C-17 for delivery to Yellowknife.

Even if it is the enclosed cabin ones, a trip from Yellowknife to the Arctic along the whole length of the MacKenzie river rates as Adventure Training, as far as I am concerned.

And for a Lake head to Yellowknife transit, I would not want to use the Brazilian river patrol vessels, like the RAPOSO TAVARES whose picture Colin provided. That thing has barge like flat bottom and it would keel over in any type of storm on the Great lakes, in the gulf of Saint-Lawrence or along the coast of  Labrador.

We actually did it in Whalers in the 70's.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv236%2Fkubla69%2F18700132_10155572633587345_6779336165245862057_n_zps6hhohd8q.jpg&hash=770f87afd6eb670661af6ea49fcda06b)

RAdm John F. Newton,
Commander Maritime Forces Atlantic ~

As sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy, we take pride in our inheritance of skill in patrol of the North Atlantic and vast Pacific Ocean. Recent experiences in operations that ranged from the Black Sea, to the Gulf of Guinea, and deep into Indo-Asia-Pacific have reasserted our global “deployability”.

In a new undertaking, 20 hand-picked sailors will gain experiential learning in a bold and completely new task. They will set sail on a once-in-a-lifetime voyage of Canada’s longest waterway, the Mackenzie River.

In celebration of Canada’s 150th anniversary, four force protection cutters will join Operation Nunakput 17. The flotilla will follow the waters that drain into a great watershed of northwestern Canada, from Great Slave Lake to the Beaufort Sea. On a voyage extending 4,000 kilometres to the sea and back, sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy will witness their land and peoples in a manner that very few have experienced.

How to apply

Over the next few weeks, the MARLANT Formation Chief, CPO1 Pierre Auger, will lead a selection process for the Nunakput boat crews. Personnel interested in obtaining more information should contact Chief Auger directly at Pierre.Auger@forces.gc.ca. Those wishing to participate are to make their interest known through their unit chain of command.

Operation Nunakput

Operation Nunakput is a sovereignty operation conducted annually under the command of Joint Task Force North. The mission is undertaken jointly with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and Provincial Government partners in order to ensure maximum sovereignty expression in the sparsely populated North.

Military participants include the 1st Canadian Ranger Patrol Group and five of their Patrols along the Mackenzie River. In the air, 440 Transport Squadron will sustain the mission using the venerable Canadian bush plane, the CC-138 Twin Otter. Canadian Army personnel will support the mission with Ranger Instructors and logistics.

After successfully testing the feasibility of force protection cutters during Nunakput 16, four of these high powered jet boats have been prepared for the 2017 mission.

Each cutter will be crewed by four sailors, male and female, selected from the two coastal Formations, national headquarters and Naval Reserve. The first group will execute the down-bound transit from Yellowknife, the second the up-bound leg. Inuvik, on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, will be the crew change and turnaround point. Each group will spend about seven days on the Mackenzie River, and between two and three days total in transit to and from the mission. The overall mission window is July 4 to 20.

Nights will be spent camping out in the great Canadian Boreal Forest. Field craft and small boat operating skills will be learned from Rangers. Engaging with fellow citizens living in remote communities will ensure that the mission is both a memorable experience and key learning opportunity as the navy prepares to take delivery of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels.

Indeed, the skills learned on Nunakput are formative requirements for those who will routinely voyage north in HMCS Harry DeWolf and the other ships of the class.

This will be an epic adventure, an important learning moment, and thrilling Canada 150 celebration. The mission commander is Lt(N) Jeff Horne, the second in command, Chief Petty Officer Second Class Currie.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on May 29, 2017, 20:41:58
Time for me to drop a buck on a lottery.  Fantasy meets reality.

The variant exercise could see a flotilla of boats leave the Lakehead, transit to Quebec City, be taken aboard a pair of deWolfs, delivered to the mouth of the Mackenzie and then Navigate upstream to Yellowknife..... or, since you are doing boats see if you can make it to Peace River or Athabaska.

Yep.  It would just be adventure training - in the same sense that most of the Arctic Sovereignty exercises are adventure training.  The point is it is done because it can be done because we own the place.

And the Press coverage wouldn't be bad either.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on May 30, 2017, 11:53:13
In the arctic, nothing outruns the mosquitoes!

All kidding aside, the RCN does not have "river" crafts per se. Moreover, you have to get the crafts up there to start with.

So what we are talking about is RHiBs, including possibly the protection ones used in Halifax and Esquimalt that have an enclosed small cabin, as those type of crafts are the only ones that we have that will fit inside a Herc or a C-17 for delivery to Yellowknife.

Even if it is the enclosed cabin ones, a trip from Yellowknife to the Arctic along the whole length of the MacKenzie river rates as Adventure Training, as far as I am concerned.

And for a Lake head to Yellowknife transit, I would not want to use the Brazilian river patrol vessels, like the RAPOSO TAVARES whose picture Colin provided. That thing has barge like flat bottom and it would keel over in any type of storm on the Great lakes, in the gulf of Saint-Lawrence or along the coast of  Labrador.

Believe it or not as far as I am aware the CCG sailed all their rivercraft up to Western Arctic from Vancouver

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ccg-gcc.gc.ca%2Ffolios%2F00790%2Fimages%2Fdfo-photo-801-multimedia-eng.jpg&hash=c6753774a7294710132e541402aa9d8b)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 01, 2017, 12:23:38
PBO report just out:

Quote
The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants
1 June 2017

Get the report
The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants.pdf
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

Summary

The objective of this report is to provide a cost estimate of the CSC program. This estimate includes costs resulting from development, production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management and upgrades to existing facilities. It does not include costs associated with the operation, maintenance and mid-life refurbishment of the ships [emphasis added], other than the spare parts that will be purchased when the ships are built.

There are two primary cost drivers for surface combatants: the ship’s weight and the combat system. The weight of surface combatants has been increasing, while their combat systems have become more and more complex, both factors driving up their cost.

Assumptions which the PBO used for it estimation were:

    Contract awarded in 2018
    Construction starts in 2021
    15th ship delivered in 2041
    CSC based on an existing design with 5,400 tons used as the reference lightship weight [emphasis added]

Total program cost in FY2017 dollars is estimated to be $39.94 billion or $61.82 billion in then-year dollars. The original budget for the CSC was $26.2 billion (from 2008 and under review) [emphasis added] and it is estimated to buy six ships...
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/CSC_costing

Gentlemen and gentlewomen, start your abaci.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on June 01, 2017, 13:17:13
woe woe woe woe, hold the phone did i just read SIX ships!??? may god have mercy on our navy
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on June 01, 2017, 13:26:15
woe woe woe woe, hold the phone did i just read SIX ships!??? may god have mercy on our navy
I thought it was 15.If it's only 6 then oh my God that price(seems like they will get 6 Starships "Enterprise")  [Xp

Also upgrades,training,etc is not included,ludacrous pricing.

I'm sure it's possible to built 15 LCF's(the Zeven Provincien class)for less of half that price(scratch that a third is also possible).,Or maybe 8 LCF's and 7 of the new ASW frigate(vMFF),no name yet,not build yet.Just get on the phone with Damen and all will be solved,lol.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on June 01, 2017, 13:35:57
"61.82 billion in then-year dollars" for six ships in other words 10.25 billion give or take a few thousand for six ships. someone wanna explain to me how one of these damn CSC's cost as much a damn Ford class aircraft carrier?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: suffolkowner on June 01, 2017, 13:55:54
The Australian Hobarts are running over $3B each so add inflation a less capable shipbuilding industry etc..
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on June 01, 2017, 14:17:21
I thought it was 15.If it's only 6 then oh my God that price(seems like they will get 6 Starships "Enterprise")  [Xp

Also upgrades,training,etc is not included,ludacrous pricing.

I'm sure it's possible to built 15 LCF's(the Zeven Provincien class)for less of half that price(scratch that a third is also possible).,Or maybe 8 LCF's and 7 of the new ASW frigate(vMFF),no name yet,not build yet.Just get on the phone with Damen and all will be solved,lol.

Karel -  the difference is that you folks actually build ships.

Slainte.  :cheers:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 01, 2017, 15:03:21
You people are reading all this wrongly.

Here is the exact reference to 6 ships from the PBO report:

"PBO estimates that for the program to stay within the original budget of $26.2 billion (then-year dollars), the government could build only six ships"

It's important to understand the difference between "then year dollars" and "FY-2017 dollars", and remember that the original figure was derived in 2008.

Then year dollars means actual value of money year to year as it loses (or gains, but that's not happened in a long time) purchasing power, so it includes for instance both 100M$ used in 2017 and $100M$ used in 2030 as 100M$ even though, by 2030, that may only purchase what used to cost $25M$ in 2017. All the sentence means from the PBO is that, if we were to use the original amount of 26B$ forecasted and use it as we go along, it would end up purchasing only six ships.

More important and of greater value is the Average Ship Cost appearing in the table:

It lists the average cost for fifteen ships in FY2017 as 1.66B$ each. This means that if we were to acquire all fifteen ships in this fiscal year, that would be the average price. Considering the AAD version cost about 3B$ each and the ASW/GP version cost about 1.2 B$ each in today's market, the PBO is about right.

But more interesting, is the calculated average cost "in then years" for the whole fleet of 15, with construction spread from 2021 to 2041: It is 2.73B$ per ship. That's not so bad for ships 23 years from now. For comparison sake, the PBO shows that the "then-dollar" cost of the HALIFAX was 470 million dollars each. The Hal's were built over a period of only 9 years however.

For a better comparison, consider that the US Navy, which mass produces destroyers, went from a cost of 750M$ (Canadian dollars here for comparison) for the first Arleigh Burke in 1989, to $2.1B$ each for the latest ones.

So MilEME, the 61B$ figure is for 15 ships, and of that, only 41B$ is the actual cost of the ships. The rest is for facilities, spare parts, training, government "management" cost of the program, etc. etc., as all listed by the PBO.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on June 01, 2017, 15:10:46
In 15 years most of the welding, cutting and plate handling will be by robots, likely driving down costs. Even the cost of Robots will fall as they become more common and capable.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 01, 2017, 16:11:12
So Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! for robots not voters?  Unless Liberals can find way to extend the franchise... ;)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Seyek on June 01, 2017, 16:13:19
The report mentions that there will only be one variant, I was under the impression we were still going with two, 3 AAW and 12 ASW, has that changed?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on June 01, 2017, 16:49:11
Why are they not delivering the last ship until 2041?

That seems incredibly slow....


M.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on June 01, 2017, 17:07:12
What!!! And retire the last HAL before it has reached the appropriate age of 45 years of service?

That is so un-canadian, Blackshirt. Shame on you for even suggesting it.

 ;)
 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on June 01, 2017, 20:02:59
Note PBO report on Canadian Surface Combatant costs mentions possible missile defence capability (pp.19-20 PDF):
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

More earlier on CSC and missile defence:

Quote
Technology and Politics – Canadian Ballistic Missile Defence
https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/technology-and-politics-canadian-ballistic-missile-defence/

Be interesting to see if the defence review dares deal with this aspect.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on June 02, 2017, 06:10:05
GAN radar directed  at CSC:

Thales puts forward the APAR2 for the new Canadian Combatants;



Thales Nederland is showcasing its APAR Block 2 radar at CANSEC, having proposed the sensor for inclusion in the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) warship.

Canada invested in the development of the original APAR (active phased array radar), and while it was not adopted in Canada, the system was sold to the navies of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. APAR Block 2 is a new, ship-agnostic system that could be applied to a number of CSC design proposals.

Thales (Booth 1701) has developed APAR Block 2 with development funding from the Royal Netherlands Navy. However, there is considerable Canadian involvement in the form of the transmit/receive modules (TRMs) provided by Sanmina. In the new APAR iteration, those modules employ gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductor technology in place of the gallium arsenide (GaAs) TRMs used in APAR Block 1.

GaN permits greater mode flexibility and greater power transmission, and the radar no longer requires waveguides.

APAR Block 2 is an X-band radar offering rapid detection and tracking of small-RCS (radar cross-section) targets at low elevations, with an ability to see out to the horizon and beyond.

Unlike other radars, which require separate illumination systems, APAR Block 2 has the ability to provide guidance for missiles such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and Standard Missile 2.

In a warship installation, APAR Block 2 would be part of a dual-band radar system, partnered by a Thales SeaMaster 400 S-band array offering a range of 450‑500km.

This was developed as a non-rotating radar for the Royal Netherlands Navy’s Holland class offshore patrol vessels. Both radars have four fixed arrays in a mast (along with surface search sensors) to provide 360° coverage, and they share a common processor.

Automated radar task scheduling optimises the employment of both antenna sets.

The Canadian DND has outlined a number of extreme threat environments in which the CSC’s defensive systems must operate, and Thales is confident that its system, with APAR Block 2, can meet the challenges associated with them.



http://www.janes.com/article/71025/gan-radar-directed-at-csc-cansec17d2#.WTEHf-irhgw.twitter
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 23, 2017, 12:47:06
Irving and Canadian gov't to be trusted with CSC IP?  Plus USN:

Quote
Analysis
Intellectual property could be key as Canada and U.S. compete for frigate-building bids
Bidders might choose to participate in 'one, but not both' shipbuilding projects, analyst says

The U.S. navy is in the market for up to 20 patrol frigates in a multibillion-dollar program that one defence expert says could cut into Canada's plans for its own, more modest project.

Not only is the American program more lucrative, but Canada's intellectual property demands could put it at a further disadvantage in the fight for international bidders, says defence analyst Danny Lam.

The Pentagon issued a request for information to the defence industry on July 10 for its new warship program. It proposes to open up competition to foreign designs in a manner similar to the Liberal government.

Lam says both programs have very similar requirements, but the Americans are moving more aggressively and want to begin construction on the first frigate in 2020.

The Canadian program, on the other hand, remains on schedule for the "early 2020s," according to Public Works and Procurement Services Canada.

    Bidder urges overhaul of design tender in $60B navy frigate program
    Backroom battle underway over new frigate design data

Perhaps more importantly, Lam said, is the backroom dispute over intellectual property rights that's been raging for over a year between ship designers and the Liberal government.

Ship designers from France, Britain, Italy and the U.S., among others, are part of the Canadian competition.

Some of the 12 bidders, particularly those with designs dependant on electronics developed in conjunction with their home governments, have balked at the amount of technical data being requested by the Canadian government.

Defence and procurement officials have insisted the information is necessary to maintain the new fleet in the decades to come.

Part of the issue, Lam said, is the fact the nearly $60-billion Canadian program is being managed by an outside company, Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

He said companies are concerned their data could be appropriated and used by Irving, or others in the industry, to come up with an entirely new warship design.

Irving officials, speaking on background in the past, have dismissed that concern.

Lam also predicted that once the project's database is established, the Canadian program will become a top target for Chinese, Russian and North Korean hackers, who would try to steal the information.

As such, the U.S. government would likely have significant security concerns about those companies participating in the Canadian program, Lam said.

"They can participate in one or the other, but not both programs."

Government wants intellectual property...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-frigate-program-1.4216582

Earlier:

Quote
RCN Canadian Surface Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-irving-intellectual-property-and-espionage-plus-fighters-and-trump/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on July 24, 2017, 13:17:05
Can't the IP be held by the government and used by government as required, Irving only getting enough access to build the ship?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 24, 2017, 17:07:45
Article by Danny Lam that spurred Murray Brewster CBC piece above:

Quote
Can USN sink Canada’s IP Piracy policy?

The U.S. Navy has decided it needs some new ships. Canada has been toying with the idea of a new Surface Combatant for years now, with very little progress. Will the IP requirements of one project impact the other? Let's compare.

With the goal of keeping costs down by using common equipment, the U.S. Navy’s new FFG(X) program (Guided Missile Frigate Replacement) is requesting information from both domestic and foreign shipbuilders for derivatives of an existing design for a class of 20 guided-missile ships that can be delivered starting in 2024.

At first, the USN had considered upgrading and enlarging its Littoral Combat Ship, but realized the time constraints would not permit such an extensive redesign. In theory, the requirements can be met with an upgraded Coast Guard National Security Cutter or a refreshed Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate, but the turnaround will be faster and price tag cheaper if chosen from an existing design. From that field, the ARGE F125, Fincantieri FREMM, Naval Group FREMM or its new Belharra, Navantia F-105, BAE Type 26 GCS, and Odense Iver Huitfeldt, are known to be in the running of foreign designs. The deadline for a response to the U.S. RFI (Request for Information) on the FFG(X) is 24 August 2017.

Canada is presently in the midst of a major procurement for the over 7000 ton displacement Surface Combatant vessels. Not surprisingly, most if not all of the qualified bidders for the Canadian program are also candidates for America's newest frigate replacement program, the 4000-7000 ton FFG(X).

Other than size, the biggest difference is that Canada is looking to select both a platform design and a combat system, whereas the U.S. RFI is for a platform design only, however, the FFG(X) will be equipped with many sophisticated systems, weapons and unmanned technologies.

A quick comparison of the two schedules, however, is astounding. The CSC procurement process for up to 15 vessels is twice as long as for the 20 completed FFG(X) ships – 16 years for 20 U.S. ships vs 38 years for Canada's 15 ships.

    CSC: Industry Day (late 2012); Design contract (2018); Build contract (2021); First delivery (2026 or later); Final delivery (2050).
    FFG(X): Industry Day (mid-2017); Design and build contract (2020-21); First delivery (2024); Final delivery (2033).

Another key difference is that the U.S. Navy's procurement department has a full time staff of knowledgeable experts to evaluate and make decisions on the FFG(X) design, whereas in Canada, the Navy is not in the lead. Instead, the evaluation team of the privately-owned Irving Shipbuilding Inc (ISI) is a key decision-maker for the Government of Canada.

According to a spokesperson for ISI, "the Government of Canada has set the requirements for the CSC design RFP. Short-listed bidders will submit their RFP response to Irving Shipbuilding. Using the Government of Canada approved Evaluation Plan and Criteria, Irving Shipbuilding and the Government of Canada will assess the submitted proposals. The Government of Canada will make the final decision on selection of a design. All stages will be monitored by Canada’s Fairness Monitor."

Canada's Department of National Defence budgets the CSC platform and combat system at $26.2 billion, while the Parliamentary Budget Officer says a more realistic number is $61.8 billion. Experienced European shipbuilders are baffled by this figure, saying the vessels can be built for much less, which leads us to ask: who is accountable? As for the FFG(X), no budget has yet been determined.

How do these two programs relate? In fact, there is a direct security risk based on the procurement process alone. Let's look at the global picture first.

The security of commercial and military intellectual property is always a major issue, as Canada's spy agency, CSIS, openly warned less than a year ago. Western defence contractors – from major primes to small subcontractors – are all being targeted by Chinese, Russian, Iranian, North Korean, and other spies and agents who are eager to acquire commercially and militarily sensitive information. Thus, program security is a major concern.

What are the ramifications of these security and corporate espionage issues, and how will Canada's Surface Combatant procurement process impact the U.S. and its FFG(X) program?..
http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3896-Dr.-Danny-Lam/7750-Can-USN-sink-Canada%E2%80%99s-IP-Piracy-policy%3F

Read on.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 25, 2017, 13:58:05
Good grief:

Quote
Deadline for warship designs missing in action

The plan to replace the navy's warship fleet is officially sailing uncharted waters, as an important deadline for the $60-billion project has all but disappeared.

The federal government launched a competition last fall asking some of the world's largest defence and shipbuilding firms to design a potential replacement for the navy's frigates and destroyers.

Companies were given until the end of April to submit their designs, after which one would be selected and constructed by Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

But after the federal government announced it was extending a second time in May, companies still don't know when their designs are now due.

The government says it continues to work with industry to deliver the warships the navy needs, and that a deadline for the designs to be submitted will be set soon.

But the development has left some defence experts and industry representatives puzzled and worried about the fate of what is the single largest military procurement in Canadian history.

The Canadian Press
http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/07/25/deadline-for-warship-designs-missing-in-action-3/#.WXd3wemQzwo

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on July 25, 2017, 14:36:13
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJKMji2688M

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on July 25, 2017, 14:36:46
Good grief:

Mark
Ottawa

Yeah Canada will get new ships(Surface combatants)when is unknown. [Xp

But what is known is which 1,in my opinion,i mean they keep on pushing the "deadline",and now the Type-26 comes in play.(Although i seem to remember that the new ships would be build of an existing design)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 25, 2017, 15:56:37
Karel Doorman: see relating to Type 26 maybe:

Quote
Irving Working with BAE Systems: Implications for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/mark-collins-irving-working-with-bae-systems-implications-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on July 25, 2017, 16:13:49
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.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 28, 2017, 11:50:28
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
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on July 30, 2017, 12:53:21
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


Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 04, 2017, 12:26:45
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

(https://i2.wp.com/www.dodbuzz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/coast-guard-cutter-hamilton-1200.jpg?resize=777%2C437&ssl=1)
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
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on August 04, 2017, 15:46:38

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!

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on August 04, 2017, 16:40:51
.... 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.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on August 04, 2017, 16:57:26
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.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Dimsum on August 04, 2017, 17:19:34
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? 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on August 04, 2017, 17:27:43
Thanks Lumber.

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

Cheers.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 04, 2017, 17:44:36
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
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 04, 2017, 18:09:46
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:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: suffolkowner on August 06, 2017, 16:22:31
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?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on August 12, 2017, 10:55:47
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.


Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 12, 2017, 13:15:32
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.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on August 12, 2017, 14:12:23
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

(https://i1.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/35b885b6d3c3e588aa5b56ff929cdbcd6c56e693/c=1575-0-4941-2531&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/05/07/DefenseNews/DefenseNews/635665951563873828-DSC-3377c.JPG?zoom=2)/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on August 13, 2017, 17:21:59
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.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: serger989 on August 13, 2017, 23:43:14
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?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on August 14, 2017, 07:46:48
The days of loaded for beer are sadly now, history.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on August 14, 2017, 10:07:50
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:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 14, 2017, 12:38:02
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
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on August 14, 2017, 14:13:24
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.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on August 15, 2017, 11:18:10
More on Italian PPA (much more than normal OPV):

Mark
Ottawa

No missile system?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on August 15, 2017, 12:05:49
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.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 06, 2017, 16:54:53
Both Fincantiere and Naval Group (was DCNS) FREMMs in running for CSC:

Quote
France wants naval industry tie-up with Italy

France is keen to strengthen its naval industry and is pursuing cooperation with Italy in a bid to be a leader in building surface warships, according to France’s armed forces minister.

“I will also push for our defense industry,” Florence Parly said. “This is one of the catalysts for European defense and one of the motors for the French economy.”

The minister said she wanted to “give our defense industry the means to develop strongly,” particularly the naval sector. “That is why I am presently working on forming an alliance between the French and Italian naval industries in the area of surface warships with the ambition of building a world leader.”

Pauly was giving the closing speech Sept. 5 at a high-level defense conference at Toulon, southern France.

“This ambitious project was making progress, with the close cooperation of the companies concerned,” she said, adding that she would further address the subject in the next few weeks.

The French and Italian government have previously agreed that the two countries would reach an agreement by Sept. 27 in an attempt to resolve a dispute over the acquisition of STX, a French commercial shipyard, by Italian state-owned company Fincantieri.

The STX yard at Saint-Nazaire, western France, is the only one large enough in France to build an aircraft carrier, prompting concerns over national sovereignty.

Fincantieri, Naval Group and STX could cooperate and become a European leader to compete in the world market for commercial and military shipping, the French and Italian government said after an Aug. 1 ministerial meeting in Rome, where they sought to defuse the row over ownership of the STX yard.



Naval Group is in discussions with Fincantieri for cooperation on a surface warship, according to a spokesman for the French state-controlled shipbuilder. Naval Group has long had experience cooperating with Fincantieri, as the two worked together on the Horizon anti-submarine frigate and the FREMM multimission frigate, he noted.

The French company is also still in talks with the French government and Fincantieri on taking a stake in STX France, a commercial shipyard.

Naval Group may eventually hold 10-15 percent of STX if the French and Italian governments reach an accord on an acquisition by Fincantieri of the commercial yard...
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/09/06/france-wants-naval-industry-tie-up-with-italy/

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 06, 2017, 20:13:37
For pity's putrefying sake!

Quote
Deadline for warship designs pushed several more months

 Federal procurement officials are playing down the impact of yet another delay in the competition to design new warships for the navy, saying the extra time will help produce a better result.

The design competition is the most recent — and arguably most sensitive — phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 new warships, construction of which is expected to begin in 2021.

Defence companies were originally supposed to have submitted their proposed designs for the vessels in April, but the deadline has since been pushed back several times.

Lisa Campbell, head of military procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said officials are now aiming to have the ship designs arrive in mid-November, though an exact date still hasn't been set.

The delay was necessary, she said, to ensure all the participating companies understood what was expected of them, which will ensure a level playing field and maximize the number of bids.

The comments underscore the confusion — and extremely high stakes — that have surrounded the design competition, which involves many of the world's largest defence and shipbuilding companies.

Campbell said the government is also changing the way it evaluates the proposed designs, and will tell companies if their submissions don't meet the government's requirements.

There have long been concerns, including within the Department of National Defence, that any delay in the design competition will push the whole project off schedule.

That could result in higher construction costs and affect the navy's ability to do its job. The navy is already operating with fewer ships after retiring its three destroyers without a replacement.

The government likely won't be able to select the winning design until 2018, Campbell acknowledged, "but we still anticipate ship construction in the early 2020s. So it hasn't changed our ship construction start date."

One of the main grumbles from industry over the past few months has been the amount of valuable intellectual property, or IP, they are being required to hand over to the government and Irving Shipbuilding.

The Halifax-based shipyard is running the design competition in co-operation with the federal government, and will be responsible for building the warships in the coming years.

Campbell defended the government's approach, however, saying officials want to ensure they have whatever information is needed to not only buy the warships, but to operate and maintain them for decades.

"In many ways, this is an IP procurement," she said.

"And it is hugely important to Canada. It's very, very important for us to treat intellectual property carefully because it means Canada will have control of choice and competition down the road."
http://www.timescolonist.com/deadline-for-warship-designs-pushed-several-more-months-1.22478799

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on September 06, 2017, 21:00:27
For pity's putrefying sake!

Mark
Ottawa

You were surprised by this?  There seems to be more work going into pre-bid compliance evaluation than was originally anticipated, however that also means less work for compliance evaluation on the other end of the process after bids are "officially in".  Might be a case of more work up front and less at the back (*both fingers crossed*).  At the end of the day late spring and early summer was the expected time for the competition winner to be announced.  I will be more concerned if those timelines slip.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on September 07, 2017, 00:57:06
Well this is interesting

https://youtu.be/UZ8VItho9rM

What could Davie be upto?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Half Full on September 07, 2017, 08:31:11
Might be a case of more work up front and less at the back (*both fingers crossed*).
From the CBC article :http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/warship-design-delay-1.4277967
 "Campbell said that the navy's requirements for the kinds of warships it wants and the systems that will go into them has not changed."
 This tells me  that the requirements haven't changed but that the problem lies elsewhere... And in this case I bet the issue lies with Irving.  They have too much power and control over this project... And i will bet a beer they are concerned that they can't build them the way the companies have told them the Mots designs need to be built.  Probably to high of a standard required!
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 07, 2017, 11:49:06
Not to mention Canada wanting the suppliers to teach Canada how to compete with them - at the same time the French and Italians are discovering that they can't maintain their own national yards.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on September 07, 2017, 19:24:17
Well this is interesting

https://youtu.be/UZ8VItho9rM

What could Davie be upto?

Davie has been pushing distributed block building for a while now.  If Canada were to implement distributed block build it reduces the impact inflation has on shipbuilding programs because the ships are built faster.  As an example the Harry DeWolfe is 70% finished.  Mainly it is missing a bow.  If the bow was made concurrent with the other two megablocks (at say Davie's shipyard?) then the Harry DeWolfe would be 90% finished right now and probably be ready to float end of Sept instead of end Jan. 

This could conceivably reduce the time for the ships by up to 50% if you had multiple yards working on multiple blocks, ship them to Irving for final assembly etc...

It would also spread the wealth out to multiple shipyards across the country.  In this model there would be a single prime contractor who would then subcontract out other parts to other shipyards.

Davie is basically angling for a piece of the CSC with this video while trying to look reasonable.  Irving could easily subcontract them to make the superstructure etc...  but they will only do that if the gov't forces them too.  It could also increase the amount of profit for Irving as the contract might be a fixed amount and therefore if they can find a way to build cheaper (ie: fight inflation) then more profit...
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on September 07, 2017, 20:09:42
Davie has been pushing distributed block building for a while now.  If Canada were to implement distributed block build it reduces the impact inflation has on shipbuilding programs because the ships are built faster.  As an example the Harry DeWolfe is 70% finished.  Mainly it is missing a bow.  If the bow was made concurrent with the other two megablocks (at say Davie's shipyard?) then the Harry DeWolfe would be 90% finished right now and probably be ready to float end of Sept instead of end Jan. 

This could conceivably reduce the time for the ships by up to 50% if you had multiple yards working on multiple blocks, ship them to Irving for final assembly etc...

It would also spread the wealth out to multiple shipyards across the country.  In this model there would be a single prime contractor who would then subcontract out other parts to other shipyards.

Davie is basically angling for a piece of the CSC with this video while trying to look reasonable.  Irving could easily subcontract them to make the superstructure etc...  but they will only do that if the gov't forces them too.  It could also increase the amount of profit for Irving as the contract might be a fixed amount and therefore if they can find a way to build cheaper (ie: fight inflation) then more profit...

Well in my opinion the entire shipbuilding plan should be a national plan, controlled by the government, where we hand out the work to yard for certain parts of the program, as you stated say Davie and others build blocks, Irving assembles and finishes. The government would get ships faster, everyone get's work, and if we planned it right we could keep the yards busy constantly for decades to come.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on September 07, 2017, 23:27:32
In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them. 

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: FSTO on September 08, 2017, 10:18:12
In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them. 

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS

 :goodpost:

So true.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Halifax Tar on September 08, 2017, 10:46:39
In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them. 

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS

 :cdnsalute:  :goodpost:

The fact we continue to give that yard tax dollars, breaks and contracts boggles my mind. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 08, 2017, 10:51:44
I'm more boggled that we don't make them properly fulfill the contract without penalty as we always let them slide on things.  They always get a hall pass. >:(
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: YZT580 on September 08, 2017, 14:34:25
The maritimes voted liberal, almost unanimously.  Without them, Trudeau is the leader of the opposition.  La Belle Province not so certain.  Logically I would support Irving too, regardless of product. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 09, 2017, 13:13:44
While agree that a high-low (largish OPVs? smaller frigates? corvettes?) mix of sorts for RCN surface warship fleet--A/OPS not real warship--is all that is affordable, we must keep in mind need to have sufficient ASW/anti-missile capability to contribute usefully to NATO vs resurgent Russian navy submarine/cruise missile threat:

Quote
Scale back warship plan: analyst

In June the federal government more than doubled the $26-billion budget to build 15 new Canadian Surface Combatant vessels — the first of which is expected to be delivered in 2026 — to $60 billion.

The U.K. revealed plans this week to buy five budget Type 31e general purpose frigates, on top of the eight type 26 global combat ships currently being constructed by BAE Systems, at a cost equivalent of about $400 million Canadian a piece. This is a fraction of what their Type 26 global combat ships — which are one of the designs in the running for Canada’s new fleet — will cost.

Ken Hansen, a retired navy commander and defence analyst, said Canada ought to follow countries like the U.K. and Denmark in scaling back on what he calls outrageous military-grade engineering standards as well as considering purchasing some vessels with more basic capabilities.

“(These standards are) driving defence procurement to ridiculously high extremes when in fact there is no imminent conflict that would justify that kind of expenditure,” he said.

“Historically . . . what we have always done is a high-low mix, and it makes no sense to be sending a really high capability ship off to low risk tasks,” he said.

According to Hansen, a large portion of shipbuilding costs are due to using extremely high engineering standards for systems and subsystems — things like water, power, heating and ventilation — that are commonly available, something that he said Denmark has managed to opt out of.

“They use Caterpillar diesel engines for diesel generators and they use stuff from their marine industry, the best industrial standard is good enough.”

Hansen said it was once thought that over engineering could improve survivability, but that’s no longer true with modern weaponry.

“Engineering standards will not save you for a torpedo hit or high-speed missile hit. The only thing that will absorb the destructive power of modern weaponry is size. So you’re better off to build it bigger and then use redundancy to get survivability, and that’s what the Danes do as well,” he said.

Instead of two diesel generators on a ship, Hansen said, the Danes will have four or six because because they’re a 10th of the cost of a military spec diesel generator.

“What’s driving the government to say ‘Oh we have to put all this extra money in the program,’ is that they’re allowing the navy to dictate this requirement when there’s no historical justification for it. If you do the analysis on the lethality of modern systems for it, there’s no justification for it there either,” he said...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1501098-scale-back-warship-plan-analyst

Related:

Quote
What Is the RCN For? Reprise
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/mark-collins-what-is-the-rcn-for-reprise/

USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?
...
perhaps the national defence minister’s defence policy review should look very hard indeed at the minimum number of new Canadian Surface Combatants that will be needed to be seriously ready for real anti-submarine warfare–as opposed to say the essentially show-the-flag and alliance support expeditionary operations sometimes conducted by the RCN’s current frigates (which of course also are very ASW capable). Also how essential and affordable are the Navy’s few submarines for North Atlantic ASW and can we afford any substantial number of new ones down the road?..
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/

Mark
Ottawa




Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on September 09, 2017, 13:18:18
They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on September 09, 2017, 13:39:30
They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.
Agreed.

The difference between the RCN and the Euro navies is that we can operate 24/7.  They operate 12 hours a day and then do basic bridge watch overnight.  Also because they've reduced manning so much they can't fight and do damage control at the same time.  Or if they take damage they have to "pull out of the line" to keep the ship alive.  RCN ships can always fight and damage control together (as does UK, US and I think Australia).  Civilian ship standards mean that when you do take damage it's often more severe and your ship is now a useless casualty.

The RCN and gov't want ships that have the highest chance of bringing home the sailors in it alive and well.  That is the highest priority for the CSC.  You can't do that with civi standards.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Navy_Pete on September 09, 2017, 15:44:08
They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.

It drives me crazy to read his commentary.


According to Hansen, a large portion of shipbuilding costs are due to using extremely high engineering standards for systems and subsystems — things like water, power, heating and ventilation — that are commonly available, something that he said Denmark has managed to opt out of.

“They use Caterpillar diesel engines for diesel generators and they use stuff from their marine industry, the best industrial standard is good enough.”

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/hewitt-equipment-limited-awarded-halifax-class-frigates-generator-replacement-contract-2028318.htm (http://Hewitt Equipment Limited Awarded Halifax Class Frigates Generator Replacement Contract)

Hey, so do we!

Hansen said it was once thought that over engineering could improve survivability, but that’s no longer true with modern weaponry.

“Engineering standards will not save you for a torpedo hit or high-speed missile hit. The only thing that will absorb the destructive power of modern weaponry is size. So you’re better off to build it bigger and then use redundancy to get survivability, and that’s what the Danes do as well,” he said.

The old milspec standards were adapted into commercial standards, and some industries have higher requirements than milspec.  What we do have is shock and vibration standards, but you take industrial equipment and shock mount it for that.  WE USE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT YOU DAFT GASBAG!

Our requirements to have redundant equipment is no different than normal marine requirements for redundancy.

No one really expects a frigate sized ship to recover from a direct torpedo hit, but with the engineering standards will drastically improve your chances as the shock mounting will drastically reduce secondary and tertiary damage from the high speed contact. Industrial equipment not shock mounted will eat the entire force of the shock wave and fail.  I was on the last RCN ship to do shock testing; we found out right away what happened when something was installed that wasn't up to the milspec.

Instead of two diesel generators on a ship, Hansen said, the Danes will have four or six because because they’re a 10th of the cost of a military spec diesel generator.

“What’s driving the government to say ‘Oh we have to put all this extra money in the program,’ is that they’re allowing the navy to dictate this requirement when there’s no historical justification for it. If you do the analysis on the lethality of modern systems for it, there’s no justification for it there either,” he said...


Two separated generators is the bare minimum for any ship, and we also have four on every ship.  Jesus H, what is he even talking about?

You want to know what drives the cost of warships?  Look at the expensive weapons systems and sensor packages.  Aside from the material costs involved in stuff like using naval brass for piping and valves, and the relatively minimal cost for shock mountings, warships cost a lot because there are a few BILLION dollars of WAR FIGHTING gear on it.

God he makes me angry.  What kind of idiot would design a multipurpose ship that would only deal with known imminent threats when the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years? 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on September 10, 2017, 00:57:30
God he makes me angry.  What kind of idiot would design a multipurpose ship that would only deal with known imminent threats when the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years?

The government of Canada has traditionally been reactionary, not precautionary in spending, and procurement, his line of thinking kinda goes along with what our country always seems to do, sadly.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on September 10, 2017, 12:35:27
Quote
the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years

And that is not an insignificant part of the problem.   Delivering ships in flights with shorter operational careers would save money.

Take a low inflation rate of 3%.  Apply it for 20 years.

$100,000,000 in 2020 will be $181,000,000 in 2040.  Virtually double the price for exactly the same ship - assuming you are not paying a premium to buy obsolescent parts that the market no longer supplies.

Same rate of inflation applied for 35 years.

$281,000,000 in 2055.  Triple the original price to directly replace 35 year old technology.

And if the "actual" inflation rate were the 8% I have heard bandied around when discussing military procurement then, after 35 years,

$100,000,000  becomes $1,478,000,000.  15 times the price or 15 ships will buy you 1.



Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Navy_Pete on September 10, 2017, 12:44:33
That's where the $62B price tag comes from; the PBO took the rolling cost estimates and adjust it to 2040 values.

I'll see if I can find the studies on warship cost escalations (RAND?) but there are a few that show 8-10% cost escalation each year of delays.  In practical purposes you can tie that to costs and makes business cases to recover schedule delays easier, as it becomes a 'pay now or pay later' issue.

It'll be interesting to see how it rolls out; with the obsolescence for computers running at a 3 year cycle, configuration and obsolescence management will be a challenge between the first and last ship.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 15, 2017, 13:23:15
Note Type 26 going for RCN, RAN contracts too:

Quote
BAE joins race for new US frigate with its Type 26 vessel

(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/y-w6L7Kh1zzgVp-YcWN1eED-Duw=/750x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/FAQ6TBVLGNH6XAXEJTX3VU547E.jpg)

BAE Systems is officially gunning for the U.S. Navy’s new frigate program with its new Type 26 frigate now in production in the U.K.

Company officials confirmed Thursday it had responded to the U.S. Navy’s request for information and were in talks with unspecified companies in the states about how it would build the ship for the FFG(X) program, according to a BAE official who spoke on background to discuss early developments.

“In terms of the technical requirements, its a good fit. ... We responded to the RFI and we’re confident its a pretty good fit,” the official said.

The Type 26, designed primarily as an anti-submarine ship, is competing hard for both the Canadian and Australian frigate programs [emphasis added, see below on current Irving link]. Anti-submarine warfare is a key requirement for FFG(X), which BAE thinks gives its frigate an edge. The design also incorporates a large mission bay that can be used as flex space for mission modules.

“The Type 26 is at the start of life, it‘s a new design and meets the new standards, and it‘s got adaptability built in,” the official said.

The ship’s mast could be reconfigured to support Raytheon’s Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar and will have enough power, space and cooling to support other requirements the Navy is looking to incorporate.

While the Type 26 incorporates or can adapt to virtually all the capabilities outlined in July’s RFI, including 36 vertical launching system cells and Mark 41 VLS launchers, the ship might be too rich for the Navy’s blood, according to Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a former aid to former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert.

“I think they‘re leaning to something with a little less capability that will be a bit more economical,” Clark said.

The British Royal Navy recently inked a deal for the first three Type 26 frigates worth £3.7 billion (U.S. $4.9 billion). That cost averages to just a little less than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, though that’s not a perfect metric because the costs would be different for a U.S. version.

Still, the Navy isn’t looking to buy a ship that compete’s for missions with the destroyer, said Rear Adm. Ron Boxall in an exclusive interview with Defense News in July.

“We don’t want the ship to be so big that it competes with the destroyer. We want this to be part of the high-low mix,” Boxall said. “So ensuring we get those capabilities at the best value is important.”

But the ship faces other headwinds as well, Clark said, because some of the competing designs already have ships they can show the Navy, whereas BAE Systems just cut steel for the first Type 26 this summer.

“The problem they‘re facing is the rest of [their competitors] have ships that actually exist,” Clark said. “You look at Fincantieri‘s FREMM, there are already hulls in the water you can point to. [Huntington Ingalls] can point to the National Security Cutter and say: ‘We could offer a modified version of this for the frigate.’

“The Navy made a big deal in the rollout of the RFI that it was looking for ‘proven designs,’ which likely means they‘re looking for ships that already exist [emphasis added--and RCN?].”
http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2017/09/14/bae-is-in-the-race-for-the-the-us-ffgx-with-its-type-26-frigate/

Last year (Thales actually got this contract http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/royal-canadian-navy-ships-privatize-maintenance-1.4250961 ):

Quote
Irving Working with BAE Systems: Implications for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant?
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/mark-collins-irving-working-with-bae-systems-implications-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on September 21, 2017, 18:16:39
Third time lucky one trusts:

Quote
New deadline established for competition to design navy's new warships

Defence companies and shipbuilders competing to design Canada's new fleet of warships have been given until Nov. 17 to submit their proposals.

It's the third such deadline for the design competition, which is the most recent -- and arguably most politically sensitive -- phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 warships.

Participating firms were originally supposed to have submitted their designs for the new vessels in April, but that deadline was pushed back to June before disappearing entirely.

Defence companies and shipbuilders competing to design Canada's new fleet of warships have been given until Nov. 17 to submit their proposals.

It's the third such deadline for the design competition, which is the most recent -- and arguably most politically sensitive -- phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 warships.

Participating firms were originally supposed to have submitted their designs for the new vessels in April, but that deadline was pushed back to June before disappearing entirely.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/new-deadline-established-for-competition-to-design-navy-s-new-warships-1.3600295

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on October 02, 2017, 10:17:48
It seems like the Canadian version of the City-class(Type-26) was proposed and looks like it will have APAR-2 on it.  :nod:  (if my guess is correct)


https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/download/file.php?id=78

From this page:"Also, she appeared to have a 32 cell Mark 41 VLS forward and omitted the Sea Ceptor VLSs both forward of the bridge and aft of the funnel.  Aft of the funnel, she carried two quad Harpoon launchers.  Lastly, she was carrying SeaRams instead of Phalanx noisemakers in her waist positions. "
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on October 02, 2017, 11:13:19
and it looks like 2x25-35mm guns aft as well
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 02, 2017, 21:44:15
Not being a naval architect by trade, doesn't the helicopter deck seems a little closer to the waterline given the seas we operate in?   :salute:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on October 02, 2017, 22:16:06
You'll notice the black line going around the hull between the red and grey?  That's the DWL or designed water line for the hull.  It's got plenty of room between there and the flight deck surface.  She's cool.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 02, 2017, 23:12:06
Not being a naval architect by trade, doesn't the helicopter deck seems a little closer to the waterline given the seas we operate in?   :salute:

Your probably being deceived by conceiving of that ship as in the same size range as current  Halifax class frigates. She is not. She is much larger than the HALs, likely near 3000 tons more.

Use the Cyclone helicopter at the stern for scale. A Cyclone is probably around 15 feet high. That makes the height of the flight deck about 12 feet above the waterline, which is  more than ample enough.

Moreover, you will note that the overall shape of the ship is not the more frequent parallel, or "square side and width", that is more commonly used, but somethings described as "flared hull", That is the hull flares out from the water line going up to become wider and the sides also expand out from the ship's mid-length point. As a result, the flight deck is quite protected from seas and provides a much wider landing surface for the embarked helicopter.

This type of hull form also provides very good seakeeping characteristics without sacrificing speed.

On top of that, its a good looking lady.  [:D

P.s.: I like the 5 inch gun.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on October 02, 2017, 23:33:54
Your probably being deceived by conceiving of that ship as in the same size range as current  Halifax class frigates. She is not. She is much larger than the HALs, likely near 3000 tons more.

Use the Cyclone helicopter at the stern for scale. A Cyclone is probably around 15 feet high. That makes the height of the flight deck about 12 feet above the waterline, which is  more than ample enough.

Moreover, you will note that the overall shape of the ship is not the more frequent parallel, or "square side and width", that is more commonly used, but somethings described as "flared hull", That is the hull flares out from the water line going up to become wider and the sides also expand out from the ship's mid-length point. As a result, the flight deck is quite protected from seas and provides a much wider landing surface for the embarked helicopter.

This type of hull form also provides very good seakeeping characteristics without sacrificing speed.

On top of that, its a good looking lady.  [:D

P.s.: I like the 5 inch gun.

yep looks like a 127 mm to me,nice.

and to be honest(i'm dutch,so biast)but have to say i like her a lot.  ;D

but now it will come down to what the others have to offer and offcourse the price.(Type-26 is an ASW frigate first) and tbh not cheap.

Then hopefully for you lot,i mean Canada,a decision can be made shortly so you can start building asap.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 03, 2017, 00:20:48
Just a quick thank you to JollyJacktar and OGB.

One of the reasons this site is so great.

Thank you gents.   :salute:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on October 03, 2017, 10:57:38
That's a good looking ship.  I hope the other contenders are as impressive.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 03, 2017, 12:29:24
Look what Aussies will be doing with new RAN frigates (design bidders overlap with RCN's)--will our gov't note?

Quote
Australia to fit warships with anti-missile defense systems

Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Tuesday nine war ships set for construction in 2020 will be fitted with long-range ­anti-missile defense systems to counter the threat of rogue nations.

Australia’s proposed frigates will use Aegis combat systems, produced by Lockheed Martin, in conjunction with SAAB Australia technology, Turnbull said.

Tensions in the region have spiked considerably in recent months as North Korea conducted a series of tests of its medium- and long-range ballistic missiles, some of which flew over Japan, as well as its sixth nuclear test on Sept. 3...

“Recent events in our region have proven that Australia’s future frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium- and long-range missile attacks,” Turnbull said in a speech in Sydney.

Work on the frigates is set to begin in 2020, with BAE Systems, Navantia and Fincantieri all competing for the A$35 billion ($27.39 billion) contract.

Turnbull said the decision to award the missile defense system contract allows the three bidders enough time to incorporate Aegis technology into their bids.

Australia is expected to announce the winner of the frigate contract in early 2018 [emphasis added]...

The decision to use the Aegis ballistic missile defense systems brings Australia in line with U.S., Japanese and Korean vessels, allowing international cooperation [emphasis added], Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, Australia’s navy chief, told reporters in Sydney...

The frigates will be the next major component of Australia’s plan to increase defense spending by A$30 billion to be worth A$195 billion, or 2 percent of GDP [emphasis added], by 2021-2022 as Canberra seeks to protect its strategic and trade interests in the Asia-Pacific...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-defence/australia-to-fit-warships-with-anti-missile-defense-systems-idUSKCN1C72YM

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on October 03, 2017, 12:41:57
Look what Aussies will be doing with new RAN frigates (design bidders overlap with RCN's)--will our gov't note?

Mark
Ottawa

Well Mark tbh,if for example the proposed Type-26 for Canada should win,and when ,as i think it will,it will be outfitted with APAR 2 and the Smart-MMN(SMART-L mk2)they will be BMD capable.

Our ships(DZP)are allready BMD capable,and they have the SMART-L mk 1 and can allready do that,they will get the SMART-MMN(Milti Mission Naval)shortly and this radarset will be able to "look" at least 2000 kms,so i'm sure whatever ship will be selected wich will have these radars is BMD capable. ;)

Only thing we can't do is shoot them down ourselves since we lack the right rocket(SM-3)

I hope these will bought shortly(SM-3 and SM-6)but we'll see.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on October 03, 2017, 13:11:49
Well Mark tbh,if for example the proposed Type-26 for Canada should win,and when ,as i think it will,it will be outfitted with APAR 2 and the Smart-MMN(SMART-L mk2)they will be BMD capable.

Our ships(DZP)are allready BMD capable,and they have the SMART-L mk 1 and can allready do that,they will get the SMART-MMN(Milti Mission Naval)shortly and this radarset will be able to "look" at least 2000 kms,so i'm sure whatever ship will be selected wich will have these radars is BMD capable. ;)

Only thing we can't do is shoot them down ourselves since we lack the right rocket(SM-3)

I hope these will bought shortly(SM-3 and SM-6)but we'll see.
If this occurs I will be pleased, although I read something that made me think some of the brass in our navy don't like the idea of having a rotating dish, which I don't get, given the amazing range of the system and the fact that the APAR is solid state. I would also like to see more than the 32 vls cells but that's just me.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on October 03, 2017, 13:37:41
If this occurs I will be pleased, although I read something that made me think some of the brass in our navy don't like the idea of having a rotating dish, which I don't get, given the amazing range of the system and the fact that the APAR is solid state. I would also like to see more than the 32 vls cells but that's just me.

Well to go back to our ships,as an example,these have the possibility for 40 cells,only 32 are used right now but the provisions are there allready.

As to the not liking rotating radar part i can only say that the SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval)is the furthest "looking" system on the market right now(well actually i think it's not yet on the market but will be shortly,but i could be wrong),even the USA has nothing like it,so logically i would buy,if i was minister,the best possible/capable one on the market,but that's me.  :nod:

As said before the USA acknowledged the fact that Thales Netherlands is at least 6 six years ahead of them.(radar systems)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on October 03, 2017, 13:47:46
Well to go back to our ships,as an example,these have the possibility for 40 cells,only 32 are used right now but the provisions are there allready.

As to the not liking rotating radar part i can only say that the SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval)is the furthest "looking" system on the market right now(well actually i think it's not yet on the market but will be shortly,but i could be wrong),even the USA has nothing like it,so logically i would buy,if i was minister,the best possible/capable one on the market,but that's me.  :nod:

As said before the USA acknowledged the fact that Thales Netherlands is at least 6 six years ahead of them.(radar systems)
I think if you double check you'll find you have 48 cells but only use 40. I think if we don't equip the ships, at least the destroyers, with the Smart-MMN it will be a huge mistake, but that's just me.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on October 03, 2017, 14:48:39
I think if you double check you'll find you have 48 cells but only use 40. I think if we don't equip the ships, at least the destroyers, with the Smart-MMN it will be a huge mistake, but that's just me.

Yep,Alexander you've got me,in the number of cells,i was too quick in answering,my bad.  :P

For the rest i totally agree.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on October 03, 2017, 14:49:46
Looking at the "Canadian" version of the type 26 again, I can't say I am excited by the way they set up the Harpoon missiles launchers.

I mean why have them facing the way they do instead of 180 degrees from it (so that the port launcher shoots to starboard and the starboard launcher shoots to port, as usual and as on the HALs)? As set up right now, you will be flooding your deck with heat and toxic exhaust fumes every time you fire. By putting them back in the usual  configuration (port shoots to starboard and vice versa) you would have the heat and most of the fumes dissipated over the water instead of on the ship.

And, KD, I suspect the sea ceptors have been removed because as a usual loading, eight of the 32 Mk41 cells will be filed with quad ESSMs for that same purpose.

That would make the normal missile load as follows: 32 ESSM, 24 combination of Standards (SM-2ER, SM-3 or SM-6), 8 Harpoons (or the nextgen surface strike missile), and 22 SeaRAM rolling airframe missiles. Remember this is likely the GP version we are seeing here.

The AAD version could have two supplementary eight cells Mk41 launchers. One back of the smokestack, which would likely require sacrificing the flex deck below, for 32 self-defence ESSM, and a total of 40 cells forward instead of 32 for the various Standard missiles, and possibly land attack missiles.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on October 03, 2017, 15:31:11
It is my understanding that The Joint Strike Missile is being developed for use with the F-35, so if we purchase the aircraft and the missile proves to be a good system then at some point we may have to choose between the JSM and the Harpoon, which have very similar numbers in terms of range. If we did choose the JSM they would fire out of the vls cells and we wouldn't need the launchers on the decks, so would provide more options for the deck space.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 03, 2017, 16:13:25
Does the RFQ specify a number of "Strike Length" cells in the Mk.41 VLS?    :salute:

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 03, 2017, 16:52:49
Fincantieri is offering their FREMM for CSC:

Quote
(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.newsapi.com.au%2Fimage%2Fv1%2Faf9fe9f8ed2d12e439de61eed301ca02&hash=fa65150616c40d541d4e161f08da61b9)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/italian-shipbuilders-pledge-to-use-allaustralian-labour-on-frigates/news-story/d0a6af4e61bad8a36ec984dc73a01db7

Meanwhile they're building a sort of super-OPV for Italian Navy:

Quote
Fincantieri Building Second Italian Navy Patrol Ship
https://www.marinelink.com/news/fincantieri-building429945#.WdPY9o9OHs4.twitter

From 2015:

Quote

Italian Navy’s Offshore Patrol Vessel Plans (RCN?), Part 2
(https://i1.wp.com/www.gannett-cdn.com/-mm-/35b885b6d3c3e588aa5b56ff929cdbcd6c56e693/c=1575-0-4941-2531&r=x404&c=534x401/local/-/media/2015/05/07/DefenseNews/DefenseNews/635665951563873828-DSC-3377c.JPG?zoom=2)
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/mark-collins-italian-navys-offshore-patrol-vessel-plans-rcn-part-2/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on October 03, 2017, 18:12:40
Looking at the "Canadian" version of the type 26 again, I can't say I am excited by the way they set up the Harpoon missiles launchers.

I mean why have them facing the way they do instead of 180 degrees from it (so that the port launcher shoots to starboard and the starboard launcher shoots to port, as usual and as on the HALs)? As set up right now, you will be flooding your deck with heat and toxic exhaust fumes every time you fire. By putting them back in the usual  configuration (port shoots to starboard and vice versa) you would have the heat and most of the fumes dissipated over the water instead of on the ship.

Agreed, I saw that as well.  Seems like a simple enough EC.

And, KD, I suspect the sea ceptors have been removed because as a usual loading, eight of the 32 Mk41 cells will be filed with quad ESSMs for that same purpose.

That would make the normal missile load as follows: 32 ESSM, 24 combination of Standards (SM-2ER, SM-3 or SM-6), 8 Harpoons (or the nextgen surface strike missile), and 22 SeaRAM rolling airframe missiles. Remember this is likely the GP version we are seeing here.

The AAD version could have two supplementary eight cells Mk41 launchers. One back of the smokestack, which would likely require sacrificing the flex deck below, for 32 self-defence ESSM, and a total of 40 cells forward instead of 32 for the various Standard missiles, and possibly land attack missiles.

From what I have been able to gather is that 48 cells is more than the requirement (recent article about De Zeven Provincien having more VLS capability at 40VLS than the requirement in CDR magazine).  I believe (with no direct evidence) that the requirement is for 32 cells similar to what the 280's had with the AAD version being exclusively kitted out with SM family missiles and the GP version being kitted out with mainly ESSM, though a mix makes sense.  Only issue with that would be the radar system for the AAD is going to be more powerful and more optimized for longer SM engagement ranges. 

Quote from: Canadian Blackshirt
Does the RFQ specify a number of "Strike Length" cells in the Mk.41 VLS?
The funny thing is no one who actually knows the specific requirements is talking about it due to a publication ban or security clearance.  So the best we can do is infer and discuss based upon images like the one posted and the odd company statement or town hall bit of info.

The VLS canisters are supposed to be large enough for the SM family of missiles and it was stated in a recent town hall that "significant land attack capability" is a requirement.  I would interpret that this means strike length VLS to accommodate land attack missiles whatever they may be, as the strike length VLS can be shortened with inserts should you need AFAIK.

It would also be a bit future proof for the VLS to be strike length as the in-development Long Range Anti Ship Missile is well underway. 

Added thought/edit: We are assuming that the radar is an APAR type, which means the missile family would be a semi-active group.  It could be something like the Sea Fire 500.  This radar works with active homing missiles like the Aster family.  So the loadout would be more like 32 Aster 15's for a GP frigate and 32 Aster 30's for an AAD frigate.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on October 04, 2017, 11:39:14
Question: Does it save space to have individual missile cells or to have less cells that be fed from under deck by a magazine?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on October 04, 2017, 11:42:45
Question: Does it save space to have individual missile cells or to have less cells that be fed from under deck by a magazine?
Pretty sure it's better to have the cells, they really don't take up that much deck space and the big plus is rate of fire, as all missiles are available to fire at any time, no need to reload.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 04, 2017, 11:59:52
On the other hand:

Having the missiles in single-shot cells means that the vessel needs to return to port to rearm.

With a reloadable launcher then replenishing the magazine below decks might be something that could be accomplished at sea.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MilEME09 on October 04, 2017, 13:14:55
On the other hand:

Having the missiles in single-shot cells means that the vessel needs to return to port to rearm.

With a reloadable launcher then replenishing the magazine below decks might be something that could be accomplished at sea.

I think right there is a peacetime vs war time mind set. If you have the luxury of returning to port why plan to not be able to?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on October 04, 2017, 13:21:20
Hmm or a combo of the two types. The big issue I guess is ensuring no gases or flames get out of the launcher into the magazine space and also ensuring the magazine space is protected in case of fire or penetration damage. I wonder from a damage control perceptive if the individual cells are safer than a magazine style system?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on October 04, 2017, 15:35:41
I think right there is a peacetime vs war time mind set. If you have the luxury of returning to port why plan to not be able to?
That's why the Burke's have 90 to 96 cells each, so they can load up with missiles in case they get in a fight and can't reload for a while. It would take quite an effort to run them out of missiles. They could potentially carry up to 360 ESSM's. It's our mindset that is the problem with our 32 cells, thinking we're just there to have a presence and if anyone starts shooting call the Americans. If you look at the Spanish frigates they have 48 cells, that's 32 SM-2's plus 64 ESSM's, for a total of 96 missiles, to me that's the minimum. You don't need to worry about reloading in port if you've got 96 missiles ready to say hello.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 04, 2017, 16:50:02
Even if it starts as "fitted for but not with", limiting the design to 32 cells certainly appears to limit the design going into an unknown future. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 04, 2017, 17:04:20
http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-26-missile-launcher.htm

Here's the launcher that preceded the Mk 41 VLS - the Mk 26.

I am going to guess that one of the major advantages of the vertical launch system was simplicity.  Fewer moving parts to fail.

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seaforces.org%2Fwpnsys%2FSURFACE%2FMk-26-GMLS_DAT%2FMk-26-missile-launcher-002.jpg&hash=8f180257319335b4ff430ee7d1e6036e)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.seaforces.org%2Fwpnsys%2FSURFACE%2FMk-26-GMLS_DAT%2FMk-26-missile-launcher-009.jpg&hash=c4c0add0e921f71f59b72f20043f6d6b)

Loading and Firing sequence video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRvHV6_1eQ
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on October 04, 2017, 17:07:32
See Falklands war where one of these jammed at the exact wrong time.  There is also the limitation that you can't fire all your missiles in quick succession as overwhelming the ships defences is an important tactic.  Those would be overwhelmed relatively quickly.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: NavyShooter on October 07, 2017, 22:46:24
Look at the moving bits in this video.

That's a LOT of stuff to keep working in order to launch missiles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTz5kL6gzSI

VLS please!
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 13, 2017, 12:50:07
Relevant to possible missile defence role for CSCs:

Quote
Could SM-3 Interceptor Take On Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?
As Pentagon adds dollars for missile defense, Raytheon pitches SM-3s as ICBM killers
http://aviationweek.com/defense/could-sm-3-interceptor-take-intercontinental-ballistic-missiles

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on October 13, 2017, 13:30:06
Relevant to possible missile defence role for CSCs:

Mark
Ottawa
I thought the SM-3 was specifically designed to take out ICBM's and that was pretty much its only function, so why would they have to pitch it?

I guess long range verses short to medium range is the answer.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on October 17, 2017, 20:55:33
I think there might be other missiles available for this sort of thing from a ground launch perspective (Patriot variants??).

Edit:  Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and missile which is currently deployed to South Korea....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 19, 2017, 15:17:59
How many ships will RCN get, at what cost, built by Irving?

Quote
An Interview with Rod Story from the PBO on Costing for CSC

As part of its National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), the Government of Canada has outlined a long-term project to renew Canada’s federal fleet of combat and non-combat vessels. One group of ships within this strategy is the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). This program consists of building up to 15 ships to replace Canada’s 12 Halifax-class frigates and three Iroquois-class destroyers.

The original budget to build these 15 ships was set in 2008 at a total of $26.2 billion. Given the factors of inflation, rising cost of material, labour and other expenses, the original budget is not enough to construct the planned number of ships by the anticipated start year of 2020.

With a mandate of providing independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances and to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) prepared a report: The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants. This report which was released on June 1, 2017, was spearheaded by Rod Story, Financial Advisor – Analyst on the Expenditure and Revenue Analysis team at PBO.

Marcello Sukhdeo, editor of Vanguard spoke with Rod Story recently about this report and the methodologies used in arriving at an estimated cost for CSC../.

Q: The PBO report states that Canada would save 25 per cent, or $10.22 billion, if the ships are built at a foreign shipyard using an original ship design rather than in Canada. Can you elaborate further on that?

Just to be clear, the numbers we spoke about before are as-spent or nominal value. This one is based on 2017 dollars. If you spent all the money exactly today, the total budget for CSC would be $39.94 billion, not $61.82 billion. So, this $10.22 billion is in real numbers, or you can say 2017 dollars.

So two things are driving that cost difference. One, it’s built in a foreign shipyard that has already built at least nine of the ships. So they are no longer needing to go through a learning curve. In addition to that, the assumption is that there are no design changes; that is, we take the ship as it’s already scoped and designed and in operation. So, Canada is not going to go in and do a large number of changes. Basically, they’ve built nine ships, and we’re taking the 10th through the 24th ship.

You have two things driving the cost saving: one is the learning curve. When Irving starts to build in the Halifax shipyard, clearly they’re going to go on a learning curve. And they have two things affecting that learning curve. One is, any time any shipyard builds a new design, there’s a lot of churn in the first eight to nine ships. During that time, they learn how to build most efficiently.

The other aspect that’s driving this is: Irving has not built a surface combatant. Surface combatants are vastly different than what they’re building now in the case of the Arctic Offshore Patrol ships. They’re much denser, much more complicated, and again that also affects the learning curve. So, your first eight ships will be that much more expensive purely because you’ll have that much more to learn.

Q: So, it takes about nine ships to really get it right?

Well, to reach your maximum efficiency. Basically, theoretical analysis has shown that by the ninth ship, you’ve now reached that point. This is analysis done in the original 2006 RAND report. So yes, it takes nine ships before you get to that maximum efficiency...

Basically, learning curve is the primary challenge. We have not built surface combatants since the finishing of the Halifax frigates in 1996. All that knowledge has been lost; it has to be relearned.

The other challenge is the amount of changes that DND will want to make on the design. If they are to take a design from another country, how much are they going to change that design? It’s not like you change 5 per cent and expect the cost to increase by the same percentage. In fact, it multiplies. Once you’ve changed about 20 or 30 per cent, you may as well have redone the design from scratch. It’s one of those things – it’s very multiplicative. These ships are so dense in the sense of so many things are packed in so tightly and so dependent on each other. You make one change, it ends up propagating throughout the whole ship quite often. They have to be extremely careful. Managing those changes will be quite a challenge...
https://vanguardcanada.com/2017/10/16/an-interview-with-rod-story-from-the-pbo-on-costing-for-csc/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on October 21, 2017, 12:56:52
Good flipping intellectual property grief!

Quote
Sturgeon and Cairns: Warship procurement needs a course correction

Canada’s plan to replace its fleet of destroyers and patrol frigates with new vessels under the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project is the largest and most costly single procurement our country has launched since the Second World War. Unless the federal government makes significant changes to the process, however, it will become a textbook case of how not to conduct a competition that’s fair, open and transparent and that ensures the best value for Canadian taxpayers and the growth of Canadian jobs.

This shouldn’t be happening for a project the recent Defence Policy Review said would require a total of 15 ships and which the federal government acknowledges is likely to cost $60 billion – a figure supported by the Parliamentary Budget Office – and up considerably from the original budget of $26.2 billion.

When then-minister of Public Services and Procurement Judy Foote announced in June 2016 that the government wanted a “Military Off the Shelf” (MOTS) solution for the new ships, she said it would save taxpayer dollars and help reduce the production gap between CSC and the Arctic Patrol Ships  to be built by Irving Shipyard of Halifax. Since then, however, there have been a series of incremental changes to the competition that have made the current Request for Proposals (RFP) inconsistent with the original MOTS criteria and which now appear to accommodate solutions that are not yet operational.

In addition, serious concerns have arisen about intellectual property (IP), data transfer to third parties and foreign state-owned classified data.

The government is in effect asking the key bidders – all of whom are paying their own very substantial costs of submitting proposals – to prepare exhaustingly complex bids and provide all of their IP data for only a three-ship contract, without any guarantee of follow-on work for the other 12 ships [emphasis added]. “Step in” provisions also create the possibility that Irving Shipyard would have the option of undertaking the winning bidder’s proposed work directly with the bidder’s subcontractors for the production phase.

Potential bidders are rightly concerned that, once IP data rights are provided, any additional surface combatants could be built without them. This would mean the successful bidder will have taken all of the risk in building the original three ships and exposed its IP to firms under contract to Canada (through Irving Shipbuilding) that would normally be seen as global competitors. This is a very difficult risk/reward scenario for many bidders to accept. (By contrast, a new plan by the U.S. Navy to acquire 20 small combat frigates offers much better risk/reward for potential bidders – including the same firms involved in Canada’s CSC requirement – who will not have to share their IP with their competitors.)

Additionally, some foreign governments aligned with key international bidders for the CSC project are concerned that Canada has entangled state-owned classified data within this procurement, despite the general protocol of western nations and the NATO Standard that any requests for this sensitive data, and the handling of it, must be on a government-to-government basis [emphasis added].

It is time to get the CSC procurement back on track...

Raymond Sturgeon is a former Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence for Matériel; Vice-Admiral (Ret’d) Peter Cairns is a former Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy.
http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/sturgeon-and-cairns-warship-procurement-needs-a-course-correction

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 21, 2017, 14:49:50
So key question:. Has anyone been fired yet?

Not re-assigned.

Not transferred.

Fired

If no one has, there is no real accountability and nothing will ever change.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on October 21, 2017, 15:03:46
I would ask has anyone been in charge?

Since the inception of the program has there been continuity of command?

Or has it been a hall with revolving doors with an endless supply of politicians, bureaucrats, sailors, salesmen and engineers?

Two years and your next posting.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on October 21, 2017, 16:42:56
Its interesting that there are a few companies that have issues with IP.  And there are a few who don't have any issues with IP.  I would bet that those companies that are nationalized are more worried about this.  Those that are not are much more sanguine about the process.  The risk is far greater for say a DCNS in losing employment for their national shipyard then say BAE who would just set up shop in Canada partnered with Irving should Irving want to sell ships to someone else.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Monsoon on October 22, 2017, 06:03:00
So key question:. Has anyone been fired yet?
On the basis of what? A couple of overheated op-eds? The NSPS procurements, like the F35, are huge-money contracts tendered out into a zero-sum business environment: every dollar that goes to one bidder is a dollar that doesn't go to another. These defence consortia have learned that the cost of a PR campaign waged through apparently disinterested third parties is trifling in comparison to the benefit of derailing a tender that didn't go their way. Certainly that's the lesson that the F35 saga has communicated very clearly.

Without impugning the motives of Sturgeon and Cairns, a former ADM Mat and a retired admiral are exactly the sort of guys a PR agency would approach to gin up some arguments supportive of their client's desired outcome. Until the last ship has been delivered and the last dollar paid out, we're going to continue to be subjected to the "best opinions money can buy". That shifty business has already cost us a serving admiral; we need to be critical of what we read.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on October 22, 2017, 10:43:27
...Until the last ship has been delivered and the last dollar paid out, we're going to continue to be subjected to the "best opinions money can buy"...

Then transitions to "what we should have bought" for the decades to follow. :nod:

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on October 22, 2017, 12:55:41
On the basis of what? A couple of overheated op-eds? The NSPS procurements, like the F35, are huge-money contracts tendered out into a zero-sum business environment: every dollar that goes to one bidder is a dollar that doesn't go to another. These defence consortia have learned that the cost of a PR campaign waged through apparently disinterested third parties is trifling in comparison to the benefit of derailing a tender that didn't go their way. Certainly that's the lesson that the F35 saga has communicated very clearly.

Without impugning the motives of Sturgeon and Cairns, a former ADM Mat and a retired admiral are exactly the sort of guys a PR agency would approach to gin up some arguments supportive of their client's desired outcome. Until the last ship has been delivered and the last dollar paid out, we're going to continue to be subjected to the "best opinions money can buy". That shifty business has already cost us a serving admiral; we need to be critical of what we read.

On the basis that the program is roughly 10 years behind its original timeline and the industry partners basically laughed at the original RFQ spec's which means our team leaders didn't know what they were doing?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Monsoon on October 23, 2017, 04:14:57
On the basis that the program is roughly 10 years behind its original timeline and the industry partners basically laughed at the original RFQ spec's which means our team leaders didn't know what they were doing?
We fired the last government and the one before it. How's that working out for us?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on November 01, 2017, 15:46:16
US Army on IP rights....

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/11/1/army-eyes-ownership-of-technical-data-rights

Quote
Army Eyes Upfront Purchases of Technical Data Rights
11/1/2017
By Connie Lee   

The Army is hoping to save money on repairs and upgrades to military systems by purchasing technical data rights up front. The concept is building momentum, the service’s top logistician said Nov. 1.

Having such rights will increase the efficiency and lower future sustainment costs by allowing the service to expand its options for developing or obtaining repair parts, Gen. ‘Gus’ Perna, commanding general of Army Materiel Command, said during a meeting with reporters in Washington D.C. His goal is to obtain technical data rights for equipment rather than “the entire intellectual property.”

Technical data rights refer to a category of intellectual property rights that includes "any recorded information of a scientific or technical nature," according to information provided by the Defense Information Systems Agency. That could include product design or computer databases, but exclude elements such as source and executable codes, design details or flow charts. 

“We want multiple access and availability and we want to maintain good competition and relative prices for the repair parts,” he said. “So intellectual property is very important. This is not something that we’ve been used to doing.”

Companies have been reluctant to give up their technical data rights because it may mean the loss of valuable maintenance contracts. Perna, however, said the Army would pay vendors extra for these rights. Obtaining the desired technical data will increase costs up front, he noted, but will save the Army money in the long run.

AMC has been taking three steps to reach this goal, Perna said. These include engaging with industry; ensuring partnership with the office of the Army acquisition executive; and working with lawyers and contractors on the change. The general emphasized the importance of “breaking the paradigm” and removing attorneys and contractors “off the hamster wheel” of agreements that have not included owning intellectual property.

“It’s not [an] all or none. It’s a ‘let’s understand the cost, schedule and performance.’ Let’s make the operational risk assessment and then let the chief make the decisions,” Perna said. “We’re not on autopilot.”

However, Perna clarified that the strategy would only apply to future agreements rather than existing contracts. “Once it’s out of the barn door, it’s out of the barn door,” he said.

But obtaining technical data rights isn’t necessary for every single system, Perna said.

“Sometimes we don’t need it,” he said. “In my words . . . sometimes there’s equipment that won’t be forward on the battlefield and we can count on industry to maintain it and sustain it. And so is it worth paying all that money for the data rights? No. But if the equipment is going to be forward . . . and I need to reproduce it and control the supply chain, then it’s worth it to go after the tech data rights.”

Personally I think it is ludicrous to be planning to purchase kit for 40 years in the future when technology follows Moore's Law.

Buy now. Use it till it dies. Replace with what is available.  Then rely on the users to get the best out of what is available.  Might have trouble getting that past you Dogma Doctrine folks though.

Is there room for Howes and Rottenbergs in the modern force?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/00/Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg/800px-Transistor_Count_and_Moore%27s_Law_-_2011.svg.png)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on November 06, 2017, 15:29:25
If Alion Science and Technology decides to submit a bid, what do you think it will be?  Based on the KDX-IIA?  Based on something else?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: serger989 on November 07, 2017, 00:36:24
If Alion Science and Technology decides to submit a bid, what do you think it will be?  Based on the KDX-IIA?  Based on something else?

I thought they did already? CDR mentioned when they visited CANSEC that they had a booth that went pretty unnoticed and what they are offering is a variant of the De Zeven Provincien from DAMEN. I hope I am thinking of Alion here...

Edit: I guess showcasing at a booth would be different than submitting a bid. But I guess it would be safe to assume that it would still be the De Zeven?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on November 08, 2017, 18:12:03
Is pressure building for a modular approach to ship construction?
 
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-calls-on-canadian-prime-minister-to-reform-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-656128313.html.

I would like to see all qualified Canadian shipyards get a piece of the action—not just Irving and Seaspan.  Final assembly, construction of some of the modules, and designation as prime contractor can still be with Irving and Seaspan.  If the Liberals keep insisting that Irving builds all fifteen surface combatants, there are going to be many unhappy Quebec voters in the next federal election.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on November 08, 2017, 18:26:12
Here's what the "neighbours"want,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27258/navy-looking-for-a-new-frigate-replace-littoral-combat-ship/


Look at the "dark horses",lol.

"A number of foreign designs could end up being dark horse candidates in the FFG(X) competition as well. The Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates are well-rounded, well-regarded ships, as well as the Danish Absalon-class support ships (really, frigate-class ships). Likewise, the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates are held in high esteem. Norway's Fritjof Nansen-class frigates manage to pack in the Aegis Combat System, complete with a version of the same phased array radar that equips the U.S. Navy's existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers."

Btw,i heared/read something else:  "CDR mentioned when they visited CANSEC that they had a booth that went pretty unnoticed and what they are offering is a variant of the De Zeven Provincien from DAMEN."

it seems like Alion is offering this.(not sure)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 08, 2017, 19:08:42
Is pressure building for a modular approach to ship construction?
 
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-calls-on-canadian-prime-minister-to-reform-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-656128313.html.

I would like to see all qualified Canadian shipyards get a piece of the action—not just Irving and Seaspan.  Final assembly, construction of some of the modules, and designation as prime contractor can still be with Irving and Seaspan.  If the Liberals keep insisting that Irving builds all fifteen surface combatants, there are going to be many unhappy Quebec voters in the next federal election.

I don't think that Quebec voters actually have clued at all on the shipbuilding strategy, so not much risk there IMHO.

On the other hand, if you wonder after reading the article what those two ships mentioned are (Excellence and Pride), here is a short Davie video made during their construction. They were built in the last three years, are 4200 tons, complex sea bed construction vessels that are, the largest vessels built in Canada in more than ten years (until the first AOPS hits the water) and the most complex vessels built in Canada since the last HAL hit the water (and that won't be beat by the AOPS, but only by the CSC's when they hit the water).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvfqhblMErQ
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 08, 2017, 19:45:10
Just circling back to timeline, it looks like bids are all still due on November 17, 2017 (after third extension), but the official project website is still showing approval as June 2017. 

Anyone know what the updated approval target date is?


Cheers, Matthew. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on November 08, 2017, 21:53:40
Is pressure building for a modular approach to ship construction?
 
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-calls-on-canadian-prime-minister-to-reform-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-656128313.html.

I would like to see all qualified Canadian shipyards get a piece of the action—not just Irving and Seaspan.  Final assembly, construction of some of the modules, and designation as prime contractor can still be with Irving and Seaspan.  If the Liberals keep insisting that Irving builds all fifteen surface combatants, there are going to be many unhappy Quebec voters in the next federal election.

Modular builds were how the Spirit Class ferries were built out here. Seaspan effectively has 2 yards in Vancouver and one in Victoria. Currently they don't need to farm work out as they have the 3 OFSV underway at 1 yard right now. They could sub-contract out the superstructure of the JSS similar to what Davie did, but it would likely be in one of the smaller yards here. That being said with the expertise that Davie gained, it's possible that Davie is subcontracted to build both JSS Superstructures and then ship them out here.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Patski on November 09, 2017, 13:23:16
Hi there... new here!  Just an ordinary civilian interested in warships since childhood!  I've been reading this forum for quite a while, following the CSC program very closely as well as the AOR program as well.

I have a theory, and I'm far from being an expert... I think Canada might try to get a deal for type 26 or 31 and Typhoons at the same time?  Since that Boeing lawsuit, and now even more since Airbus bought the C Serie, it could be a good partnership between the 2 countries...

Bombardier have a factory in UK that might be affected by Boeing Lawsuit.  BAE Systems are involved in the Typhoons and the Type 26/31 as well...

I was looking at the Babcock Arrowhead 120 project...seems very interesting and modular as well, could be a good option for Canada as well I think!

Again, I'm no expert, just want to share my opinion on this!  Most people I know are not much interested in this..

Thanks!

Pat

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 11, 2017, 15:56:40
I am becoming more convinced the central political plan is to build as few ships as possible, as far off in the distance as possible, while keeping the expenditure in line for the projected cost. That means, I fear, a the CSC will be a light frigate (by today's design standards) because even  the current specifications and requirements are beyond the boat loads of cash the taxpayers are already being asked to deliver to Irving.

Tying a warship design  contract in with an aircraft purchase isn't something that has crossed this thread before. It would upset too many rice bowls, no?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: SeaKingTacco on November 11, 2017, 17:28:03
I am becoming more convinced the central political plan is to build as few ships as possible, as far off in the distance as possible, while keeping the expenditure in line for the projected cost. That means, I fear, a the CSC will be a light frigate (by today's design standards) because even  the current specifications and requirements are beyond the boat loads of cash the taxpayers are already being asked to deliver to Irving.

Tying a warship design  contract in with an aircraft purchase isn't something that has crossed this thread before. It would upset too many rice bowls, no?

To me, it would depend on what was on offer and what the terms of the deal were.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 11, 2017, 18:21:02
I am becoming more convinced the central political plan is to build as few ships as possible, as far off in the distance as possible, while keeping the expenditure in line for the projected cost. That means, I fear, a the CSC will be a light frigate (by today's design standards) because even  the current specifications and requirements are beyond the boat loads of cash the taxpayers are already being asked to deliver to Irving.

Tying a warship design  contract in with an aircraft purchase isn't something that has crossed this thread before. It would upset too many rice bowls, no?

A "light frigate" by today's standard would be similar tonnage to a Halifax class.  Most modern frigate designs are in the 5000+ ton category with many over 6000 tons.  If you are referring to a light frigate in capability that's a different matter.  I wouldn't be worried about capability.  More likely numbers are what will be cut.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 11, 2017, 19:51:55
I thought I had read they bumped the bid submission date again to Nov 30, 2017 and was checking in on updates.

Anyone? 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: kratz on November 11, 2017, 20:00:40
I thought I had read they bumped the bid submission date again to Nov 30, 2017 and was checking in on updates.

Anyone?

The date has been moved and is in the news, if you search for it. Due to the weekend and Remembrance Day, the news cycle has not allowed for independent confirmation to be published on this site.  :remembrance:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 12, 2017, 17:23:20
Official news release, note vague timing for start of actual construction:

Quote
New extension to the closing date for the Canadian Surface Combatant Request for Proposals

OTTAWA, Nov. 10, 2017 /CNW/ - The Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. are extending the submission deadline for the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design of the Canadian Surface Combatant fleet to November 30, 2017. 

The Canadian Surface Combatant is the largest, most complex procurement undertaken by the Government of Canada, and the ships being built will form the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy.

Based on lessons learned from the voluntary review process conducted during the summer of 2017, the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. recently amended the Request for Proposals, including the Evaluation Plan, to simplify the submission requirements and to allow bidders to demonstrate the full potential of their proposed solution to satisfy Canada's requirements. These amendments have maintained the requirements of the Royal Canadian Navy.

Following the amendments to the RFP, some bidders requested additional time to finalize their bids. Therefore, in accordance with established processes, the decision was made to extend the closing date so that bidders have every opportunity to submit compliant bids.

Targeted completion for the procurement process is scheduled for 2018 and the start of ship construction remains scheduled for the early 2020s [emphasis added].

The Government is committed to ensuring an open, fair and transparent procurement process that will provide the Royal Canadian Navy with the vessels it needs to do its work protecting Canadians.

Given the magnitude and importance of this project, every effort is being made to ensure that this procurement is effectively executed and that bidders have the opportunity to submit high quality compliant bids that provide good value for money and maximize Canadian Content.

Canada and Irving Shipbuilding intend to hold a Technical Briefing on the next stages of procurement process prior to the bid closing.

Associated Links

    Establishment of a closing date for the Canadian Surface Combatant Request for Proposals
    Further extension to the closing date for the Canadian Surface Combatant Requests for Proposals
    Extension to the closing date for the Canadian Surface Combatant Requests for Proposals
    Competitive process launched to select design of Canadian Surface Combatant
    Government announced streamlined procurement approach to accelerate delivery of the Canadian Surface Combatant vessels

 Follow us on Twitter

 Follow us on Facebook

SOURCE Public Services and Procurement Canada
http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/New-extension-to-the-closing-date-for-the-Canadian-Surface-Combatant-Request-for-Proposals-1007593557

Mark
Ottawa

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jollyjacktar on November 12, 2017, 17:31:27
 :trainwreck:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 12, 2017, 17:46:47
Subtleties of language as usual:

Early 2020s is not the same as early 2020. The later actually happens near the beginning of the year 2020, the former in any year between 2021 and 2024.

Given that it takes easily two to three years, minimum, to build a ship of that size and complexity and another year, at least, to bring her to operational capability, we ain't seeing replacement for the IRO destroyers until at least 2025, more likely later.

That means the RCN will have gone without replacement fro the IRO's for 10 years, for ships that we knew as early as 2005 needed urgent replacements.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on November 12, 2017, 18:39:00
I thought they did already? CDR mentioned when they visited CANSEC that they had a booth that went pretty unnoticed and what they are offering is a variant of the De Zeven Provincien from DAMEN. I hope I am thinking of Alion here...

Edit: I guess showcasing at a booth would be different than submitting a bid. But I guess it would be safe to assume that it would still be the De Zeven?

Thank you.  Sorry for the late reply.  A bid based on the De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate, I think, might be a very strong bid.  It is an air-defence and command frigate unlike the Baden-Württemberg-class frigate.

It has a speed of 30 knots—slightly slower than the Halifax-class frigate but faster than the Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate, faster than the Baden-Württemberg-class frigate, faster than the Aquitaine-class frigate, faster than the Sachsen-class frigate, and faster than the Type 26 frigate.  The Royal Canadian Navy is looking for something fast—presumably fast enough to keep up with American carrier strike groups.

It uses Active Phased Array Radar, which was developed by the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada.  The Liberals are looking for Canadian content.  It has a 127-millimeter gun—exactly what the Royal Canadian Navy wants.  Perhaps a consortium with Thales as lead partner, Alion, and Damen Group can put together an extremely strong bid.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on November 13, 2017, 12:01:24
Thank you.  Sorry for the late reply.  A bid based on the De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate, I think, might be a very strong bid.  It is an air-defence and command frigate unlike the Baden-Württemberg-class frigate.

It has a speed of 30 knots—slightly slower than the Halifax-class frigate but faster than the Álvaro de Bazán-class frigate, faster than the Baden-Württemberg-class frigate, faster than the Aquitaine-class frigate, faster than the Sachsen-class frigate, and faster than the Type 26 frigate.  The Royal Canadian Navy is looking for something fast—presumably fast enough to keep up with American carrier strike groups.

It uses Active Phased Array Radar, which was developed by the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada.  The Liberals are looking for Canadian content.  It has a 127-millimeter gun—exactly what the Royal Canadian Navy wants.  Perhaps a consortium with Thales as lead partner, Alion, and Damen Group can put together an extremely strong bid.

Well to be fair i completely agree(and think i'm not the only 1 here  :whistle:  )and suggested as much allready.But i don't see it happening.

But maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel,because "de Zeven" is mentioned as a "dark horse"in the American programme,so that(if choosen)may launch it forward as the preferred design.(let's hope so for Canada,whatever will be chosen,it's time to start building replacements for the"Iroquois"

Btw,the "De Zevens"will get the new Smart-LMM radars starting from this year,and will go on next year.Also a replacement for the 127mm canons is in the starting phase(probably vulcano,127mm)OTO Melara 127 64 LW Vulcano Naval Gun System.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 13, 2017, 17:22:34
French and Italians join forces, also looking to pitch together for USN FFG(X)--note IP issue with Irving and see further link at end:

Quote
‘Naval Airbus’ progress: Italian-French frigate pitch for Canada moves forward

A senior manager at Fincantieri has given the first official confirmation that the Italian shipyard will jointly bid to sell the FREMM frigate to Canada in partnership with France’s Naval Group.

The team-up will be a first concrete step toward a possible merger, or joint venture, between Fincantieri and Naval Group, which is currently being discussed by the two firms and has been dubbed a “Naval Airbus“ for Europe.

Addressing analysts on Nov. 10, Fincantieri General Manager Alberto Maestrini said: “An example of this collaboration is the joint bid we intend to present to the Royal Canadian Navy for their [request for proposals] on the construction of 15 frigates.”

France and Italy jointly designed the FREMM frigate for use by their navies, but have hitherto marketed the vessel separately around the world. Fincantieri is currently shortlisted to sell the frigate to Australia, while France has sold one to Morocco and to Egypt.

Talks to unite France and Italy’s shipbuilding capacity grew out of Fincantieri’s takeover this autumn of French yard STX.

Fincantieri plans to create synergies between STX and its own yards in Italy in the civil cruise-ship sector. But the talks also spurred debate over naval tie-ups between Fincantieri and Naval Group, which would help reduce the fragmentation of Europe’s naval industry and allow it to compete more effectively around the world...

One obstacle to a joint Canadian bid is Fincantieri’s objections to the way the tender has been organized. Canada has asked private firm Irving to coordinate the work of the ship’s designer, leading to fears that the winning bidder would be forced to hand over too much intellectual property to Irving [emphasis added].

Looking beyond the Canada bid, Maestrini said the FREMM frigate would be well-suited for another pending program. “We think it will also match perfectly the requirements put forward by the U.S. Navy in their recent request for design proposals for the Future Frigate Program [emphasis added],” he said...
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/11/13/naval-airbus-progress-italian-french-frigate-pitch-moves-forward-for-canada/

(https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/Q4fvaqD54BHcwQEDs8EkVfx9-f4=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3FCRQL5F6JDZ7G4EUWAATEBRVU.jpg)

From 2016:

Quote
RCN Canadian Surface Combatant: Intellectual Property Brouhaha
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-intellectual-property-brouhaha/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 13, 2017, 23:06:54
And now we are down to 6.  Interesting.  Naval Group (formerly DCNS) and Fincantieri were originally expected to bid on the project separately from everything I've read.

Fincantieri were the ones who were most concerned about the way the bidding system was set up.  They were also the ones who wanted the first three ships built in Italy to test them out.  Makes sense that they are essentially "pulling" their bid and reducing their risk by teaming up with the French who appear far more sanguine about the process.

Some info below on the potential FREMM Naval Group bid.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3996-dcns-confident-its-fremm-is-the-right-solution-for-the-royal-canadian-navy-csc-program.html (http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3996-dcns-confident-its-fremm-is-the-right-solution-for-the-royal-canadian-navy-csc-program.html)

Quote
Two FREMM variants based on the same baseline vessel are being offered by DCNS as Olivier Casenave explains: "We are proposing two variants of our FREMM. A multi-mission variant and an air defense variant. Both will have strong ASW capabilities".

Asked about the likely differences between an Aquitaine-class FREMM and a Royal Canadian Navy FREMM, DCNS said "There are a few differences to be expected. For example, the French Navy FREMM accommodates the NH90 NFH helicopter. For CSC, our FREMM will be modified in order to accommodate the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter of the Canadian Forces”.

As a matter of fact, under the refined procurement process, Canada prompts bidders to integrate in their offer up to 24 Canadian equipment, systems and technologies. It is not a surprise to have on this list equipment such as helicopter handling system, underway replenishment at sea or integrated platform management system (IPMS). Such systems will have to be fitted onboard FREMM. However as far as missiles are concerned, shipbuilders may offer the system of their choice. Canada seems decided not to re-use the venerable Mk41 launchers currently fitted on its vessels. Therefore DCNS will probably offer missile solutions by MBDA. Regarding radars there no Canadian requirement for now. For the Air Defense variant DCNS is proposing a FREMM fitted with a 4 panel array radar (active electronically scanned) from Thales

And some more info from CANSEC it looks like the FREMM-ER that Naval Group were going to bid.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/dcns-la-nouvelle-fremm-er-devoilee-ottawa (https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/dcns-la-nouvelle-fremm-er-devoilee-ottawa)

In english:
Quote
While the French group is competing for the Canadian Navy's Frigate and Destroyer Renewal Program, it took advantage of CANSEC, held May 25-26 in Ottawa, to unveil the new version of its FREMM ER. Revealed in October 2012 at Euronaval, the Extended Range multi-mission frigate has enhanced capabilities in area air defense and even ballistic missile defense thanks to the new Sea Fire 500 radar.Thales. Featuring four flat faces, providing 360-degree continuous monitoring, this new radar, which uses active antenna technology, is used for the detection, identification, tracking and conduct of fire on the high seas and in coastal areas. It is integrated into a single mast overlooking the bridge and accommodates most other sensors, communication systems and electronic warfare equipment. Compared to the first version of the FREMM ER, the new model, which DCNS revealed with the Canadian red maple leaf on the chimney, notably saw the positioning of the four antennas of the Sea Fire 500 evolve.

The FREMM ER is still based on the model of the multi-mission frigate ordered eight copies by the French Navy (the third was delivered in March, the last will be in 2022), DCNS having also sold two units of this type to Morocco and Egypt. With a length of 142 meters and a width of 20 meters, these buildings are equipped with an integrated SETIS combat system that manages all sensors and weapons. The French frigate, adaptable according to the needs of customers, is a formidable anti-submarine platform, with a bow sonar, a Captas 4 towed sonar, torpedo tubes and the possibility of shipping one or two helicopters.

The building can also use a 76mm or 127mm turret, light tele-operated artillery, 8 anti-ship missiles, and front-mounted vertical launchers totaling 32 cells. These can house surface-to-air missiles, such as Aster 15 and Aster 30, as well as cruise missiles. It is also possible, especially near the hangar, to install other vertical launchers for short-range surface-to-air missiles, such as VL Mica. For special operations, two niches on each side can house commando boats. The FREMMs, which have a hybrid propulsion (electric and therefore silent up to 16 knots and gas turbine for high speeds with a maximum speed of 27 knots), are finally very automated boats,
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on November 14, 2017, 13:31:25
Fincantieri were the ones who were most concerned about the way the bidding system was set up.  They were also the ones who wanted the first three ships built in Italy to test them out.  Makes sense that they are essentially "pulling" their bid and reducing their risk by teaming up with the French who appear far more sanguine about the process.
I would not be surprised if Fincantieri was told that there will very likely be no more extensions.  I wonder what happened to the combat systems integrator that Fincantieri teamed up with.  It would be a pity to have spent about ten to twenty million dollars with nothing to show for it.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on November 23, 2017, 15:42:18
And as said another bid has come in,which is also a contender,i think.The "the Seven"put in by Alion and partners.(design is Damen/Dutch Navy)

Strong points,
-Proven design
-Partially Canadian radar.
-Full integration with US  missiles(the missiles that Canada wants)
-Can be brought in production very quickly.
-Not much adjustments needed("Canadiasing",hope i say it correct)

Out of Frontline Defense:

"The four front-runners, in no particular order, are the Odense Marine Technologies (OMT) Iver Huitfeldt class already in service with the Royal Danish Navy; the BAE Systems Type 26 Global Combat Ship; the DCNS FREMM already in service with France, Morocco and Egypt; and the Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems F125 design. Additionally, Vard, formerly STX Canada and now a Fincantieri subsidiary, is promoting the Italian FREMM design. Potential candidate number six is the Dutch Air Defence and Command Frigate built by Damen Schelde Shipyards for the Royal Netherlands Navy. Spain’s Navantia and possibly Daewoo round out the possible contender designs (if Daewoo can circumvent the NATO requirement)"

And a bit on the Damen/Alion bid.

Air Defence and Command Frigate
Damen Schelde Group
The Dutch Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding Group specializes in the design and construction of naval vessels and complex commercial vessels. With over 125 years of industrial and shipbuilding history, the Royal Schelde shipyard has been involved in many projects for the Royal Netherlands Navy’s new surface combatants and support ships. Damen promotes the idea of building vessels in local shipyards. From 2002 to 2005 they delivered 3 vessels to the Royal Netherlands Navy, including HNLMS Tromp. These frigates appear to meet the needs of the RCN in many areas. The hull form is 144.2 m LOA and can attain speeds up to 29 knots using a CODOG propulsion system – 2 Rolls Royce Spey SM1C Gas Turbines and 2 Wartsila Diesels. The ship has a flight deck and hangar capable of carrying an NH 90. Command Systems and APAR Radar are by Thales and the vessel is fitted with 40 VLS cells capable of launching the Evolved Sea Sparrow or Standard Missiles. Main armament also includes Harpoon and the 127 mm Oto Melara Gun. The Goalkeeper Close-in Weapons system and ASW torpedoes are also fitted. The standard crew size of 220 is in line with current RCN thinking.

Damen has kept a very low profile and little is known of their intentions for involvement in the CSC project. There are some who would put them in the list of top four contenders for WD. Reportedly they have good working relationships with Irving. If they are interested they can be expected to bid as a WD only


http://defence.frontline.online/article/2015/4/2143-Warship-Design

I know it's from 2015,but as said there's a bid.

PS,i think the design also has a chance in the "FFG-programme" for new frigates in the USN.(would love to see 20 US and 10?Canadian "derivatives" on the oceans,proud "Dutchie")






Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 23, 2017, 19:34:32
I would not be surprised if Fincantieri was told that there will very likely be no more extensions.  I wonder what happened to the combat systems integrator that Fincantieri teamed up with.  It would be a pity to have spent about ten to twenty million dollars with nothing to show for it.

Ficantieri's combat systems integrator was most likely Ficantieri or even DCNS.

And as said another bid has come in,which is also a contender,i think.The "the Seven"put in by Alion and partners.(design is Damen/Dutch Navy)

Confirmed through two other sources that are much more recent (CANSEC 2017 had a booth from Alion there with this bid).  Alion does work on the Arleigh Burkes and Tico's so it's got a bit of experience here.  They partnered with Damen Shipbuilding, Atlas Electronik, and Hendsoldt for the bid with Damen being the CSI.  I'm not going to say darkhorse, but Alion is very much a KISS design type company.  Low risk, evolutionary designs, attacks engineering problems with the proper focus on the operator, good attention to detail.  Corporate culture is very much quiet confidence.  Wouldn't be surprised if they won.

Their bid arguably has one of the best Air Warfare systems available (APAR 2 and SMART-L or S), but what would the low end GP variant look like?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on November 23, 2017, 20:05:12
Ficantieri's combat systems integrator was most likely Ficantieri or even DCNS.

Confirmed through two other sources that are much more recent (CANSEC 2017 had a booth from Alion there with this bid).  Alion does work on the Arleigh Burkes and Tico's so it's got a bit of experience here.  They partnered with Damen Shipbuilding, Atlas Electronik, and Hendsoldt for the bid with Damen being the CSI.  I'm not going to say darkhorse, but Alion is very much a KISS design type company.  Low risk, evolutionary designs, attacks engineering problems with the proper focus on the operator, good attention to detail.  Corporate culture is very much quiet confidence.  Wouldn't be surprised if they won.

Their bid arguably has one of the best Air Warfare systems available (APAR 2 and SMART-L or S), but what would the low end GP variant look like?

Well to be fair it would be APAR2 and SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval,2000 kms reach,or SMART-L MK2 to give it a simpler name)what the low end variant would look like,well i'm as curious as you.  :nod:

And to be fair i've known of the more recent happenings,that's why i said the bid has come in as of today(official)longer unofficial,or "dark horse"so you will(or not widely known,played their cards close to their chest.(Damen,Alion,e.o.)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on November 23, 2017, 20:11:06
...what would the low end GP variant look like?

Perhaps something like this?

http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/crossover/crossover-139cf

http://products.damen.com/-/media/Products/Images/Clusters-groups/Naval/Crossover/Documents/Product-Sheet_CrossOver_Range_02_2014.pdf

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fproducts.damen.com%2F-%2Fmedia%2FProducts%2FImages%2FClusters-groups%2FNaval%2FCrossover%2FCrossover-139CF%2FCrossover_139CF.jpg%3Fh%3D767%26amp%3Bla%3Den%26amp%3Bw%3D1300&hash=b51901a717e56707426a185e252366c7)

(https://Milnet.ca/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fproducts.damen.com%2F-%2Fmedia%2FProducts%2FImages%2FClusters-groups%2FNaval%2FCrossover%2FCrossover-115S%2F3D-render%2FDamen_Crossover_115.png%3Fmw%3D1300&hash=88af3d56cfbf78339b9d9cc452c32f59)

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5TMRehJBpzA/VmT37RUJZdI/AAAAAAAAoi8/a9VntjSywUY/s1600/XO_2.png)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on November 23, 2017, 20:32:39
Well to be fair it would be APAR2 and SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval,2000 kms reach,or SMART-L MK2 to give it a simpler name)what the low end variant would look like,well i'm as curious as you.  :nod:

And to be fair i've known of the more recent happenings,that's why i said the bid has come in as of today(official)longer unofficial,or "dark horse"so you will(or not widely known,played their cards close to their chest.(Damen,Alion,e.o.)
I would imagine that other bids could include the APAR2/Smart MMN systems, yes?? I would think that these are the systems we would want to have, as the coverage is outstanding.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on November 23, 2017, 21:24:05
I would imagine that other bids could include the APAR2/Smart MMN systems, yes?? I would think that these are the systems we would want to have, as the coverage is outstanding.

Well to be fair Alexander,i'm not too sure about that since Thales Netherlands holds the patents or "key" so you will.To give an example to my knowledge the RNLN is launcing customer to the SMART-MMN(on the DZP-class),so i don't know what's Thales's feeling to adopt that to any other design as you put it,but hey i could be wrong.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on November 23, 2017, 21:28:32
Well to be fair Alexander,i'm not too sure about that since Thales Netherlands holds the patents or "key" so you will.To give an example to my knowledge the RNLN is launcing customer to the SMART-MMN(on the DZP-class),so i don't know what's Thales's feeling to adopt that to any other design as you put it,but hey i could be wrong.
It's already on multiple designs though, and by that I mean the Smart-L, that's the point. There would be a cost but that's to be expected. RNLN would have paid for the upgrade then if anyone else wants to use that upgrade they would have to pay.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on November 23, 2017, 21:32:22
It's already on multiple designs though, that's the point. There would be a cost but that's to be expected.

well yeah the  SMART-L is as is APAR,but not the SMART-MMN and APAR2.that's my point.Those are brand new,complete systems,so you'll have to change you're "old" systems.To give an example to get to SMART-MMN,you'll have to change the rotating "bit"since the new one has way more panels with more capacity(if i may call them that),so it's not just a "chip"tune,hard ware is also involved.

And Chris btw,yeah that's APAR2 on the crossover design.(well it looks like that)more the "form"/outer structure on what we have on the "Hollands"

BTW i wish we had some of these ships,but the design is untill now never used,a pity.(there are several variants)In "other"news it looks like we're getting a new/extra tanker(AOR)not known what it will look like.(i'm sure Damen knows.)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on November 23, 2017, 21:34:48
well yeah the  SMART-L is as is APAR,but not the SMART-MMN and APAR2.that's my point.
Well with APAR Canada is a partner so we would have access, at a cost and the same would likely be true of the upgraded Smart-L.

Here is something on the APAR, we have to pay no question, but that would all be worked out, as it would be with the Smart-L system I imagine, but we wouldn't have to use the specific hull design, that would be a separate issue. It's likely they would recover some of their development money which they would appreciate.

http://www.janes.com/article/71025/gan-radar-directed-at-csc-cansec17d2

Here is the information on the Smart-L MM. I think it can be assumed that the developing nation would be a partner and would benefit from any sales.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/smart-l-ewc
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 24, 2017, 19:08:07
Well to be fair Alexander,i'm not too sure about that since Thales Netherlands holds the patents or "key" so you will.To give an example to my knowledge the RNLN is launcing customer to the SMART-MMN(on the DZP-class),so i don't know what's Thales's feeling to adopt that to any other design as you put it,but hey i could be wrong.

Thales will most likely be supplying radars to multiple bids.  They might not be the combat systems integrator but that doesn't mean their kit won't be on the ship.  They said as much in a CDR magazine interview a few years back.  Guaranteed the Sea Fire 500 is on the FREMM bid and the APAR 2 is on two or three bids.  A similar example would be the BAE 127/62 gun could be on multiple ships even though they are doing their own in house bid.

With APAR 2 it says in the glossy brochure that it does a multi beam volume search but its a multi function radar. APAR 2 is a high freq X band (maybe even Ku band) radar which is not normally used for search.  Concern here is that in an engagement you are moving some of your single radar to targeting/tracking functions and taking it away from search.  With two radars you get redundancy and workload sharing.

Perhaps the bid would pair an APAR 2 with a SMART-S for the GP frigate and a SMART-L for the AAW version, or you could just take the SMART radar off the GP version.  Also it's interesting to note that the APAR 2 does digital beamforming which up until recently was only on CEAFAR and the MF-STAR if I remember correctly.  True 4th gen active phased array if that's the case.

Another question... what is going on the Navinata bid?  I expect them to put in a variant of the F-100 but their normal F-100's have SPY1 radars.  Not sure if that's something that would/could be put into the bid and if it would be worth it on a GP frigate.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 24, 2017, 23:25:54
Article about Alion in Esprit de Corps.

http://espritdecorps.ca/eye-on-industry/alion-canada-locally-developed-globally-delivered (http://espritdecorps.ca/eye-on-industry/alion-canada-locally-developed-globally-delivered)

Quote

November 15, 2017
By Sandrine Murray

November 30, 2017 is the deadline for Alion Canada to submit its request for proposal (RFP) for the design of the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) contract. If anyone is [over]qualified for the job, it’s Alion.

What started as a Chicago-based technology research institute in the 1930s became Alion Science and Technology Corporation in 2002. Alion provides engineering and operational support to the U.S. government for national defence, intelligence and homeland security. They were the design agent for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and C-47 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers in the U.S. Navy.

Canada offered an attractive market to invest and expand the operations of Alion, specifically in the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS, now called the National Shipbuilding Strategy or NSS).

Alion couldn’t simply import the U.S. expertise and capabilities to Canada, explained Chief Operating Officer Bruce E. Samuelsen. Instead, it would need to implant them within the country. To do so, they established Alion Canada in 2009.

Alion Canada has about 100 professionals, which includes engineers, naval architects and designers living and working in Canada. The company will leverage strength from the U.S. operations to support growth in Canada. American engineers trained Canadians.

“I’ve weaned myself of all the Americans, and now have implanted that skillset here,” Samuelsen says. 

Alion Canada is committed to Canada for the long run. The investments made in Canada to date have already generated jobs and economic benefit, said Samuelsen. Alion has met with businesses across Canada to create opportunities for the Canadian industry and exports. Their proposition promises high-value work and sustainable economic benefits.

These include internships and work on various aspects of Alion, he says, including the CSC bid. Alion Canada’s goal is to lead the CSC design project and to export its ship design capabilities to the broader global market.

The Canadian government will invest in 15 CSC vessels, which will be Canada’s major surface component of maritime combat power. They need to be designed to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world, either independently or as part of a Canadian international coalition. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the entire CSC program is projected to cost roughly $60-billion, which include such costs as training and ammunition; this amount does not include costs for personnel, operations, maintenance and mid-life refurbishment of the vessels.

The CSC project, part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy to renew the Royal Canadian Navy’s fleet, will replace the Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class multi-role patrol frigates with one single class capable of meeting various threats on the open ocean and coastal environment.

This is the biggest shipbuilding project in Canada since the Second World War, and involves a lengthy five-stage acquisition process.

“It’s a massive procurement,” says Samuelsen. “I’ve been able to pull people out of retirement for this project.”

Designing a ship is like designing a small city, but with a twist, he explained. Pull a city out of its roots and look at all the services and components that allow it to run smoothly. Then make it whole, so it can become self-sustaining. Finally, place it in the world’s most hostile environment, the ocean … now the task seems even more challenging.

“The complexity of a ship, for me as a naval architect, is really cool,” said Samuelsen. “But to develop the response, it’s a very intensive, cautious, careful process.”

But Alion is ready, because they bring an off-the-shelf design with a proven combat system and ship platform, making the necessary changes to meet Canada’s requirement. The platform and system solutions are currently operational to reduce the risk and cost for the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian taxpayer.

They selected the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate as a baseline for CSC, because it meets all the mandatory selection criteria without modification. It will also accelerate the production process, because it requires substantially fewer changes and provides the lowest risk approach to fulfilling Canada’s needs.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on November 25, 2017, 07:45:37
Article about Alion in Esprit de Corps.

http://espritdecorps.ca/eye-on-industry/alion-canada-locally-developed-globally-delivered (http://espritdecorps.ca/eye-on-industry/alion-canada-locally-developed-globally-delivered)

They selected the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate as a baseline for CSC, because it meets all the mandatory selection criteria without modification.

This is why I thought that a bid based on this design could be a very strong bid.  Every one of the seven other designs appears to require more modifications.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 25, 2017, 08:41:19
The devil is always in the details. 

The Daring Class appears to be the poster child for 'new' designs that once constructed were found to have major design flaws which were not identified pre-build

That clean sheet risk (especially from BAE) makes me wary of the Type 26 baseline.

On the other hand it appears that all the other competitors are using proven hull-propulsion designs as a base which SHOULD improve the probability of solid reliability.

Ignoring the weapons-sensor fit, does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the other competitors hull-propulsion options?

Thank you in advance....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on November 25, 2017, 09:50:12
Ignoring the weapons-sensor fit, does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the other competitors hull-propulsion options?

Well, the Halifax-class frigate uses combined diesel or gas (CODOG).  I am assuming the Royal Canadian Navy likes the rapid acceleration that is possible with gas turbines.  Of the eight designs that might have had a chance of being used in a bid, only the Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate does not use gas turbines.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 25, 2017, 10:51:54
The devil is always in the details. 

The Daring Class appears to be the poster child for 'new' designs that once constructed were found to have major design flaws which were not identified pre-build

That clean sheet risk (especially from BAE) makes me wary of the Type 26 baseline.

On the other hand it appears that all the other competitors are using proven hull-propulsion designs as a base which SHOULD improve the probability of solid reliability.

Ignoring the weapons-sensor fit, does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the other competitors hull-propulsion options?

Thank you in advance....

If Naval Group/Ficianteri are using the FREMM-ER as their bid it's basically a new design.  The change to allowing advanced designs to bid was just as much a benefit for them IMHO as it was for BAE.  Kinda like saying iPhone 10 is the same as iPhone 2.

Reference your second questions the only system I can speak to is the Type 26 is using essentially the same propulsion as the Type 23 has.  Which is to say an extremely reliable design that has been proven, and popular with the RN brass.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on November 25, 2017, 14:41:45
Thanks Underway for correction on Type 26 propulsion....Matthew.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on November 25, 2017, 18:32:50
....

And Chris btw,yeah that's APAR2 on the crossover design.(well it looks like that)more the "form"/outer structure on what we have on the "Hollands"

BTW i wish we had some of these ships,but the design is untill now never used,a pity.(there are several variants)In "other"news it looks like we're getting a new/extra tanker(AOR)not known what it will look like.(i'm sure Damen knows.)

Can't help but wonder if the Damen Crossover - built on Sigma model which has been purchased by Morocco, Indonesia and Mexico - is any more developmental than the T26.

Damen at least has experience building all of the individual modules for inclusion in ships ranging from FPBs to FFGs and LPDs.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 25, 2017, 22:30:18
Can't help but wonder if the Damen Crossover - built on Sigma model which has been purchased by Morocco, Indonesia and Mexico - is any more developmental than the T26.

Damen at least has experience building all of the individual modules for inclusion in ships ranging from FPBs to FFGs and LPDs.

Same thoughts for the FREMM-ER. 

In other news, big briefing Monday to public regarding the CSC program.  Supposed to involve senior officials from Procurement, DND, as well as staff from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Irving.  Bids are due on the 30th.  I expect a reveal of the bidders, the plan moving forward and some random terrible questions from the press regarding crap they don't understand.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: E.R. Campbell on November 26, 2017, 10:15:26

...  I expect a reveal of the bidders, the plan moving forward and some random terrible questions from the press regarding crap they don't understand.

Including, perhaps some about why the TCN doesn't need another tanker from Davie (https://qtelegram.com/ottawa-does-not-command-a-second-vessel-at-the-shipyard-davie/28136)?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 26, 2017, 12:47:30
That would definitely classify as a bad question as the entire point of the announcement is regarding the CSC project not the rental of an AOR project.  CSC is far more money and far more important.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on November 26, 2017, 13:56:14
Article about Alion in Esprit de Corps.

http://espritdecorps.ca/eye-on-industry/alion-canada-locally-developed-globally-delivered (http://espritdecorps.ca/eye-on-industry/alion-canada-locally-developed-globally-delivered)
I like the De Zeven Provinciën but what about the range? Is it 4000nm? The Iver has a range of 9000 miles but then likely would not have the quick acceleration of the gas turbines, something our naval brass would want.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on November 26, 2017, 14:37:31
I like the De Zeven Provinciën but what about the range? Is it 4000nm?

"CODOG propulsion system and engines

The ship’s combined diesel or gas (CODOG) propulsion system has two independent propulsion lines. The two Rolls-Royce Spey SM1C gas turbine engines each provide 18.5MW. Two cruise diesel engines, Stork-Wartsila 16 V26, provide 8.4MW.

The two gearboxes are installed in a separate transmission room. The ship has two controllable-pitch propellers and two rudders with rudder roll stabilisation.

The maximum ship speed is 30kt and the cruise speed is 18kt. The range is 5,000 miles at 18kt."

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dezeven/

Hope this answers your question.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on November 26, 2017, 16:31:52
Including, perhaps some about why the TCN doesn't need another tanker from Davie (https://qtelegram.com/ottawa-does-not-command-a-second-vessel-at-the-shipyard-davie/28136)?

I suppose we should never discount one of the most enduring elements of Canadian defence equipment politics- surprise.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 27, 2017, 17:53:33
Same thoughts for the FREMM-ER. 

In other news, big briefing Monday to public regarding the CSC program.  Supposed to involve senior officials from Procurement, DND, as well as staff from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Irving.  Bids are due on the 30th.  I expect a reveal of the bidders, the plan moving forward and some random terrible questions from the press regarding crap they don't understand.

OK so I got zero out of three.  There is there is no reveal, there is no plan, and I have no idea about questions.  At least I'm consistant.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1524257-feds-hope-to-fill-irvings-scheduling-gap-between-patrol-ships-warships (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1524257-feds-hope-to-fill-irvings-scheduling-gap-between-patrol-ships-warships)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on November 27, 2017, 18:31:47
Did you expect anything less?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: suffolkowner on November 27, 2017, 18:54:24
OK so I got zero out of three.  There is there is no reveal, there is no plan, and I have no idea about questions.  At least I'm consistant.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1524257-feds-hope-to-fill-irvings-scheduling-gap-between-patrol-ships-warships (http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1524257-feds-hope-to-fill-irvings-scheduling-gap-between-patrol-ships-warships)

What possible incentive would Irving have to produce 6 ships for $3.5B instead of 5?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: sunrayRnfldR on November 27, 2017, 21:04:33
There is at least one nation that has a requirement for a larger offshore patrol vessel with an ice capability. New Zealand requires such a ship for its Southern Ocean patrols where ice is encountered in some fishing and scientific exploration areas near Antarctica. The Royal New Zealand Navy have contracted with Canadian companies for the refit of its two Anzac frigates with a new combat management system based on that installed in the Halifax Class modernization. So, there is a naval connection with Canadian industry and there could could be an opportunity for one more AOPS to be built beyond the 5 or 6 for the RCN.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 27, 2017, 21:29:32
Did you expect anything less?

It's hard to expect less than zero....   ;D

What possible incentive would Irving have to produce 6 ships for $3.5B instead of 5?

Believe it or not Irving is heavily incentivized to make 6 ships.  They make more money in the AOPS contract (3.5 billion like you said) if they make 6 within that budget then if they make 5 within that budget.  I actually expect them to try and make the six ships if possible even with this "gap" as it's in the company's best interest.

As for other countries buying the AOPS I expect it not to happen unless there is a significant price cut.  I suppose one could argue that the development costs have been sunk so a sale of the ship would be cheaper to another buyer.  But I would expect a much cheaper bid to come in from a shipbuilder that is not in Canada for anyone else out there who needs a half icebreaker half patrol ship.  Which is also probably no one.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: suffolkowner on November 27, 2017, 22:41:11
It's hard to expect less than zero....   ;D

Believe it or not Irving is heavily incentivized to make 6 ships.  They make more money in the AOPS contract (3.5 billion like you said) if they make 6 within that budget then if they make 5 within that budget.  I actually expect them to try and make the six ships if possible even with this "gap" as it's in the company's best interest.

As for other countries buying the AOPS I expect it not to happen unless there is a significant price cut.  I suppose one could argue that the development costs have been sunk so a sale of the ship would be cheaper to another buyer.  But I would expect a much cheaper bid to come in from a shipbuilder that is not in Canada for anyone else out there who needs a half icebreaker half patrol ship.  Which is also probably no one.

Underway

I take it you mean they have actual incentives in the contract to pay out more money if they can produce 6 for $3.5B instead of 5 for $3.5B? Of course they wouldn't be doing it for $3.5B then. 

If they need a gap filler to the CSC the government should just contract for the 6th or 7th AOPS. As Mark says jobs,jobs,jobs
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: serger989 on November 28, 2017, 02:33:09
I really don't see a single nation buying any of Irvings ships let alone their AOPS. If it costs around half a billion to make 1 AOPS for Canada, I do not think it could be successfully pitched overseas. They say they are developing the skills necessary to be great builders, sure, but they can barely develop their bookkeeping skills and still don't know if they can deliver on the 6th vessel until next year? Good grief. As someone who has been learning about our procurement history only this year, this gives me a headache... Can anyone shed positive light on this situation that keeps getting delayed :(
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on November 28, 2017, 08:48:51
Quote

Lockheed Martin, BAE submit warship bid

Days before the bid submission deadline for the Canadian Surface Combatant request for proposals, Lockheed Martin Canada has announced it has teamed up with the UK-based BAE Systems to submit a proposal for Canada’s new fleet of warships.

The combined request for proposals is for an off-the-shelf ship design and combat systems integrator, and experts say the Lockheed Canada and BAE duo will be a powerhouse contender.

For the ship design, BAE Systems is offering its Type 26 Global Combat Ship — long rumoured to be a favourite of Royal Canadian Navy officials and arguably the newest and most advanced vessel of its kind in the world — and the only possible contender that has yet to actually be built. The Royal Navy is building six of their own Type 26 vessels.

For the combat systems, which is best described as the brain and nervous systems of the ship’s intelligence and combat operations, Lockheed Canada is offering its Canadian-designed CMS 330. This is a newer version of the combat management system Lockheed designed for the Royal Canadian Navy’s original Halifax-class ships and is present on Canada’s modernized frigates.

Both firms were identified among bidders prequalified to participate in the process, alongside other international industry giants like ThyssenKrupp, Navantia and DCNS.

Also part of the consortium participating in the Lockheed/BAE bid are CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA and Dartmouth-based marine tech firm Ultra Electronics.

Speaking with The Chronicle Herald on Monday, Gary Fudge, VP of Canadian naval systems programs with Lockheed, said an independent study completed by Lockheed Canada revealed the Type 26 as the best design in the running, and prompted their interest in teaming with BAE for preliminary work several years before Canada announced that it would be combining the ship design and combat systems integrator into a single bid.

He said BAE’s modern design and modern toolsets — for example their use of advanced digital blueprints that will make it easier to modify and modernize the design in the future — made the Type 26 the key contender for them.

“Given that Irving has just built the most modern shipyard, we wanted the designer to have toolsets and data that can migrate easily into Irving’s toolsets,” said Fudge.

Irving is the prime contractor for the combat portion of the government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy and will build a fleet of 15 Canadian Surface Combatants (CSCs) at its Halifax shipyard, with a budget of $56billion to $60 billion, starting in the 2020s. It will also have a say, alongside the federal government, in selecting the winning bidder.

Rosemary Chapdelaine, vice president and general manager with Lockheed Martin Canada Rotary and Mission Systems, on Monday touted job creation in Canada, including Nova Scotia, as a key component to their bid.

For example, Lockheed Canada’s combat systems and integration technology is built at a facility in Ottawa and tested at the the company’s Maritime Advanced Testing and Training Site in Dartmouth.

Chapdelaine said Lockheed Canada’s approach to the bid is to be seen as the Canadian team, even if it takes points from other parts of their bid.

“We want to provide the Canadian content, do the direct work in Canada using Canadian industry,” she said.

David Perry, a senior analyst with Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said Lockheed Canada’s long history with the Royal Canadian Navy via the Halifax-class frigates and the advantages of the Type 26 over other potential designs puts the consortium in a good spot in the competition.

“An advantage of the Type 26 would be that where the requirements for it overlap with CSC, the technology would be very new, without modifying the design at all. The other ships in the competition would be older technology, so they'd need to modify it to introduce more current technology,” he said.

But that doesn’t make it a shoo-in — in an RFP with thousands of different parts, Perry said the winning design will have to tick a lot of boxes.

Speed and accommodations for example, while adequate in the Type 26, Perry said are not necessarily the cream of the crop compared to other options out there.

Retired navy commander and defence analyst Ken Hansen agreed that Lockheed Canada’s extensive experience working with the Canadian Navy, as well as their edge on Canadian content, gives them an advantage over some parts of the competition.

But, he said, while extremely advanced technology, the Type 26 might not be the ship Canada needs due to its high price and extreme complexity.

“The (Type 26) is inordinately complex and it had a lot of teething pains — the ship has been described in the U.K. press as overpriced and a technical nightmare,” he said. “I have not gotten that warm feeling where the reassurances from the British design authorities say ‘Oh it’s solved and we’re back on track.’”

It is not known how many groups will submit bids for the CSC competition. At least one other has gone public — Alion Canada announced its bid with Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command frigate as its design last week.

The federal government says it expects to be able to select a winning bidder at the earliest in the spring of 2018, dependent on the number and quality of bids it receives.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1524306-lockheed-martin-bae-submit-warship-bid
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 28, 2017, 17:45:02
I take issue with two parts of that article.  The first is the UK will be building eight Type 26.  Not six.  Secondly Cdr (Ret). Hansen stated that the Type 26 has teething pains.  It has none as it hasn't even been born yet!  So while it may still have teething pains that remains to be seen.

Otherwise it was good.

My god though,  Lockheed, BAE, CAE, Ultra, L-3 and Macdonald Dettwiler?  That's like the Canadian Olympic hockey team of bids.  Might not win the gold but are going to make the others earn their wins.

Interesting design though, Lockheed will be offering CMS 330 as their command control system.  That's the same system currently fitted on the CPF and will be fitted on the AOPS.  I expect that means ESSM and SM2 vice CAAMS etc... as the missile load, which of course informs the radar system they are going to chose.  But I don't see a "radar" expert on that list of companies so their probably going to outsource a radar type.

CBC article on the same announcement. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-design-competition-1.4421264)

Quote

British design first to be submitted in Canadian navy's warship contest
By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Nov 28, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 28, 2017 5:00 AM ET

Companies vying to design and help build the navy's new frigates began submitting their bids on Monday, as federal officials acknowledged there could be a production gap at the shipyard doing the construction.

British warship manufacturer BAE Systems — which is partnered with Lockheed Martin Canada, CAE, L-3 Technologies, Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., and Ultra Electronics — pitched their Type 26 warship design.

They were first out of the gate on Monday, three days ahead of the revised deadline established by Public Services and Procurement Canada.

At least one other company among the 12 pre-qualified bidders is thought to have submitted its proposal for the program, which is estimated to be worth $60 billion over the next few decades.

"We're really excited," said Rosemary Chapdelaine, president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Canada, in an interview with CBC News.

Her company's pitch is the culmination of five years work and preparation.

More hurdles ahead

Senior public works and defence officials said the bids will pass through a series of hurdles over the next few months, but it will now be "later in 2018" before the federal cabinet has the chance to approve a winner.

The fuzzy timeline means the program is months behind schedule.

The design competition was launched over a year ago with the Liberal government saying the plan to select a foreign, off-the-shelf design would be cheaper and faster than building a warship from scratch.

The delay raises the spectre that there will be a gap between construction of the navy's Arctic offshore patrol ships and the frigate replacements, which are expected to begin construction in the early 2020s.

Such a pause between major projects would have a huge impact on the roughly 2,700 workers at Irving Shipyards Inc. in Halifax, and also flies in the face of the intention of the federal government's national shipbuilding strategy, which was to eliminate the "boom and bust" cycle in the industry.

Lisa Campbell, the assistant deputy minister of defence and marine procurement, said at the moment the start date for "cutting steel" on the surface combat ships is "highly speculative."

Kevin McCoy, the president of Irving Shipbuilding, said the company is exploring options to fill the gap by constructing more arctic ships, possibly for other nations.

"We're out there looking at what other interest is out there for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships," he said. "We've had some other countries come to the shipyard over the last two years. So, I would say: Yes it's an issue. It's an issue that most nations that build ships go through."

McCoy said it is "way too early" to speculate on whether there will be layoffs.

It is a matter of not "losing the experience of a highly talented workforce," he said Monday during a technical briefing in Ottawa. "The good news is we're looking at this many years in advance."

Type 26 frigate

The federal government, in laying down the markers for the program, said it was interested in an existing warship design, something with a proven track record.

The Type 26 only began production in Britain earlier this year.

Gary Fudge, the vice president of Canadian Naval Systems Programs at Lockheed Martin Canada, said the exact wording of the government's request for proposals was that it wanted a "mature design."

He said his company conducted two studies before partnering with BAE to submit the bid — and the fact that it was a brand-new design brought a lot of benefits.

"That is the best ship for Canada," Fudge said. "Some of these other warship designs were built 10 years ago and you will not be able to buy one part for those ships today."

Having to produce specific parts in small quantities will, according to Fudge, make some of the other, older designs more expensive.

The federal government will not confirm how many bids it receives between now and the time the decision is made, Campbell said.


Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 28, 2017, 18:08:08
Heres the press release from L3 website. (https://www.wescam.com/wp-content/uploads/NR_Final_Announcing-Canadas-Combat-Ship-Team-FINAL.pdf)

It's a bit long and in PDF format so I didn't copy it here.  Format and length don't work well for the forum without significant edits on my part.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on November 28, 2017, 19:34:26
US defence media notice LockMart, BAESystems et al. bid (note costs near end):

Quote
Canadian Navy Competition Previews US Frigate Fight

The contest to build Canada’s next warship just kicked into high gear, and it’s a preview of the US Navy’s own frigate competition, with many of the same players. Earlier today — ahead of other competitors and the official deadline — Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems officially submitted the Type 26 frigate, which BAE is already building for the British Royal Navy. The Franco-Italian FREMM, the Spanish Navantia F105, and the Danish Stanflex are all likely competitors for both the Canadian and the US frigate programs.

Previously, I’d downplayed the possibility of the US Navy buying the Type 26, because the first frigate hasn’t been built yet, whereas the French, Spanish, and Danish designs all have long track records at sea. Having a track record is particularly important because America’s on a tighter schedule than Canada and therefore has less time to work out kinks in an untested product. The US FFG(X) program plans to award a construction contract in 2020, while the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program won’t make that award until the unspecified “early 2020s,” a date that’s repeatedly slipped.

But the Type 26’s entry into the Canadian contest suggests it’s readier than I thought. Putting together an industry team and a proposal package for the Canadian competition is, at the very least, good practice for the American one. And if the Type 26 goes on to get a good reception in Ottawa, that can only help it in Washington.

Cost & Capability

On paper, the Type 26 seems in many ways a good match for the US frigate requirements. Its primary role is hunting submarines, particularly to protect aircraft carriers and friendly ballistic missile subs — all top priorities for the US Navy as well. It will also fire anti-aircraft, missile defense, and anti-ship missiles out of the Mk. 41 Vertical Launch System, which is standard on US and allied warships (although the UK hasn’t actually developed the requisite anti-ship missile yet).

The Type 26 will have wide flight deck, capable of accommodating helicopters as large as the US Army (or RAF) CH-47 Chinook. It will also have a “modular mission bay” to accommodate specialized equipment from small boats to drones to relief supplies. That’s the kind of flexibility the US was hoping for with its troubled Littoral Combat Ship.

Unlike the high-speed, short-range LCS, but in keeping with the US Navy’s requirements for a long-haul frigate, the Type 26 will make a modest 26 knots but have fuel for 7,000 nautical miles. Displacing 7,600 tons (6,900 metric tonnes), with a basic crew of 157 sailors and accommodations for 208, the Type 26 is also a lot larger than LCS, as are all the frigate contenders.

The Type 26’s big problem may be the big price tag [emphasis added]. The Royal Navy is initially paying almost US$1.7 billion a frigate (it’s a £3.7 billion, three-ship contract). That’s nearly as much as the US Navy pays for a much larger and more powerful Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. While the Pentagon expects to pay more for a frigate than the approximately $568.1 million it’s currently shelling out for LCS, it probably won’t pay three times as much.

Now, the Americans and Canadians can expect to pay significantly less for the Type 26 than the British [emphasis added--for RCN good flipping luck]. That initial UK contract covers the cost of developing an all-new warship, a huge expense that other navies won’t have to replicate. It also covers the cost of figuring out how to build the new design affordably. Even setting aside development costs, the first few ships of a class always cost more to build than later ones, since industry learns how to streamline construction over time. So the cost of the Type 26 will definitely drop.

But by how much? Lockheed and BAE can offer estimates, but with the first ship still unfinished in the UK, they can’t offer any hard numbers on what subsequent ships will cost. That’s in stark contrast to their competitors, who all have multiple ships built.

The unproven Type 26 definitely has some disadvantages in the competition for the US Navy frigate contract. But if BAE and Lockheed want to enter it, it’s also definitely worth considering.
https://breakingdefense.com/2017/11/canadian-navy-competition-previews-us-frigate-fight/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 29, 2017, 14:19:30
Well they didn't waste any time getting their website up that's for sure...

http://www.canadascombatshipteam.com/ (http://www.canadascombatshipteam.com/)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on November 29, 2017, 15:09:49
Quote
In January of the following year, it became apparent that 600 of these would be required urgently for Col. Brown’s Battalion of the Rifle Brigade and that the Enfield factory would not be able to supply them in time. Thus the whole order was put out to the trade in London at a charge of 38s per rifle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_rifle

Radical procurement plan. 

Here's what I want.
Here's what I'll pay.
Who will bid?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 29, 2017, 15:32:56
Video up as well.  It's a essentially a rehash of other Type 26 video's with even the same music, however it doesn't say much about any weapons/sensors and has a very generic VDS in the picture.  Basically no new information.

I noticed the 25mm guns however were still on the hangar sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfMqfoMQTs0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfMqfoMQTs0)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on November 29, 2017, 17:27:25
Not quite, Underway: They at least put in a Cyclone helicopter vice the Merlins in their original videos.  :nod:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on November 29, 2017, 18:51:10
Not quite, Underway: They at least put in a Cyclone helicopter vice the Merlins in their original videos.  :nod:

Should have had a Chinook land on, after the Cyclone departed...   ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 29, 2017, 19:59:29
Not quite, Underway: They at least put in a Cyclone helicopter vice the Merlins in their original videos.  :nod:

 ;D

I suppose if we are being picky, there are only 24 VLS on the foc'sle and the 24 CAAMS launchers have been removed.  The stern bay doors are different than the ones in the original video.  A number of antenna and radars are different the main one being a integrated mast with a fixed array and the ops room shown was completely different to the original.  It is essentially the CMS 330 Ops room with a different layout.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 30, 2017, 14:38:31
Articles popping up lots of places now.  Most of this is a rehash with some editorializing thrown in.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-lockheed-martin-build-canadas-navy-new-frigate-23410 (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-lockheed-martin-build-canadas-navy-new-frigate-23410)

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on November 30, 2017, 15:50:28
Articles popping up lots of places now.  Most of this is a rehash with some editorializing thrown in.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-lockheed-martin-build-canadas-navy-new-frigate-23410 (http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-lockheed-martin-build-canadas-navy-new-frigate-23410)

Quote
Given Canada’s less than stellar defense procurement track record, it is hard to say at this point how smoothly the CSC program will proceed.

Never a truer word spoke.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on November 30, 2017, 22:41:05
News is the Fincantieri of Italy and Naval Group of France are offering a FREMM variant at a guaranteed price of $30 billion dollars. 

I don't know the details of the offer and I'm trying to find an alternative reference. 

I'm not a fan of the FREMM and don't think it will match the requirements for the AAW version of the frigate very well or the number of personnel the navy wants to embark, but a $32 billion dollar deal is... exceedingly tempting. 

Also with a guarantee like that my first instinct is "What's the catch?"  Too good to be true usually is. I expect they want to build some of the ships in their own yards, or at least parts of them there.  Are they that desperate to keep their nationalized shipbuilding industries afloat they would offer a money losing contract?  Or are they non-compliant in some of their bid and want to circumvent the process?

Irving is heavily involved with the design selection.  I expect they will put up a fight and try to get all the money themselves.  I also expect bureaucratic resistance.

This has the potential to be a political football of epic proportions.  I suppose we'll see a battle between the navies priorities, jobs in Canada's priorities, strategic industry priorities and saving taxpayers dollars priorities.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on December 01, 2017, 09:21:49
Read the same article in the news.

*DS edit: Due to site guidelines.

Unless the design is non-compliant, I'm not sure how you turn down $30 billion is savings.

That is a ton of money to address other gaps....

Even from the Navy's own viewpoint, if they didn't want to cut corners on the SCC to help the other branches,  the savings could easily fund Shortfin Barracuda submarines as well as a third Berlin-class.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Rifleman62 on December 01, 2017, 09:54:09
Savings of $32B.

One comment to the article was to build two fleets and save $64B. :rofl:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Czech_pivo on December 01, 2017, 10:13:13
Isn't the total package of 62 billion the total cost to build/operate (incl. all staffing costs, etc) over the entire life span of the ships?  If so, then how can they be saying that the savings will be 32 billion?
Pound for pound (or ton for ton if you prefer), the total weight of the new Harry DeWolf vs the Italian FREMM is pretty much the exact same, so from the amount of steel needed to produce these ships, the cost raw materials would be similar. 
The Australians are expecting to pay 35B AUS for 9 frigates, (which the final 3 designs are the Type 26, the FREMM and a Spanish design) which works out to be 58B for 15 doing a simple mathematical calculation .  Assuming that the cost per ship goes DOWN as you build more ships, I'm not seeing how our projected costs of 62B adds up, it should come under 58B. 
Wouldn't it be nice if they decided to use the savings to build 10 nice new 1,500t corvettes for patrol duty (and scrap the Kingston's) and add a fourth replenishment ship?   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 01, 2017, 11:22:53
This basically means that Fincantieri/Naval Group is bowing out of the NSPS process and taking its parting shot at Irving.

Everything I read so far is that this "offer" from them with guaranteed price is for building the vessels outside of the NSPS. Basically, they would build them in their yards (or perhaps a different Canadian yard, with them in charge - Davie anyone?), but definitely not at Irving. That is the only way they can guarantee cost.

So their parting shot is just there to remind Canadians how much money they are spewing just for the privilege of home built. They know, however, that no Canadian government will ever spend that much money offshore for something they actually can get here, even at inflated prices (which is not the case, for instance for fighter aircrafts).

Savings of $32B.

One comment to the article was to build two fleets and save $64B. :rofl:

I see somebody knows my wife's logic when shopping, which explains why I am running out of storage in the house for all the stuff purchased years in advance of any needs (if it ever comes).
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on December 01, 2017, 11:36:26
There might be another side to the Fincantieri offer:  Industry is becoming concerned that ships will be perceived as unaffordable.

The US model of high priced vessels (and aircraft) serves US needs.

It allows the US to use defense spending to support US jobs and the US economy.
It permits the US to build very capable systems.
It discourages other countries from trying to compete with the US by building comparable systems
It encourages third countries to see the US offerings as top of the line.

The US model also serves Canadian needs.

It encourages the domestic belief that defense is unaffordable (and unnecessary due to us hanging on to the US by its belt buckle).

However it does not serve the needs of foreign industry that wants to sell ships.

They need to convince third countries that ships are affordable AND that their ships are capable of meeting national strategic requirements.  They can win even if forced to concede that the US may have technological edges in some areas.

They can't tolerate the impression being left that ships are unaffordable - And that is the impression left by US policy and the accounting practices adopted by Canada, Australia and the UK.

They can't leave the impression that ships cost $4,000,000,000 per hull (the Canadian Model).  They need to present ships at $400,000,000 per hull (the Danish Model).

A first effort would be to show the Canadian Model as being one designed by idiots.  A good start would be to say that they would be happy to supply and support a fleet for half the price while still making a profit for their share-holders.

The odds of anybody buying anything from a Canadian yard just got longer.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Czech_pivo on December 01, 2017, 12:06:53
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21415/Navantia_Saab_Submits_Canadian_Surface_Combatant_Program_Bid#.WiF99v-nGM8
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 01, 2017, 12:49:25
Isn't the total package of 62 billion the total cost to build/operate (incl. all staffing costs, etc) over the entire life span of the ships?  If so, then how can they be saying that the savings will be 32 billion?
Pound for pound (or ton for ton if you prefer), the total weight of the new Harry DeWolf vs the Italian FREMM is pretty much the exact same, so from the amount of steel needed to produce these ships, the cost raw materials would be similar. 
The Australians are expecting to pay 35B AUS for 9 frigates, (which the final 3 designs are the Type 26, the FREMM and a Spanish design) which works out to be 58B for 15 doing a simple mathematical calculation .  Assuming that the cost per ship goes DOWN as you build more ships, I'm not seeing how our projected costs of 62B adds up, it should come under 58B. 
Wouldn't it be nice if they decided to use the savings to build 10 nice new 1,500t corvettes for patrol duty (and scrap the Kingston's) and add a fourth replenishment ship?
My understanding is that it does not include operating costs or maintenance for the life of the ships. It's just the cost of building the ships and we could likely get it down to $45B if we build them faster. In my mind anything more than $3B per ship is just nuts.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: jmt18325 on December 01, 2017, 12:54:59
I thought the $62B was in service support and construction costs, but not life cycle costs.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on December 01, 2017, 13:13:51
And thereby hangs the tale:

The lack of certainty on what constitutes the price and the scope.

It serves the needs of those who would do nothing.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on December 01, 2017, 13:18:18
I thought the $62B was in service support and construction costs, but not life cycle costs.
Quote
This estimate includes costs resulting from development, production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management and upgrades to existing facilities. It does not include costs associated with the operation, maintenance and mid-life refurbishment of the ships, other than the spare parts that will be purchased when the ships are built.
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

If Naval Group and Fincantieri are offering to build the modules in France and Italy with final assembly in Canada, their proposal will probably be rejected by the Liberals. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on December 01, 2017, 13:31:31
Frankly the cost of all that support is the same whatever ship your going to have, the costing needs to be separate, as does the contracts. The only cost that should be different is if there is a radical departure from the estimated support costs. Such as using 16" shells instead of missiles or nuke reactor as opposed to fuel oil. Then we can honestly compare the true costs of the different ships.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 01, 2017, 13:35:21
Let's get factual here:

These are the figures taken straight out of the PBO report on the CSC's cost. They are found at table 1 of the summary of findings, page 2 of the report - which is available on line (I am not posting the link because I wish to abide by Scott's new system for long documents but I haven't quite figured it out yet):

The PBO gives two figures for the program cost: One is in FY2017 dollars (i.e. this is what it would cost if we were executing the whole program in that FY and paid for it in current dollars of that year), then he gives the figures in "Then-years" (meaning the cost with inflation/dollar devalued along the way so that it is the actual price paid in each of the years a payment will be made in the future).

It Breaks down as such:

Total cost of program: $40B$ FY2017; 62B$ Then-yr.

Cost of development: $4.5B$ FY2017; 5B$ Then-yr.

Cost of the production (actual cost of ships): $28B$ FY2017; 45B$ Then-yr.

The rest*: 7.5B$ FY2017; 12B$ Then-yr.

*: The rest includes the following: Spares for the first two years and then spares for the rest of the in-service years (why the breakdown for the first two years, I have no idea); ammunition (this is for actual ammunition expenditure for training/forecasted ops during the lifetime, not for the original set of ammunition, which is included in the cost of production) facilities, documentation, training and Government program management.

As I have indicated at the time these figures came out, using the Australian Adelaide destroyers as baseline for the command/AAW ships, a FY2017 cost of about 4B$ each is in line with current costs. So, for three, you get the first 12B$ knocked out of the figure. The reminder of 16B$ for the 12 GP/ASW version means about 1.3B$ each, which is also in line with current price for such ships.
 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 01, 2017, 13:46:24
http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21415/Navantia_Saab_Submits_Canadian_Surface_Combatant_Program_Bid#.WiF99v-nGM8

I'm not going to lie, the Navinata/Saab bid is genius.  Ctrl-F replace Canada with Australia and submit for the SEA 5000 program.  Just saved Navinata a pile of dollars in bid development.  If they get the Canadian contract awesome, here is your exact ship you require for the SEA 5000 program, massively reducing risk for Australia.  Every other bid needs to rejig for the Saab CMS and the CEA radars which are requirements for the Australian program.

CEA makes the CEAMOUNT/CEAFAR radar system which is very good by all accounts, arguably the best medium AESA for ships available.  Saab CMS is also right up there with the industry standard, maybe is the industry standard.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on December 01, 2017, 13:54:10
Let's get factual here:

These are the figures taken straight out of the PBO report on the CSC's cost. They are found at table 1 of the summary of findings, page 2 of the report - which is available on line (I am not posting the link because I wish to abide by Scott's new system for long documents but I haven't quite figured it out yet):

The PBO gives two figures for the program cost: One is in FY2017 dollars (i.e. this is what it would cost if we were executing the whole program in that FY and paid for it in current dollars of that year), then he gives the figures in "Then-years" (meaning the cost with inflation/dollar devalued along the way so that it is the actual price paid in each of the years a payment will be made in the future).

It Breaks down as such:

Total cost of program: $40B$ FY2017; 62B$ Then-yr.

Cost of development: $4.5B$ FY2017; 5B$ Then-yr.

Cost of the production (actual cost of ships): $28B$ FY2017; 45B$ Then-yr.

The rest*: 7.5B$ FY2017; 12B$ Then-yr.

*: The rest includes the following: Spares for the first two years and then spares for the rest of the in-service years (why the breakdown for the first two years, I have no idea); ammunition (this is for actual ammunition expenditure for training/forecasted ops during the lifetime, not for the original set of ammunition, which is included in the cost of production) facilities, documentation, training and Government program management.

As I have indicated at the time these figures came out, using the Australian Adelaide destroyers as baseline for the command/AAW ships, a FY2017 cost of about 4B$ each is in line with current costs. So, for three, you get the first 12B$ knocked out of the figure. The reminder of 16B$ for the 12 GP/ASW version means about 1.3B$ each, which is also in line with current price for such ships.
 

Still OGBD those are ridiculous prices for such ships,to give an example the new vMFF(replacement M-class)which will be a pure ASW/GP frigate will be in the region of about 600-800 million from what i've heard,those are more "realistic"prices,not "driven up" prices by Government or a shipbuilder.(sorry that's my take on it)That's the "purchase"price don't know the through life costs.

Oh and here's what's known right now:


weight/size: 6000 ton
length : ca. 140 m
propulsion : diesel-electric => 26 knots
armament :
- 2x76mm sovraponte(which means DART and Vulcano ammo)
- VLS 8x4 in front of the bridge,AA(8x4 = totalling 32 rockets )
- VLS 8x4 midships/aft for ASROC/ possibly for TLAM or SM-3
- RAM on hangar
- 30mm marlin in front of the bridge
integrated sensormast ( I500 )
Hangar : 1x NH90
Multi mission bay midships.

Nothing known about torpedo's/launchers right now.(but should be there)For now 2 will be built for the Netherlands and 2 for Belgium,hopefully the Netherlands will go for 2 more.

About the I-500 integrated sensor mast.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2014-archive-naval-exhibitons/euronaval-2014/2143-thales-presents-its-new-integrated-mast-i-mast-500-at-euronaval-2014.html"
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 01, 2017, 14:36:45
Karel, I think you are using US$, not Canadian.

1.3B$ Can is equal to about 870 million Euros.

I am pretty sure that the M class replacements will be near that cost. And, BTW, the figures you quote for the vMFF only include half the VLS spots the Canadian CSC will have. Add those extra missiles and associated systems in and you are talking an extra 80 million Euros or 120 million $ Canadian increase in price just there.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on December 01, 2017, 15:40:06
Karel, I think you are using US$, not Canadian.

1.3B$ Can is equal to about 870 million Euros.

I am pretty sure that the M class replacements will be near that cost. And, BTW, the figures you quote for the vMFF only include half the VLS spots the Canadian CSC will have. Add those extra missiles and associated systems in and you are talking an extra 80 million Euros or 120 million $ Canadian increase in price just there.

Yeah sorry i did use US currency,but for number of missiles it's 8x4x2(corrected that in my previous post,thanks to you mentioning that) so in total something like 64 missiles(in front and aft/mid)from what i've heared the ships will come in at about 700 million euros.(buying price)so yeah about a billion or so Canadian.(sorry for that)
Maybe an idea for Canada to join the building party/line maybe that means the ships will come in cheaper(number of ships).I know junior will never go for that(building abroad),but still a nice thought.The price i mentioned is with all the systems mentioned,at least it is for us.And offcourse the fact that these "to be build"ships are not existing yet(and not in the bidding process)

Then Canada could "end up" with 2 classes,the "The  Seven" and the new class then it would feel like home away from home,lol.(and to be fair have both our Navies have the best looking(and very capable) ships around,but hey i'm prejudiced.)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 01, 2017, 16:26:19
I believe you had it right the first time Karel.

The vMFF (from what I have seen) is two times eight VLS spots for total of 16. Half of them (so eight) will pack the ESSM in quad packs, so thirty-two, but the second eight cells will pack only one missile each, including the surface to surface missiles, for a total onboard of 40 missiles.

The plans (so far) for CSC calls for 32 VLS spots (with three "blanks" used for servicing/electronics/etc. like we had on the IRO's - so total actual spots 29), 16 of which should pack quad ESSMs, plus eight independent SSM (Harpoons or follow-on), for total on the CSC's of 85 missiles.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 01, 2017, 16:45:01
RFP closed:
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/11/canadian_surfacecombatantrequestforproposalscloses.html

So appear to be only four bids (if Fincantieri/Naval Group is actually accepted), nothing from Odense Maritime, ThyssenKrupp:

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/12/01/naval-group-fincantieri-join-forces-in-canada-warship-tender/

https://vanguardcanada.com/2017/11/30/navantia-led-team-submits-proposal-for-csc/

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-lockheed-martin-build-canadas-navy-new-frigate-23410

Plus:

Quote
...
Alion Canada, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Alion Science and Technology, is offering Canada the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command frigate design. Alion, the prime design agent for the U.S. Navy’s DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser, has partnered with Damen Shipbuilding, Atlas Electronik and Hendsoldt on the Canadian program...
http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20171201-csc.html

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 01, 2017, 16:56:57
What Fincantieri says, ships to be built at/at (but not by?) Irving:

Quote
Canadian Surface Combatant: Naval Group and Fincantieri propose to Canada a joint-offer based on the FREMM frigate design 01 December 2017

The Government of Canada has declared its intention to acquire an existing and proven NATO warship design that could be readily modified to best meet the Royal Canadian Navy requirements. French and Italian world-class shipbuilders Naval Group and Fincantieri, with the strong support of both French and Italian governments, will combine their expertise and present to the Government of Canada an “off-the-shelf”, sea-proven solution based on the FREMM frigate design for the supply of 15 surface combatant ships to the Royal Canadian Navy.

Should the offer be accepted, the future frigates would be built in Canada at Irving Shipbuilding in a very short time, maximizing Canadian Industrial participation and job creation locally through a dedicated and comprehensive transfer of technology, as well as integrating Canadian suppliers into the two companies’ global supply chains.

Naval Group and Fincantieri have previously collaborated on several major naval projects, including the joint development of the FREMM frigate.

Considered as a world leader in her class, the FREMM frigate is a versatile vessel able to execute any type of missions encompassing all warfare domains (AAW, ASW, ASuW, Land Attack, Command Ship, etc.). Both the general purpose and anti-submarine warfare variants are already in service in two leading NATO navies.
https://www.fincantieri.com/en/media/press-releases/2017/canadian-surface-combatant-naval-group-e-fincantieri-propongono-in-canada-unofferta-congiunta-basata-sul-progetto-della-fregata-fremm/

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 01, 2017, 17:27:56
I think it is absolutely absurd that we are building brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The range of the ESSM's is quite limited.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 01, 2017, 17:43:59
That's the whole friggin' point of ESSM's: It's a short range, super fast, anti-missile/aircraft self-defence (also known as point defence) system.

Not all 32 cells will have them in either versions. You are likely to find four to eight of them with the ESSM quad packs in the AAW version, so that 21 to 25 cells will be filled with SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 as the case may require for Area air defence.

In the ASW/GP version, you are likely to have 12 to 16 cells filled with quad packs of ESSM, so that only 16 to 20 cells will be used for SM-2 or more likely SM-6. Would be surprised to ever see SM-3 on the GP/ASW version - it likely won't have the combat system and sensors required for the AAW job planned for such missiles.

As for the Netherland's vMFF, they are planned as ASW frigates and the 16 cells VLS they will ship is exactly the same number of cells as were on the M-Class they are replacing. The missiles are there purely for self defence.
 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 01, 2017, 17:48:50
There is no explanation that makes it ok. You don't build brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The Frigates should have 32 the Destroyers 48, nothing less. It's laughable.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on December 01, 2017, 17:58:06
That's the whole friggin' point of ESSM's: It's a short range, super fast, anti-missile/aircraft self-defence (also known as point defence) system.

Not all 32 cells will have them in either versions. You are likely to find four to eight of them with the ESSM quad packs in the AAW version, so that 21 to 25 cells will be filled with SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 as the case may require for Area air defence.

In the ASW/GP version, you are likely to have 12 to 16 cells filled with quad packs of ESSM, so that only 16 to 20 cells will be used for SM-2 or more likely SM-6. Would be surprised to ever see SM-3 on the GP/ASW version - it likely won't have the combat system and sensors required for the AAW job planned for such missiles.

As for the Netherland's vMFF, they are planned as ASW frigates and the 16 cells VLS they will ship is exactly the same number of cells as were on the M-Class they are replacing. The missiles are there purely for self defence.
 

the "self defence " missiles will probably be nsm's,that's what i heared.As for the total number of missiles,i will ask,1 moment.As i got it the total will be 32 missiles.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 01, 2017, 18:15:26
There is no explanation that makes it ok. You don't build brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The Frigates should have 32 the Destroyers 48, nothing less. It's laughable.

I'm going to back OGBD up here with a bit of open source doctrine.  ESSM are ship self defence missiles.  The horizon is 25nm away so likely a modern sea skimming anti-ship missile will be detected at around 25nm by radar.  If it's emitting you might get a bearing on it from its own sensor head but no targeting solution.

When you have a fire control solution you shoot TWO ESSM at the target to get a high probability of kill.  Aster missiles only need one missile because of their different design and higher individual kill probability.  If the ESSMs miss you only (might) have time for one more salvo of TWO ESSM at the hostile missile, because you will only have somewhere between 30 and 120 seconds before the missile hits you from the horizon range.

Then you switch to your closer in defensive hard kill systems (RAM, CIWS, guns etc...).  That's the general doctrine for most NATO navies (not including soft kill systems).

One missile will take 2-4 ESSM to kill it.  4 ESSM fit into a single strike length VLS.  That means you can engage a single hostile missile with the entire contents of a single VLS.  If someone is shooting 16 ship killing missiles at you, well you are probably dead before you can even get off all 64 ESSM, as your pers and combat management system is going to be overwhelmed.  The rest of your unfired missiles are now an explosive liability.

Hence for light ASW/GP frigates 16 VLS are more then enough self defense capability.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 01, 2017, 18:16:42
You seem to be mixing many things here, Alexander.

First of all, there will be no CSC's with only 16 VLS cells. It is the Dutch replacement for the M-Class frigates that are planned that way. And in their case, it is perfectly appropriate as they are (by current scale) on the smallish size of frigate, with ASW in or near Dutch waters as primary concern, which provides them with shore based air cover when truly necessary. I'd like to point out that 16 VLS cells is also the figures contemplated by the RN for it's type 31 frigates and the French for their FTI (Intermediate Size Frigates), two projected types of vessels that are close in size to the HALIFAX.

As for the Canadian vessels, there is no more distinction between Destroyers and Frigates. The "single-class" combatant will be both or neither, depending how you look at them. But one thing is sure: the various variants will be same hull, general layout and power plant. The main differences will be in sensors, their integration into the combat system and the actual weapons mix.

They will all have 32 VLS cells plus eight deck launchers mounted SSMs. The 32 VLS cells will have 3 "blanks" leaving 29 active cells, which is exactly what the IROQUOIS had, but their mix of missiles will be more potent, and a lot more than the 16 cells currently found on the HALIFAX.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on December 01, 2017, 18:18:59
There is no explanation that makes it ok. You don't build brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The Frigates should have 32 the Destroyers 48, nothing less. It's laughable.

Considering the talk about potential adversaries focusing on swarm attacks, I agree with you.  It seems very short-sighted.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 01, 2017, 18:19:28
Just to point out the Frigate verses Destroyers is simply a classification, regardless of the hulls. I've made my opinion clear and it won't change.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 01, 2017, 18:22:11
Considering the talk about potential adversaries focusing on swarm attacks, I agree with you.  It seems very short-sighted.
No Kidding! I read Putin's comments about swarm attacks and over-saturation, obviously we are the only one's who are listening. This isn't even a debate here, this is those who are looking clearly at the bigger picture verses those who don't seem to be paying attention.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 01, 2017, 18:32:43
Cdn Blackshirt, what makes you think, even for a moment, that a frigate/destroyer level of warship will find herself, all by her lonesome self, in a swarm attack environment?

Swarm attacks can only be expected in a near-peer conflict situation. At that point, no warship will find herself fighting alone and the whole of allied navies and their supporting air forces work together in an interlocked system of defence in depth, with no ship likely to find herself overwhelmed locally.

Look at Underway's post below: he is talking of 16 ship killing missiles strike. That requires either a large bomber type aircraft or a flight of eight fighters, trained in the specific art of naval strike, dedicated to shooting only at you, a mere little destroyer/frigate. Which nations do you know can muster such air power and throw it at a single destroyer/frigate instead of using it against other high value targets?

And Alexander before commenting on "people who haven't a clue", feel free to look up Underway or my qualifications to talk, unlike your profile - ours is plain to see and it does not consist on merely passing basic.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 01, 2017, 18:35:50
It is a complete assumption that a ship could never find itself in that situation and it's an assumption that should never be made. Furthermore, even in groups, the more capable the better.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: KawarthaCruiser on December 01, 2017, 18:39:16
They will all have 32 VLS cells plus eight deck launchers mounted SSMs. The 32 VLS cells will have 3 "blanks" leaving 29 active cells, which is exactly what the IROQUOIS had, but their mix of missiles will be more potent, and a lot more than the 16 cells currently found on the HALIFAX.

OGBD, what was the reason for having 3 blank VLS cells on the Iroquois class?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 01, 2017, 18:41:23
No Kidding! I read Putin's comments about swarm attacks and over-saturation, obviously we are the only one's who are listening. This isn't even a debate here, this is those who are looking clearly at the bigger picture verses those who don't seem to be paying attention.

It's pretty clear that you don't have much of a clue how actual ship combat works, the workload, the combat management systems, the fire control.  How many enemy missiles do you think an Arleigh Burke can shoot down at one time?  Three.  Just three.  They have 96 VLS cells and can only illuminate three targets at a time.  With good engagement planning they can deal with multiple more targets using threat queuing but that's all.  Number of missiles can't help you if the sensors can't deal with them. 

If you were to argue for a type of radar/CMS/Fire control system then we can talk.  But number of missiles just one small aspect of survivability.

Quote
Look at Underway's post below: he is talking of 16 ship killing missiles strike. That requires either a large bomber type aircraft or a flight of eight fighters, trained in the specific art of naval strike, dedicated to shooting only at you, a mere little destroyer/frigate. Which nations do you know can muster such air power and throw it at a single destroyer/frigate instead of using it against other high value targets?

Just to be clear, if someone shot 3-6  modern ship killing missiles at a frigate, you would probably be dead.  My point was that you would still have lots of ammo left while you were sinking.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 01, 2017, 19:08:33
It's pretty clear that you don't have much of a clue how actual ship combat works, the workload, the combat management systems, the fire control.  How many enemy missiles do you think an Arleigh Burke can shoot down at one time?  Three.  Just three.  They have 96 VLS cells and can only illuminate three targets at a time.  With good engagement planning they can deal with multiple more targets using threat queuing but that's all.  Number of missiles can't help you if the sensors can't deal with them. 

If you were to argue for a type of radar/CMS/Fire control system then we can talk.  But number of missiles just one small aspect of survivability.
Actually I have been aware of the limitation of the Arleigh Burke fire control channels for quite some time, if one goes back through my early posts it is right there. The original APAR could lock onto 32 targets at one time with 16 in the terminal phase at once, my understanding is that the APAR block II is only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers. This is the reason for not going with the Aegis system.

Here is the source.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/apar_blk2-v01.pdf

Here is the quote.

APAR Blk2 defends against saturation attacks in the highest
threat scenarios by supporting many simultaneous AAW
and ASuW engagements with both active and semi-active
guidance using ICWI. Firepower is limited only by the rate
of fire by the launcher
. ESSM and SM-2 are supported as
well as ESSM Block2 and the future Standard Missile family
using the JUWL datalink.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: FSTO on December 01, 2017, 19:16:29
OGBD, what was the reason for having 3 blank VLS cells on the Iroquois class?

That is where the crane is located. Which I never saw in action. :)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 01, 2017, 19:32:45
Actually I have been aware of the limitation of the Arleigh Burke fire control channels for quite some time, if one goes back through my early posts it is right there. The original APAR could lock onto 32 targets at one time with 16 in the terminal phase at once, my understanding is that the APAR block II is only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers. This is the reason for not going with the Aegis system.

Yah the new Burkes are going with the SPY 6 radar to fix this.

It doesn't change the fact that it would require 16 enemy missiles to run dry your quad packed ESSM's no matter the FC system.  As OGBD pointed out not many enemies out there can get that kind of volume of fire to attack a warship.  At the end of the day you try to engage the launch platform before the attack (SM family of missiles) assuming they have to launch high or that another sensor detects the enemy missiles further out then the horizon, giving you more options (and time!) to engage with defensive hard/soft kill methods.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 01, 2017, 19:41:18
Yah the new Burkes are going with the SPY 6 radar to fix this.

It doesn't change the fact that it would require 16 enemy missiles to run dry your quad packed ESSM's no matter the FC system.  As OGBD pointed out not many enemies out there can get that kind of volume of fire to attack a warship.  At the end of the day you try to engage the launch platform before the attack (SM family of missiles) assuming they have to launch high or that another sensor detects the enemy missiles further out then the horizon, giving you more options (and time!) to engage with defensive hard/soft kill methods.
Agree, but this is my argument, not yours. I'm saying that by only using the 16 cells it limits what the ship can deal with and this is even more an issue if a ship has to go through multiple engagements before it can reload. It's better to have additional missiles so that you have more options, this is the whole point.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Czech_pivo on December 01, 2017, 22:30:06
So if we assume that the FREMM bid is disallowed, that leaves only 3 bidders. It shouldn’t be so difficult to whittle it down to two and then move forward from there. Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cdn Blackshirt on December 01, 2017, 22:34:52
Cdn Blackshirt, what makes you think, even for a moment, that a frigate/destroyer level of warship will find herself, all by her lonesome self, in a swarm attack environment?

Swarm attacks can only be expected in a near-peer conflict situation. At that point, no warship will find herself fighting alone and the whole of allied navies and their supporting air forces work together in an interlocked system of defence in depth, with no ship likely to find herself overwhelmed locally.

Look at Underway's post below: he is talking of 16 ship killing missiles strike. That requires either a large bomber type aircraft or a flight of eight fighters, trained in the specific art of naval strike, dedicated to shooting only at you, a mere little destroyer/frigate. Which nations do you know can muster such air power and throw it at a single destroyer/frigate instead of using it against other high value targets?

The Chinese are preparing for just that tactic and it's likely other potential threats from Russia to Iran to Turkey will develop similar tactics. 

Even if you're going to.go.with the FFBNW route, with the dollars being invested, the  maximum number of cells that could be installed should take that into account.

To invest in an entire class of naval assets that doesn't future-proof the design against large scale adoption of that tactic, seems incredibly short-sighted.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 01, 2017, 23:03:27
Czech_pivo:

Quote
So if we assume that the FREMM bid is disallowed, that leaves only 3 bidders. It shouldn’t be so difficult to whittle it down to two and then move forward from there. Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.

One wonders if some people might, reasonably, think fix is effectively in for LockMart/BAESystems/CAE/MDA/L3:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/canadas-combat-ship-team-bae-systems-cae-lockheed-martin-canada-l3-technologies-mda-and-ultra-electronics-join-forces-to-deliver-canadian-surface-combatant-proposal-300562323.html

This is Canada after all.  Sigh.

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 02, 2017, 00:24:28
The Chinese are preparing for just that tactic and it's likely other potential threats from Russia to Iran to Turkey will develop similar tactics. 

Even if you're going to.go.with the FFBNW route, with the dollars being invested, the  maximum number of cells that could be installed should take that into account.

To invest in an entire class of naval assets that doesn't future-proof the design against large scale adoption of that tactic, seems incredibly short-sighted.

I am not getting where you and AM are coming from on this.

If we applied your apparent logic to an infanteer, the poor guy would have to carry simultaneously, on top of his normal equipment, MANPADS with multiple rockets, an anti-tank portable weapon with large stock of ammunition and a fifty cal. machine gun with full belts in case he has to face an enemy Brigade all by himself.

It is ridiculous. Infantry works in platoons, companies and battalions, supported by air, armour, artillery assets, etc.

What makes you think it is not the same thing of  ships? In my 24 years in the Navy - other than working up our individual ship in the approaches of Halifax or on the Victoria waterfront - here is the number of times I have sailed in ships that were not part of a group: Zero, Nada, None! Warships sail, train, fight and work together as groups. We sail and work with our squadron, we deploy as part of Task Groups or Task forces, with other warships, submarines and air assets in support as required.

And you seem excited at the prospect of "swarming".

It's not new. In my early days in the Navy - mid 1970's - our big concern was what was known as Badger Regimental Attacks: Soviet Badgers and Backfires rushing down from the North over Greenland to sweep in and lose 100-150 anti ship missiles at once at trans-Atlantic convoys to saturate their air defences.

We coped with it through layers of defence, and we still do that.

You can't look at a single ship in isolation having to fight the whole world and service anymore than you can look at individual an soldier to win the war by himself.

As to what constitute the appropriate number of missiles to be carried and what type, it's not a guessing game. NATO and individual member nations such as Canada have Operational research cells that game these scenarios, including attempts at saturation attacks, and develop parameters for the minimum, maximum and most useful numbers of "bullets" to be carried. The specs for  new builds are based on such research. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on December 02, 2017, 08:52:23
Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.

Well technically they could have delivered a bid and just not announced it yet ....however i would not be surprised if they had decided not to bid at all.

I think there is a good chance that they have really been out of the running for years.....It was always questionable whether OMT would be able to compete with the government supported "big guns" like DCNS,Navantia ,BAE, Fincantieri etc. The fact that Odense have not, at least officially, been able to team up with a major Combat Systems integrator , is also an indicator of their disadvantage in this competition. Thales(Netherlands) decision to bid the DZP*
 is not likely to have helped either , since they are in a position to deny the competing OMT the use of the dutch AAW sensor package, thus weakening their bid.

*Surprising, since the De Zeven Provinciën design is going to be a quarter century old when the first CSC is planned to hit water.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on December 02, 2017, 09:44:01
Just to be clear, if someone shot 3-6  modern ship killing missiles at a frigate, you would probably be dead.  My point was that you would still have lots of ammo left while you were sinking.

IF that was true , it begs the question whether these advanced air defense systems is actually worth the obscene amount of money invested in them. If all it takes to overwhelm these systems is a few $1-2M missiles, then it puts the viability and utility of surface warships seriously into question. When we pay anywhere from 100-300 million dollars for the radar;CMS and AD missiles to protect our warships, i think we are entitled to expect that they be able to engage more than a small handful of targets, and with a suitably large probability of success.

Fortunately , i am not so pessimistic , having seen with my own eyes what the APAR/ESSM/SM-2 combo can do. As far as i understand it (which might not be far, me being a stoker and all ;D)....the biggest issue is with the engagement procedures and ROEs ....with available response times being as little as 20-30 seconds the traditional engagement loop takes to long and involves too many people(that is what our tactical officers tells me anyway)....In our new tactical doctrine....when in combat,  only one person is needed to perform an engagement and he/she needs no authorization from TAO/XO/CO etc.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MikeKiloPapa on December 02, 2017, 09:56:02
The specs for  new builds are based on such research.

And maybe to a greater extent the budget available .... AD missiles are expensive and very few nations have inventories large enough to fill all available launchers anyway.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 02, 2017, 11:41:17
So if we assume that the FREMM bid is disallowed, that leaves only 3 bidders. It shouldn’t be so difficult to whittle it down to two and then move forward from there. Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.

I'm not entirely sure the FREMM bid is disallowed.  I think they might be submitting a bid through the current rules AND offering this side deal.  Oh what's that?  Don't want the amazing deal?  Ok we'll do it your way.

I'm not at all surprised the Danish group is out.  Guaranteed their bid was not compliant.  Their ships cut plenty of corners with their Mil/Civ standard combinations.  All our ships are moving towards Lloyds Naval Standards for building/maintenance.  Also there is the fact that their system is fairly close to the DZP one, such that it wasn't worth the bid.

IF that was true , it begs the question whether these advanced air defense systems is actually worth the obscene amount of money invested in them. If all it takes to overwhelm these systems is a few $1-2M missiles, then it puts the viability and utility of surface warships seriously into question. When we pay anywhere from 100-300 million dollars for the radar;CMS and AD missiles to protect our warships, i think we are entitled to expect that they be able to engage more than a small handful of targets, and with a suitably large probability of success.

Fortunately , i am not so pessimistic , having seen with my own eyes what the APAR/ESSM/SM-2 combo can do. As far as i understand it (which might not be far, me being a stoker and all ;D)....the biggest issue is with the engagement procedures and ROEs ....with available response times being as little as 20-30 seconds the traditional engagement loop takes to long and involves too many people(that is what our tactical officers tells me anyway)....In our new tactical doctrine....when in combat,  only one person is needed to perform an engagement and he/she needs no authorization from TAO/XO/CO etc.

Few things.  If you can find a modern ASuW missile for $2M you buy it as that's half price (in US dollars) for a Block 3 Exocet.  Secondly I have no doubt that most modern frigates can easily take 6 ASuW missiles if they are spaced out in time enough.  But 6 simultaneously will seriously strain many systems.  And it only takes one squeaker to ruin your day.

Lastly I was referring to light frigates with a loadout of about 16 VLS.  The APAR system is on what is essentially AAW destroyers called frigates for political purposes.  I have no doubt that they can really do some damage with multiple targets in auto engage mode, justifying their costs. Thats where the real AAD is located, not in a light GP frigate (which is essentially what the Halfiax class is now).
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Czech_pivo on December 03, 2017, 09:51:18
Anyone have any ideas why the new German frigates aren’t in the mix for the bidding?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 03, 2017, 10:54:43
Anyone have any ideas why the new German frigates aren’t in the mix for the bidding?

They don't have a compliant vessel.  Sachesen is old, small (can't carry our helo) and not future proof(ie: no grow margins in the ship, lack of flexibility).  It has significant overlap in sensors with the DZP.  The Baden-Württemberg don't have VLS and would require a significant redesign to get it installed if it would fit at all.  The MKS 180 is still in the early design phase.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 03, 2017, 11:01:28
Underway hit it on the nose first.

But it's even worse. The type 125 have been derided as "Large Colonial Corvettes" by some  ;D

They have no ASW capability at all, and very limited last ditch self defence capability only for AAW. They are very heavy in ASuW with SSM, one heavy gun and tons of small caliber ones that give you good all-around coverage against "irregular" surface small raiders.

The German themselves have described the vessels as being developed to serve as command ships/participants for anti-piracy, embargo enforcement, peacemaking or peacekeeping ops.

They are not a type of ship the Canada wants, nor needs.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Infanteer on December 03, 2017, 11:48:53
If we applied your apparent logic to an infanteer, the poor guy would have to carry simultaneously, on top of his normal equipment, MANPADS with multiple rockets, an anti-tank portable weapon with large stock of ammunition and a fifty cal. machine gun with full belts in case he has to face an enemy Brigade all by himself.

That's actually what the average candidate infantry officer on Phase III(IODP1.1) looks like near the end of course after the attrition has set in....

Quote
It's not new. In my early days in the Navy - mid 1970's - our big concern was what was known as Badger Regimental Attacks: Soviet Badgers and Backfires rushing down from the North over Greenland to sweep in and lose 100-150 anti ship missiles at once at trans-Atlantic convoys to saturate their air defences.

I used to play a Naval Sim game called Harpoon and I remember hunting 1 x French and 2 x US Carrier Strike Groups down for those kinds of attacks.  The fact that a teenager playing a commercial naval sim figured it out tells me that (1) swarming ain't that novel and (2) professionals are likely looking at it a bit more closely than the teenager.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 03, 2017, 12:02:29
The reason you remember it from the board game Harpoon, Infanteer, is that the game itself was developed by retired US naval officers who used as its basis the simulations/command post scenarios in use by the US Navy to train its officers in advance of actual NATO exercises. Those scenarios were also heavily used with cadets at Annapolis.

You were playing a dumbed down version of CPX.  :nod:
   
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 03, 2017, 12:11:19
I used to play a Naval Sim game called Harpoon ...

The reason you remember it from the board game Harpoon, Infanteer, is that the game itself was developed by retired US naval officers who used as its basis the simulations/command post scenarios in use by the US Navy to train its officers in advance of actual NATO exercises. Those scenarios were also heavily used with cadets at Annapolis.

You were playing a dumbed down version of CPX.  :nod:

An upgraded version of Harpoon is still used as an open source simulator for Defence research at many institutions, it's open source at this point and can be modified as needed to trial scenarios.  I read somewhere that the LCS concept came out of one of these sims (you know from a guy who knows a guy).

Also loved that game as a kid.  That's how I learned the words to the Soviet (now Russian) national anthem.  Played every time you won the game as the Soviets.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chief Engineer on December 03, 2017, 12:18:26
An upgraded version of Harpoon is still used as an open source simulator for Defence research at many institutions, it's open source at this point and can be modified as needed to trial scenarios.  I read somewhere that the LCS concept came out of one of these sims (you know from a guy who knows a guy).

Also loved that game as a kid.  That's how I learned the words to the Soviet (now Russian) national anthem.  Played every time you won the game as the Soviets.

I still play it.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on December 03, 2017, 12:24:21
IIRC - the counter to Swarming was a combination of Early Warning from the AWACS (Positioned as far forward as possible)  and maintaining a steady supply of 4-ship fighters in the air engaging the swarm at long range.  And don't hang around to get into gun range.

Get back on the ground, re-arm, and back in the air as quickly as possible.

In fact.....precisely the tactics that would result in an aircraft like the F-35.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: serger989 on December 03, 2017, 12:48:33
So in one corner we've got Alion-Canada working with DAMEN to bring us the De Zeven Provincien largely unchanged. Then there is the F105 from Navantia teamed with SAAB Australia with again not many changes. Then the Type 26 with Lockheed Canada paired with BAE and the Canada A-Team, definitely involves the most risk for us. Lastly Naval Group/Fincantieri consortium apparently backing out of the bid and offering a fixed procurement offer of 15 built in Halifax with a full transfer of technology and access to their global supply chain at $30bn, thing is even fitted with 2x RAM launchers which surprised me but it also did not say if it had VLS?

The FREMM looks like a tasty deal... $32bn savings, holy smokes. Heck if they wanted to continue to put that into the military budget that is... That's a lot of capability (and fat checks). They could decide to do nothing with it, save money, and call it a day while still looking good for reelection. I bet $5 (lol) that BAE will be selected no matter what. The Type 26 does look really good, we will just be absorbing a ton of that risk by building 15 of them when steel was only cut this year for the Royal Navy.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on December 03, 2017, 13:06:25
Serger, the key to the puzzle lies here

Let's get factual here:

These are the figures taken straight out of the PBO report on the CSC's cost. They are found at table 1 of the summary of findings, page 2 of the report - which is available on line (I am not posting the link because I wish to abide by Scott's new system for long documents but I haven't quite figured it out yet):

The PBO gives two figures for the program cost: One is in FY2017 dollars (i.e. this is what it would cost if we were executing the whole program in that FY and paid for it in current dollars of that year), then he gives the figures in "Then-years" (meaning the cost with inflation/dollar devalued along the way so that it is the actual price paid in each of the years a payment will be made in the future).

It Breaks down as such:

Total cost of program: $40B$ FY2017; 62B$ Then-yr.

Cost of development: $4.5B$ FY2017; 5B$ Then-yr.

Cost of the production (actual cost of ships): $28B$ FY2017; 45B$ Then-yr.

The rest*: 7.5B$ FY2017; 12B$ Then-yr.

*: The rest includes the following: Spares for the first two years and then spares for the rest of the in-service years (why the breakdown for the first two years, I have no idea); ammunition (this is for actual ammunition expenditure for training/forecasted ops during the lifetime, not for the original set of ammunition, which is included in the cost of production) facilities, documentation, training and Government program management.

As I have indicated at the time these figures came out, using the Australian Adelaide destroyers as baseline for the command/AAW ships, a FY2017 cost of about 4B$ each is in line with current costs. So, for three, you get the first 12B$ knocked out of the figure. The reminder of 16B$ for the 12 GP/ASW version means about 1.3B$ each, which is also in line with current price for such ships.
 

The "problem" lies in the procurement time line and the intention to keep yards open for decades to supply jobs.

If all the hulls required by the NSPS were to be procured in a 5 to 10 year time period then we would end up with a precisely costed fleet, with current capabilites and a solid basis for current operations and future planning.

On the other hand we wouldn't be guaranteeing jobs in perpetuity.

When accountants and politicians talk about "then year" dollars they are playing a game of fancy.  Nobody knows how much things will cost 20 to 40 years down the line, what will be needed and how much money will be available. 

If governments were at all serious about the situation then they would be adopting something like this:

A rapid replacement programme to renew the existing fleet by any and all means in the near term.

A long range plan for maintaining the refurbished fleet based on keeping all the yards open with a steady trickle of work.

This plays into the Davie/Federal school but also allows for the purchase of hulls from offshore because the initial volume of work would overwhelm the Canadian yards.

It would also permit the immediate acquisition of second hand hulls that are only anticipated to be in service for 5 to 10 years prior to being replaced by locally built vessels.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: SeaKingTacco on December 03, 2017, 13:09:05
I still play it.

I love Harpoon. I still have my paper copy of the game.

It does an excellent job of teaching Naval Warfare.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Cloud Cover on December 03, 2017, 13:53:03
What are the chances the government of the day will select a ship that is known to the world and will always be known as the 'Global Combat Ship".
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: MarkOttawa on December 03, 2017, 14:32:00
And now this at Irving, note timeline at end for A/OPS:

Quote
Unionized Halifax Shipyard workers to vote on strike mandate
Collective agreement between Unifor Marine Workers Local 1 and the Halifax Shipyard expires Dec. 31

Unionized employees of the Halifax Shipyard are voting Sunday afternoon on whether to give their negotiating team a strike mandate.

The current collective agreement between Unifor Marine Workers Local 1 and the Halifax Shipyard expires at the end of the month. About 800 of the union's members, ranging from electricians to metal fabricators, work at the shipyard.

Irving employees are in the middle of constructing Arctic and offshore patrol vessels. A large centre section of the first one, HMCS Harry DeWolf, is now visible outside the massive assembly hall on the Halifax waterfront.

Formal bargaining started a month ago and the two sides say they've spent four days at the table so far.

Sean Lewis, Irving Shipbuilding's director of communications, said the two sides are still working on scheduling talks with a conciliator. The province appointed one after the company's Nov. 23 request, he said...

There have been delays with construction and Irving is now planning to build five or six patrol vessels. The shipyard is supposed to finish the first ship in 2018. The last one is expected to be complete in 2022 [emphasis added].
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-shipyard-unifor-local-1-contract-negotiations-1.4430271

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on December 03, 2017, 14:39:57
And thus the construction gap is managed......  :rofl:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 03, 2017, 14:42:57
So in one corner we've got Alion-Canada working with DAMEN to bring us the De Zeven Provincien largely unchanged. Then there is the F105 from Navantia teamed with SAAB Australia with again not many changes. Then the Type 26 with Lockheed Canada paired with BAE and the Canada A-Team, definitely involves the most risk for us. Lastly Naval Group/Fincantieri consortium apparently backing out of the bid and offering a fixed procurement offer of 15 built in Halifax with a full transfer of technology and access to their global supply chain at $30bn, thing is even fitted with 2x RAM launchers which surprised me but it also did not say if it had VLS?

The FREMM looks like a tasty deal... $32bn savings, holy smokes. Heck if they wanted to continue to put that into the military budget that is... That's a lot of capability (and fat checks). They could decide to do nothing with it, save money, and call it a day while still looking good for reelection. I bet $5 (lol) that BAE will be selected no matter what. The Type 26 does look really good, we will just be absorbing a ton of that risk by building 15 of them when steel was only cut this year for the Royal Navy.

There is risk inherent in all of the projects in different ways.  The FREMM, F-105 and DZP all require changes to operate a Cyclone (really big helo).  This is a big deal for the F-105 and the FREMM.  The FREMM needs more VLS, needs to operate a the Mk-46 torp to meet the minimum requirement, the F-105 is installing a new radar system mast, the FREMM is probably doing the same (SEAFIRE 500 is rumoured).  DZP is looking to install the APAR 2 instead of the APAR is the oldest design with the least proven foreign build credentials of all the companies and the second least flexibility of the ships.  It could be argued from a "get exactly what we need" perspective the Type 26 is the least risk as it's right in the money spot where changes can easily be introduced to the design at this point.

I think I'll do an analysis post later of the general bids and technical specs of the ships with potential pros/cons.  Could do a mini analysis of the bids for fun.

Tangent:
Can someone help me identify the potential radar/sensors is the Type 26 bid coming in with?  The pics show what I can only interpret as a non-rotating phased array with two parts, a large panel probably S-Band area search and a small panel probably X-Band FC type system.  But try as I might I can't find a system Lockheed or MDA use that matches that setup.  Perhaps they are going outside their group to grab Thales stuff??

Lockheed does make the SPY-1 radar so we could be looking at a SPY-1F or F(V), with a different illuminator type then the old standby Fire Control Directors (as none are shown on the ship pic).  I don't expect a SPY-1D would look that small.  Then again its a picture and video for promotional purposes so it might not be perfectly accurate.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: RDBZ on December 03, 2017, 15:32:59

Tangent:
Can someone help me identify the potential radar/sensors is the Type 26 bid coming in with?  The pics show what I can only interpret as a non-rotating phased array with two parts, a large panel probably S-Band area search and a small panel probably X-Band FC type system.  But try as I might I can't find a system Lockheed or MDA use that matches that setup.  Perhaps they are going outside their group to grab Thales stuff??



Possibly the CEA radar suite that's a required fitment for the RAN future frigate program.  The RANs ANZAC frigates are being fitted with a variant of if, with the upcoming removal of SPS-49 and its replacement with the phased array long range search radar. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 03, 2017, 16:18:57
I thought that as well but CEA are integral to the Navinata bid.  Not that it stops the various companies from selling parts to other bids.  An office of Lockheed is in on the Navinata bid.  CMS-330 has parts of Saab's command control system in it.  Thales will have a radar on the FREMM and the DZP bids.

Normally though the CEA emitters are placed in a diamond shape, not square to the waterline.... curiouser and curiouser.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Infanteer on December 03, 2017, 16:23:46
So, straw poll from the naval officers here on what they think the best option is?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 03, 2017, 17:37:11
How about all Naval Pers, I sure want to hear opinions from people like Chief Stoker too!

Well for various aspects:

ASW - FREMM and Type 26 are tops, hands down.  Both have very quiet engines with the option for Diesel Electric propulsion and were designed initially to be ASW frigates.  Type 26 wins though because it's able to easily take the Cyclone and Mk 46 Torps with no modification.  Also Ultra Electronics sonar systems are impressive.

ASuW - They are all pretty much the same really.  With the attachment of Harpoons, Exocets and all have to have a 127mm manditory it doesn't really matter.  I suppose one could give the edge to the Type 26 and the F-105 as they are designed to be fitted with these guns.

AAW - The DZP wins easy.  It's the only ship that is originally designed for this mission.  It also carries 40 VLS vice the 32 (or 29 OGBD) required.  APAR 2 is the best sensor out there for AAW that we know about.  Even if the Type 26 has a similar radar its just not going to have as much firepower.  The CEA radars on the F-105 are really good as well but are currently designed with self defence in mind.  FREMM Aster missile system is new to the navy but are very good.  I keep going around in circles for the last three here.

Modifications and risk:  Type 26 is probably the highest risk from a certain perspective right now.  However from when it's being built to when we are going to get ours on the water the British will have three of them floating before we even start cutting steel.  It only needs less then 10% of it modified to meet requirements.  Flex deck is a nice addition and its definately future proof.

FREMM probably needs the most modifications, the hangar and flight deck are not big enough, depending on the mod it doesn't carry enough missiles, and its equipment needs the most changes to meet Canadian requirements.  Not much room to future proof the ship.

DZP is essentially off the shelf but my concern is its ASW capability.  AAW variant it will be fine but using an APAR 2 and SMART-L for a GP frigate is overkill and expensive.  It's not designed for ASW and will not be as effective in that role.

F-105 is again an AAW based design and won't be as effective in ASW.  It's radar however is perfect for a GP frigate design, and leading edge without being over the top.  Some Cyclone modifications are required.

Winner:  F-105.  Really its radar is top of the line, it's ASW is good enough considering our best ASW asset is the Cyclone.  There's a large family of F-105 variants out there in the world to look at for supply and engineering solutions.  I want the Type 26 to win, it's new and cool,  but I can't give it the medal without more sensor information and more information on technology risk.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Eye In The Sky on December 03, 2017, 18:32:10
In my early days in the Navy - mid 1970's - our big concern was what was known as Badger Regimental Attacks: Soviet Badgers and Backfires rushing down from the North over Greenland to sweep in and lose 100-150 anti ship missiles at once at trans-Atlantic convoys to saturate their air defences.

We coped with it through layers of defence, and we still do that.

You can't look at a single ship in isolation having to fight the whole world and service anymore than you can look at individual an soldier to win the war by himself.


No real valuable voice in this one, but just wanted to add - Red Storm Rising (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising).  Decent book at playing out how that Battle of the Atlantic might look during Rounds 1, 2, 3 etc.

Good discussion, I am learning stuff.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on December 03, 2017, 18:39:56
How about all Naval Pers, I sure want to hear opinions from people like Chief Stoker too!

Well for various aspects:

ASW - FREMM and Type 26 are tops, hands down.  Both have very quiet engines with the option for Diesel Electric propulsion and were designed initially to be ASW frigates.  Type 26 wins though because it's able to easily take the Cyclone and Mk 46 Torps with no modification.  Also Ultra Electronics sonar systems are impressive.

ASuW - They are all pretty much the same really.  With the attachment of Harpoons, Exocets and all have to have a 127mm manditory it doesn't really matter.  I suppose one could give the edge to the Type 26 and the F-105 as they are designed to be fitted with these guns.

AAW - The DZP wins easy.  It's the only ship that is originally designed for this mission.  It also carries 40 VLS vice the 32 (or 29 OGBD) required.  APAR 2 is the best sensor out there for AAW that we know about.  Even if the Type 26 has a similar radar its just not going to have as much firepower.  The CEA radars on the F-105 are really good as well but are currently designed with self defence in mind.  FREMM Aster missile system is new to the navy but are very good.  I keep going around in circles for the last three here.

Modifications and risk:  Type 26 is probably the highest risk from a certain perspective right now.  However from when it's being built to when we are going to get ours on the water the British will have three of them floating before we even start cutting steel.  It only needs less then 10% of it modified to meet requirements.  Flex deck is a nice addition and its definately future proof.

FREMM probably needs the most modifications, the hangar and flight deck are not big enough, depending on the mod it doesn't carry enough missiles, and its equipment needs the most changes to meet Canadian requirements.  Not much room to future proof the ship.

DZP is essentially off the shelf but my concern is its ASW capability.  AAW variant it will be fine but using an APAR 2 and SMART-L for a GP frigate is overkill and expensive.  It's not designed for ASW and will not be as effective in that role.

F-105 is again an AAW based design and won't be as effective in ASW.  It's radar however is perfect for a GP frigate design, and leading edge without being over the top.  Some Cyclone modifications are required.

Winner:  F-105.  Really its radar is top of the line, it's ASW is good enough considering our best ASW asset is the Cyclone.  There's a large family of F-105 variants out there in the world to look at for supply and engineering solutions.  I want the Type 26 to win, it's new and cool,  but I can't give it the medal without more sensor information and more information on technology risk.

Not a Navy man myself,i think there's another option,if i may call it that.  ;D

For the AAW version stick to APAR2 and the Smart-L MMN combo(BMD capable,as shown in exercises)and for the GP/ASW version get the I-500 integrated mast,like we are going to get on our replacements for the M-class.(idea?)

I also like the City class,but it's going to cost Canada,but primarily designed as an ASW ship.(as are our new to be build ships)

BTW OGBD you were right(i checked)it seems to be 40 missiles total.I will try and keep you'll updated.(new class of ships)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 03, 2017, 20:03:28
For those of you who read french.  The FREMM bid.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/fregates-canadiennes-naval-group-et-fincantieri-devoilent-leur-offre-commune (https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/fregates-canadiennes-naval-group-et-fincantieri-devoilent-leur-offre-commune)

For those of you who don't a bad google translate!

Quote
Posted on 04/12/2017 by Vincent Groizeleau

As we wrote last September, Naval Group and Fincantieri have chosen to stand together for the call for bids on future Canadian frigates. Outgoing officially timber, the two companies unveiled the 1 stDecember the proposed design in Ottawa. This is a mix of multi-mission frigates built by France and Italy, responding to Canadian needs. This design is based on the Italian platform of the FREMM, the electronics being French, however, especially the combat system (Naval Group) and the radar faces Sea Fire plane (Thales). Armament side, we observe on the presented visual a turret of 127mm, two systems surface-air RAM and light artillery. To this will be added a vertical missile for surface-to-air missiles, probably Aster, which would be preferred by many Canadian servicemen given their performance, but the American missile option would still be possible. Like its French and Italian cousins, the Canadian FREMM would have first-class air defenses, but also equally robust capabilities in the fields of anti-ship and especially anti-submarine warfare, with hull sonar and towed sonar (Captas). To this will be added the action towards the earth.

This decision by Naval Group (formerly DCNS) and Fincantieri to join forces in this market enables French and Italian manufacturers, on a project where competition is fierce, to reduce competition and maximize their chances of success. "The Canadian government has announced its intention to acquire a NATO standard combat vessel, based on an existing and proven design that can be modified to meet the requirements of the Canadian Navy. Naval Group and Fincantieri, with the full support of the French and Italian governments, will combine their know-how to present to the Canadian government an off-the-shelf solution already proven at sea based on the design of the FREMM frigate, for the supply of 15 surface combatants in the Canadian Navy. In the event that this offer is accepted, future frigates would be built in Canada at the Irving Shipbuilding shipyard in a very short time frame, ensuring maximum participation of Canadian industry and local job creation through technology transfer complete and dedicated. Canadian suppliers would also be integrated into the global supply chain of both companies, "explain Naval Group and Fincantieri.

For the record, the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program aims to replace, over the next decade, the 12 City frigates, commissioned between 1992 and 1996, as well as the three tribal destroyers, now all retired. They will succeed a new fleet of up to 15 buildings for an estimated budget of 26 billion Canadian dollars, or nearly 18 billion euros. The construction of the seed must be launched in the early 2020s in a site imposed by the Canadian government and with which international groups competing for design and combat system will collaborate. This is Halifax Shipyards, a subsidiary of the Irwing Group, designated in 2011 to carry out CHCs as part of the national shipbuilding strategy,

The selection process initially put in place by Canada, with a double call for tenders, one for the platform and the other for the combat system, proved to be very complex, the interested industry believing that presented too high risks and different problems, including intellectual property issues. After being alerted by several major players in the sector that they might not submit an offer in these conditions, the Canadian government has overhauled and simplified the procedure last year. Finally, 12 companies were shortlisted in the summer of 2017 to continue the competition and submit an offer.

Apart from Naval Group and Fincantieri, were selected (in alphabetical order) the American engineering company Alion Science and Technology, the German Atlas Elektronik, the British BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin Canada, the Navantia Spaniard, the Danish Odense Maritime Technology, Saab Australia, Italian Leonardo, Thales Nederland and German TKMS.

These different manufacturers came together to submit joint offers on November 30th. Among them, there is the solution, considered by many observers as a favorite starter, of an adaptation of the future British frigate type 26, with a consortium of Lockheed Martin Canada, BAE Systems, CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA and Ultra Electronics. Alion Canada, for its part, presents an offer based on the design of the Dutch frigates of the LCF type, while Navantia, allied notably with Saab, submits a variant of the F100 model, built for the Spanish and Australian navies. Odense shares an evolution of the Danish Iver Huitfeldt and TKMS probably on a declination of the new German frigates type F125

So the big Italian FREMM as a baseline.  Can't lie, it's a pretty ship.



Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Baz on December 04, 2017, 08:50:26
IIRC - the counter to Swarming was a combination of Early Warning from the AWACS (Positioned as far forward as possible)  and maintaining a steady supply of 4-ship fighters in the air engaging the swarm at long range.  And don't hang around to get into gun range.

Get back on the ground, re-arm, and back in the air as quickly as possible.

In fact.....precisely the tactics that would result in an aircraft like the F-35.

Don't forget that the F-14 was specifically designed to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix, which was itself specifically designed for the long range air intercept mission to protect the Carrier Battle Groups.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on December 04, 2017, 09:59:08
For those of you who read french.  The FREMM bid.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/fregates-canadiennes-naval-group-et-fincantieri-devoilent-leur-offre-commune (https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/fregates-canadiennes-naval-group-et-fincantieri-devoilent-leur-offre-commune)

For those of you who don't a bad google translate!

So the big Italian FREMM as a baseline.  Can't lie, it's a pretty ship.

Thanks for the link, what does the RCN consider to be more important?  ASW or AAW?  I know historically it's been ASW but is there a cultural change?

I've heard certain circles in the RCN want to get in to the land attack business?  I was intrigued with the recent test of the Block II Harpoon Missile test against a land target.  This capability would have been very useful in Libya.



Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on December 04, 2017, 10:31:26
Thanks for the link, what does the RCN consider to be more important?  ASW or AAW?  I know historically it's been ASW but is there a cultural change?

I've heard certain circles in the RCN want to get in to the land attack business?  I was intrigued with the recent test of the Block II Harpoon Missile test against a land target.  This capability would have been very useful in Libya.

Not Canadian,but from what i understand it will be a combination of both.
So a number of AAW/Command frigates and ASW/GP orientated frigates.(Same as here in the Netherlands and offcourse many others)

That means for example that a number of ships will get the APAR2 and Smart-L MMN combo(AAW/Command),or something like that and the other will get an I-mast(ASW/GP),for example(cheaper radar sets,not so extensive but nevertheless very good ones.)
That's how i understand it.(could be wrong) :whistle:

BTW that Fremm looks like it's got APAR2 on it which is completely possible since Thales is French.(the Radar factory is in the Netherlands though,for APAR,Smart-L,I-masts,etc wich used to be HSA )
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on December 04, 2017, 11:23:45
2 questions:

1. What is the strike about at Irving?

2. Would we be selling/transferring the Halifax's to another country?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Humphrey Bogart on December 04, 2017, 11:31:07

1. What is the strike about at Irving?

From a quick read, it seems to be primarily about benefits i.e. vacation time, breaks and seniority, etc.

Irving hates Unions, the Halifax Shipyard has to be one of the few parts of the Irving Family that actually has a Union.  Irving doesn't care and will bring in scabs to do the work if it has to.  They've been subcontracting certain portions of the work on the AOPS to foreign companies much to the dismay of the Union.

see:

"Irving contract with Spanish firm brings overseas carpenters, others to Halifax shipyard"
ANDREA GUNN OTTAWA BUREAU
Published February 22, 2017 - 7:23pm

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1444142-irving-contract-with-spanish-firm-brings-overseas-carpenters-others-to-halifax-sh (http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1444142-irving-contract-with-spanish-firm-brings-overseas-carpenters-others-to-halifax-sh)

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: FSTO on December 04, 2017, 11:31:34
2 questions:

1. What is the strike about at Irving?

2. Would we be selling/transferring the Halifax's to another country?

1. What else, money. (just my guess though)
2. No. We run our ships into the ground and then get another dozen years out of them because we can't plan ship replacement to save our arse. (once again, just my humble opinion)
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 04, 2017, 14:04:34
Thanks for the link, what does the RCN consider to be more important?  ASW or AAW?  I know historically it's been ASW but is there a cultural change?

It's all about the task group.  Task group doctrine currently is a four ship group with helo's embarked (up from a three ship group, this is a new change in the last two years).  One ship is the Command Control AAW variant.  The other three are the GP variants.  You can see this with how the CSC build is structured (4 GP for every AAW).

Task groups can also include AOR, submarine, and LRP aircraft.  This is also why we need 3-4 AOR.  One AOR for each task group.  It also matches the submarine numbers, one sub for each task group.  That leaves 3 GP frigates left over for non-task group related stuff.

The task group will be (by the bids so far) biased towards ASW mainly because of the nature of our helo's.  They are going to the best in the business when completed according to some of the RAF folks I've been talking too (side benefit of taking so damn long to make them).  But AAW isn't ignored at all.   There are plenty of defensive AAW capabilities on the current frigates and I expect the same to be from the future fleet.

I've heard certain circles in the RCN want to get in to the land attack business?  I was intrigued with the recent test of the Block II Harpoon Missile test against a land target.  This capability would have been very useful in Libya.

Support to forces ashore is back. Straight from the CRCN.  The new frigates all require a 127mm gun to do land attack, and also require the capability to embark land attack missile.  Harpoon Block II is just the tip of the iceberg here.  Problem currently is that we (until recently) couldn't really attack land targets with the 57mm or any missiles.

BTW that Fremm looks like it's got APAR2 on it which is completely possible since Thales is French.(the Radar factory is in the Netherlands though,for APAR,Smart-L,I-masts,etc wich used to be HSA )

SEAFIRE 500 (http://www2.thalesgroup.com/press/Web/eventsZip/zip20170203084645/Products%20Datasheets/datasheet-sea-fire-eng.pdf) is what I think it is.  Video link here. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JTLLssrKAg)  First the article states that is probably the SEAFIRE and secondly because the SEAFIRE works with the Aster missile system, where as APAR needs a change to the ESSM/SM family.  It's got perfect modularity to modify for the AAW variant many panels to increase search/range and less number of panels for GP variant.  Swap out missiles and panels and in 2 months your GP variant is now an AAW variant with no changes to ships internal structure.  Aster missile does its own fire control so no fire control system is needed.  Genious.  Its a strong bid with that radar.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Fabius on December 04, 2017, 17:48:58
So if land attack is back will all or at least some of these ships have A70 or MK 41 Strike length VLS so we can run dedicated land attack missiles vice dual purpose anti shipping missiles? Having only 8 dual purpose ASMs seems to me to be more of an inextrimse capability than an actual support to forces ashore dedicated capability.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: suffolkowner on December 04, 2017, 18:26:33

Support to forces ashore is back. Straight from the CRCN.  The new frigates all require a 127mm gun to do land attack, and also require the capability to embark land attack missile.  Harpoon Block II is just the tip of the iceberg here.  Problem currently is that we (until recently) couldn't really attack land targets with the 57mm or any missiles.


Is there any possibility of recycling the 76mm and 57mm guns from the current fleet as a secondary armament. I am thinking in particular with respect to the swarming discussion
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on December 04, 2017, 18:34:34
Move the 57mm to the AOP's
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 04, 2017, 18:54:43
So if land attack is back will all or at least some of these ships have A70 or MK 41 Strike length VLS so we can run dedicated land attack missiles vice dual purpose anti shipping missiles? Having only 8 dual purpose ASMs seems to me to be more of an inextrimse capability than an actual support to forces ashore dedicated capability.

Strike length VLS are only a requirement if you want to use Tomahawks (or the French MdCN).  The RCN is missile agnostic.  If a tactical length VLS can shoot a land attack missile then that might be the design chosen.  Future proofing is the name of the game.   Harpoon is working on a VLS version.  Naval Strike Missile from norway might be able to be launched from VLS. (edit:  the Joint Strike Missile is able to be launched from VLS, its a derivative of the NSM and is fired from a Tactical length Mk 41)

Is there any possibility of recycling the 76mm and 57mm guns from the current fleet as a secondary armament. I am thinking in particular with respect to the swarming discussion

Some of the 76mm were already sold to the Dutch for their DZP AFAIK.  By the time the all Halifax are replaced some of those 57mm guns are going to be 20 years old.  So probably not.

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 04, 2017, 19:51:23
Harpoon is working on a VLS version. 
Are you talking the VLS mk41 and if so do you have a source for that?
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 04, 2017, 20:32:42
Harpoon is a TLS* system and is not currently planned to become fireable from the Mk 41 VLS.

When Boeing developed the Harpoon Block III's, some "pre-planning and adaptors" were considered for future development making it possible to fit in Tactical length VLS. That was in 2008. The USN has not asked Boeing for any further development in that direction as it is exploring new missiles for long range surface attack at this time. Besides, one of the advantages of the current Harpoon canister system is that it is one of the easiest missile to replace or resupply, even at sea.

*: TLS: Tilted Launch System  ;D

P.s: I think the Trudeau government will go with Exocets missiles just so Canada doesn't buy from Boeing.  ;D
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 04, 2017, 21:01:41
Harpoon is a TLS* system and is not currently planned to become fireable from the Mk 41 VLS.

When Boeing developed the Harpoon Block III's, some "pre-planning and adaptors" were considered for future development making it possible to fit in Tactical length VLS. That was in 2008. The USN has not asked Boeing for any further development in that direction as it is exploring new missiles for long range surface attack at this time. Besides, one of the advantages of the current Harpoon canister system is that it is one of the easiest missile to replace or resupply, even at sea.

*: TLS: Tilted Launch System  ;D

P.s: I think the Trudeau government will go with Exocets missiles just so Canada doesn't buy from Boeing.  ;D

This is what I get for not double checking my missile tech info on the one missile I thought I was familiar with.  :-[

If you look at the missiles in the Type 26 video they are in square canisters.  NSM are launched from square TLS's.  Just saying....
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: AlexanderM on December 04, 2017, 21:12:05
Or we could go with either the SCALP missile, should we use the A70 launchers or with the JSM for the MK 41, rather than the Exocet I mean.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: dapaterson on December 05, 2017, 00:14:31
Getting the impression that all may not be rosy in Halifax.

Unionized workers at Irving Shipyard vote overwhelmingly in favour of strike mandate (https://www.halifaxtoday.ca/local-news/unionized-workers-at-irving-shipyard-vote-overwhelmingly-in-favour-of-strike-mandate-781587)



Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: SeaKingTacco on December 05, 2017, 01:18:24
If this does not play straight into Davie's hand, I do not know what does.

Is the Union leadership at Irving daft? They virtually have a lock on shipbuilding in Canada for the next 3 decades and they are going to give a Federal Govt (yes, even this one) an opening to spread the work around?

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Karel Doorman on December 05, 2017, 02:58:59
Strike length VLS are only a requirement if you want to use Tomahawks (or the French MdCN).  The RCN is missile agnostic.  If a tactical length VLS can shoot a land attack missile then that might be the design chosen.  Future proofing is the name of the game.   Harpoon is working on a VLS version.  Naval Strike Missile from norway might be able to be launched from VLS. (edit:  the Joint Strike Missile is able to be launched from VLS, its a derivative of the NSM and is fired from a Tactical length Mk 41)

Some of the 76mm were already sold to the Dutch for their DZP AFAIK.  By the time the all Halifax are replaced some of those 57mm guns are going to be 20 years old.  So probably not.

For the canon part,euhm no we bought your 127mm to place them on the DZP.Witch will be replaced for 127mm vulcano shortly,due to a lot of problems with them(they're are just old)We wanted to buy cheap and now have to buy new ones(typical Dutch)so now it will cost us more then  if we bought new ones in the first place.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on December 05, 2017, 07:57:47
Quote
European firms jointly offer frigate to Canadian government, skipping shipbuilder

PARIS — Franco-Italian partners Naval Group and Fincantieri filed their joint offer in a frigate tender directly to Canada‘s defense ministry, rather than submitting the bid to prime contractor Irving Shipbuilding, a spokesman for the French company said Monday.

“The bid was outside the competition procedure, it was a spontaneous offer,” the spokesman told Defense News. The competition rules called for offers to be submitted to Irving.

The two companies submitted their Nov. 30 offer of the FREMM multimission frigate to the ministry, part of a strategy to protect intellectual property rights on the technology, the spokesman said.

That unusual approach included an offer of fast delivery, with the first ship handed over in fall 2019 if the joint bid were accepted next year, the spokesman said.

Fincantieri and Naval Group have offered a fixed price of CAD$30 billion (U.S. $24 billion) for the 15 vessels in the Canadian Surface Combatant program, compared to CAN$62 billion estimated by the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer, National Post reported.

That direct offer to the government was the two European companies’ attempt to overcome a perceived preference by Irving for BAE Systems’ offer of the Type 26 frigate, business website La Tribune reported.

BAE has partnered with Lockheed Martin for an offer of the Type 26, which is being built for the British Navy.

The concerns over intellectual property protection stem from the competition rules requiring bidders to submit sensitive information on technology to Irving, which draws heavily on American and British advisers, La Tribune reported.
https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2017/12/04/european-firms-jointly-offer-frigate-to-canadian-government-skipping-shipbuilder/
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Czech_pivo on December 05, 2017, 09:57:10
So, again, if we assume that the FREMM is considered not valid for not following the process/procedures laid out - we then have only 3 valid bids. The process to whittle it down to 2 bids and then make the final bid should be pretty straight forward and shouldn't take a long time to do so - but then again based on prior track records I'm sure that the timelines will be pushed back again and again and the final decision will occur sometime in the next 10-12 months.
What should happen, is that they move things along quicker, thus closing the so called 'gap' in timelines when the current AOPS ships  are completed and when the CSC's are to begin. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on December 05, 2017, 11:55:01
If this does not play straight into Davie's hand, I do not know what does.

Is the Union leadership at Irving daft? They virtually have a lock on shipbuilding in Canada for the next 3 decades and they are going to give a Federal Govt (yes, even this one) an opening to spread the work around?

 :facepalm:


Union Leadership is nothing but entertaining. However it could also be Irving playing hardball thinking it has the union by the short and curlies 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Lumber on December 05, 2017, 12:14:06
Do you think there is any possibility, at all, of scrapping the single class idea?

GP Variant: Go with the Type-26. It looks exactly like what we need for a GP Frigate.

AAW: Go with the F100 (it's basically an Arleigh Burke with a hat instead of fat cheeks), or the DZP.

My preference would be the DZP, as its sensor suite is more akin to what were using today, vice the F100 which is basically the same suite as an Arleigh Burke (with a hat).

Mind you, I haven't actually looked at any the submissions. Is the F100 being proposed with the same suite as what Spain is using, or something completely different?

Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Good2Golf on December 05, 2017, 12:29:03

Union Leadership is nothing but entertaining. However it could also be Irving playing hardball thinking it has the union by the short and curlies

Gutsy move, Mav! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4ArVdui8tE)

To be followed shortly with, "Here, hold my beer...watch this..."
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 05, 2017, 12:36:42
My understanding is that the F-105 being proposed is actually closer to the Australian AAD's than the original Spanish F-100's.

As for scraping the "single class", I don't believe there is much chance of this. This constant single classing of ships seem to be a RCN fixation that originates in the  Saint-Laurent class era. The idea is single set of spare parts, single stream of training, etc., etc. Yet, the Navy made co-habitation of the St-L. and 280's work, so there is no real impediment to operating two classes of ships with differing functions.

I too would like to see two different types of ships, which I believe would make more sense in the end than trying to fit different functions in the same hull/powerplant.

In fact, it could be the government redeeming factor: Increase the plan slightly to the level proposed by the Senate defence committee, i.e. 18 surface ships. Get 14 ASW/GP variants and four AAD/Command variants. Leave the GP at Irving (that shortchanges them by one ship over 24 years  - I am sure some sop could be found for that) and get Davie in for the four AAD's. 
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Colin P on December 05, 2017, 13:03:25
Way to much sense in that post OGBD
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Chris Pook on December 05, 2017, 13:25:29
OGBD

While you're at it - how about adjusting the Irving buy to 3 pre-planned flights?  To permit controlled modification required to meet future, unforeseen requirements.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Uzlu on December 05, 2017, 13:31:32
Quote
Shipbuilder appeals directly to Sajjan in warship design contest then doesn't deliver formal bid

French-Italian warship design was expected to be among leading contenders in Canadian contest

Just weeks before the competition to design Canada's next warship closed, a French and Italian consortium tossed what amounts to a political Hail Mary into the bidding process for the proposed $60 billion program.

Naval Group and Fincantieri delivered its now highly-publicised, eye-popping, proposal to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, CBC News has learned.

The pitch, which suggested Canada could save tens of billions of dollars, appears to be a frustrating parting shot for a consortium which had been considered one of the leading contenders in the highly-anticipated program.

It was a parting shot because CBC News has learned the French and Italian consortium did not submit a formal bid by the Nov. 30 deadline to make its FREMM-class frigates Canada's new surface warships.
 
"Fincantieri and Naval Group have made a business decision not to submit a bid under the current Request For Proposal (RFP) issued by Irving Shipbuilding Industry," said Alix Donnelly, a spokesman for Naval Group, in an email Tuesday morning.
 
The decision, he added, was made after a careful evaluation.

"We have finally developed a global proposal outside the terms of the official RFP to the Ministry of Defence to meet the Canadian needs on the long term, based on our FREMM program," Donnelly said.

What the French and Italian consortium was trying to achieve by making an informal pitch to Sajjan outside of the structured bidding process, remains unclear.

In a story quoting unnamed sources, The National Post reported last week that Naval Group and Fincantieri had pitched  a frigate replacement plan that would be $32 billion cheaper than the existing project estimate and involve building three of the 15 warships in Europe.

The informal proposal given to Sajjan, a copy of which was obtained by CBC News, also pledges a "fix price guarantee" and — significantly — promises to start construction of the first FREMM at the Irving Shipyard in Halifax in 2019.

It says it would charge $1.3 billion per ship, but "the final contract price will have to be defined by Irving Shipbuilding Inc.," which is the federal government's go-to yard for warship construction.

What the minister did with the pitch, dated Nov. 6, 2017, is unclear.

Sajjan's office would not answer questions on Monday and referred all queries to Public Services and Procurement Canada, which also declined to talk about the unusual proposal.

The federal government received at least three bids for warship design by the time the over 13 month competition closed, said several sources with knowledge of the file.

Among the acknowledged bidders is the Spanish-led Navantia-Saab team, which is offering its F-105 frigate design. As well, Lockheed-Martin Canada and British-based BAE Systems Inc. made headlines last week with the submission of their proposal. The third bidder remains unknown.
 
Federal officials made it clear previously they will not identify bidders until the process is over and a winner is declared.

Dave Perry, a defence analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he wasn't surprised with the latest development because the "French and Italians had been the most vocal about the problems they had with the process."

Bidders have complained Canada was asking for too much intellectual property data in its submission and there were also concerns about the transfer of top secret government-to-government information on systems such as radar and combat management equipment.

Officials close to the project, who spoke on background because of the sensitivity of the file, said dropping a proposal on the defence's minister's desk was an attempt to undermine the national shipbuilding strategy.

Perry was not prepared to go that far.

"I can't tell how much of it was a knock against the formal process; a suggestion that the current process is going to end in tears and this is a backup plan; or an acknowledgement that they [Naval Group and Fincantieri] weren't going to be successful," he said.

Industry sources have repeatedly suggested that the bidders were unhappy because they believed the process has been tilted in favour the BAE bid, which offers the Type 26 frigate, a warship that has only just entered production and has yet to establish a service history.
 
The Pentagon has indicated it is ready to open up its own much bigger program to replace U.S. Navy frigates to foreign warship designers.

Perry said he doesn't believe that, by itself, would have been enough to scuttle the FREMM bid.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-french-designer-1.4432705

We know the identities of the third bidders.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on December 05, 2017, 13:42:23
OGBD

While you're at it - how about adjusting the Irving buy to 3 pre-planned flights?  To permit controlled modification required to meet future, unforeseen requirements.

Considering the current plan is for construction to take place over the next 24 years, I would already expect (hope they are smart enough for this is more like it) it to be the case. To have the exact same thing built in the last three years as was built in the first three, for sensors, combat systems, communications and weapons, makes no sense. You have to take in the lessons of the earlier versions of the ships and keep up with advancements in the fields I just specified.

To me, it's more like mid-way through the process, you have to bring the earlier models up to the level of the most recent ones through mid-life upgrades.
Title: Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
Post by: Underway on December 05, 2017, 14:02:57
Do you think there is any possibility, at all, of scrapping the single class idea?

My preference would be the DZP, as its sensor suite is more akin to what were using today, vice the F100 which is basically the same suite as an Arleigh Burke (with a hat).

Mind you, I haven't actually looked at any the submissions. Is the F100 being proposed with the same suite as what Spain is using, or something completely different?

My understanding is that the F-105 being proposed is actually closer to the Australian AAD's than the original Spanish F-100's.

I too would like to see two different types of ships, which I believe would make more sense in the end than trying to fit different functions in the same hull/powerplant.


There is currently no possibility of not fitting it into the same hull.  The RCN solution for the future is to be able to easily convert a GP frigate into an AAD version so we will never have a capability gap again, and never lose the ability to operate in a Task Group again.  Whether this comes from gov't stupidity (not replacing ships), or accidents (ie: HMCS Winnipeg...) the plan is to either "add more/different radars and switch out missiles" to a GP version that you have removed from the old or damaged the AAD version.  This is to be done with relatively no fuss (say a 2 month refit), because all the platforms have the space to embark the Commodores staff and can do C&C stuff.

As for the F-100 bid the difference is the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radar systems.  They are completely different radar type to the SPY-1D which is the current mount.  They are active search S band and active fire control X band radars.  The SPY-1 is a passive S-band and requires a FC director of some sort.  The CEA radars are much more advanced and efficient then the SPY-1 but don't have the same power.  The currently operating CEA radars are perfect for frigates.  Doesn't mean that the AAW CEA radars aren't potentially bigger and better, with the simple expediency of adding more Tx/Rx groups.  They are pretty new to th