Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 465598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,779
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,202
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1600 on: July 13, 2019, 20:13:26 »
People said that about the P-8 Poseidon, too.

I've been reading some reports that the present NZ Government has been accused of shirking their responsibilities under the Five Power Agreement.  They may have their hand nudged.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 00:26:48 by Humphrey Bogart »

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 214,640
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,168
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1601 on: July 13, 2019, 23:04:25 »
I've been reading some reports that the present NZ Government has been accused of shirking their respondibilities under the Five Power Agreement.  They may have their hand nudged.

:nod:

...but before we get too smug, we’re next to get called out...

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,779
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,202
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1602 on: July 14, 2019, 00:27:14 »
:nod:

...but before we get too smug, we’re next to get called out...

Most definitely  8)

Offline RDBZ

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,930
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 90
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1603 on: July 14, 2019, 01:49:30 »
I've been reading some reports that the present NZ Government has been accused of shirking their responsibilities under the Five Power Agreement.  They may have their hand nudged.


They’ve been edging closer to resuming membership of ANZUS for a while now, so it’s not entirely surprising. Add in being able to leverage off the ADFs support infrastructure and the numbers probably add up the right way, compared to maintaining an increasingly costly and unreliable orphan fleet. 

Some of their P-3 were built in the 1960s.
« Last Edit: July 14, 2019, 03:37:42 by RDBZ »

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,410
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 196
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1604 on: July 14, 2019, 08:01:49 »
Most definitely  8)

Well to be fair,we have been called out by NATO(Dutch spending,or lack of  :Tin-Foil-Hat:)

But things are starting to change ,budget is going up year by year(but still not enough,my thoughts)
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 197
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1605 on: July 15, 2019, 12:16:55 »
If I was the RNZN I would tell BAE ok you have the design contract. Then RFQ the build to the three countries and the combat systems.  Can you see the competition between the countries.  All three are trying to build a shipbuilding industry.  If I was Irving and Lockheed Canada. I would be all over it   

NZ could get a very good deal on the build as I can see each country giving subsidies and spiffs.
Quote
BAE Systems looks to position Hunter-class frigate for New Zealand

BAE Systems Australia has confirmed a potential move to position the company's Hunter-class frigate design for the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN).

A spokesperson for BAE Systems Australia told Jane's on 12 July that given its commitment to deliver the Hunter-class platform to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) under its Sea 5000 project, it would be "logical" for the Australian government to also pursue international sales of the vessel.

When asked by Jane's to confirm that the company will look to export the Hunter-class frigate to New Zealand, the spokesperson said, "It is critical to understand that the programme to design and build nine world-leading Hunter-class frigates [for the RAN] will also see BAE Systems transfer technology and skills to Australia to enable the development of an enduring world-class naval shipbuilding industry for the nation.

"It would be a logical conclusion for the Australian government and its close allies to consider the potential export opportunities."

The spokesperson's comments followed a news report by the Financial Times newspaper on 11 July, which quoted Steve Timms, BAE managing director for naval ships, as saying "New Zealand is clearly interested" in the company's 6,900-tonne Type 26 frigate, on which the Hunter-class design in based.

According to the report, Timms said a deal with New Zealand could involve "two or three" vessels but declined to elaborate.

BAE Systems Australia signed a AUD35 billion (USD25 billion) contract in June 2018 with the Australian government to locally build nine Hunter-class frigates to replace the RAN's Anzac-class frigates, which have been in service since 1996 and were built by Australian shipbuilder Tenix Defence. Tenix Defence was acquired by BAE Systems in 2008.
https://www.janes.com/article/89861/bae-systems-looks-to-position-hunter-class-frigate-for-new-zealand

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 454
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1606 on: July 15, 2019, 13:33:55 »
I still think NZ could get a very good deal if they had the three countries bid for the build.  (but what do I know?)  NZ can tell BAE you got the job but we need a competitive bid for the build.  With three active yards it could get interesting.  I can't think of another program where that could be done.   Of course I don't know the details of the Irving contract if they could even bid.  But in many ways it could be a "no lose" for BAE. And keep the NZ taxpayer happy....See THREE bids!

And the bonus is for everyone....look we were right to pick the T26 even NZ choose it...

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,720
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,733
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1607 on: July 16, 2019, 05:56:11 »
Some big news coming down today - it will be interesting to see what it is?

Quote

Ministers making announcements at Davie, Seaspan shipyards today

By The Canadian Press — Jul 16 2019

OTTAWA — The federal government is promising major announcements today at shipyards in Quebec and Victoria.

Cabinet minister Jean-Yves Duclos is to be at Davie Shipyard outside Quebec City and Carla Qualtrough is to be at Seaspan on the west coast.

The government says the announcements are about the Halifax-class frigates, a dozen ships considered the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy.

The ships are 27 years old and have recently undergone major refits.

The government has promised $7 billion worth of long-term maintenance contracts to three shipyards, including one owned by Irving on the east coast.

It hasn't yet said how the work will be divided up, though, and the ministers' announcements may lay out schedules and spending plans.

The Canadian Press

Link
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 185,831
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,097
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1608 on: July 16, 2019, 07:50:46 »
My guess:  ISI is being contracted to dust off the Halifax Class hull plans and build 3 new Halifax class hulls to 'bridge the gap' between the AOPS and CSC, and Davie is being contracted to shift all of the equipment off the 3 oldest/worst condition hulls into the new ones to stretch their life out a few more years.

Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 454
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1609 on: July 16, 2019, 09:32:01 »
That is just maintenance.  No "new" ships just like the LAV 3 to 6.0   :whistle:

 

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1610 on: July 16, 2019, 13:07:35 »
It's almost worth build 2 extra hulls of the type 26 class and not fit them with weapons and electronics and keep them in mothball status. Then when the first ships come in to modernize, they are laid up and the spare hull is activated with the updated equipment. Then those hulls can be repaired and upgraded at leisure and prepped for the next round. 

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 12,100
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 454

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1612 on: July 16, 2019, 15:17:10 »
Some big news coming down today - it will be interesting to see what it is?

Link

They may have changed the text that you quoted, but quite different.  Pasted the bit below, but there isn't a promise of $7B of refit work to the shipyards.

As an aside, this is duplicated with the same article in the NSS thread; suggest that be discussed there as it's independent of the CSC work and the refit arms of the shipyards are separate from the build ships division.  Some of the workers go back and forth, but for the most part you want to keep them in the same type of work or you get efficiency drop offs from them being rusty.  Totally different building modules and doing original outfit then to do repairs of in situ equipment/structure, even if it's the same trades.

Quote
OTTAWA — The federal government is awarding $1 billion in warship maintenance work to two Canadian shipyards, with a third deal on the way.

The five-year contracts announced Tuesday award $500 million in work to Chantier Davie shipyard in Quebec and Seaspan Victoria Shipyards in British Columbia.

A similar deal with Irving Shipyards in Nova Scotia is on the way, the government says.

The contracts are part of a $7.5-billion plan to maintain Canada's 12 Halifax-class frigates for the rest of their operational lives, which are expected to last about another 20 years.

The ships are 27 years old and will eventually be replaced by new warships built under the national shipbuilding strategy.

Cabinet ministers Jean-Yves Duclos and Carla Qualtrough in Victoria revealed the details of the contracts in two simultaneous announcements Tuesday.

The Canadian Press
Share

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 961
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1613 on: July 25, 2019, 16:02:52 »
Good article giving a bit of insight into some of the changes that are coming with the Type 26.

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=hmcs-st-john-s-crew-peers-into-future-design-of-canadian-surface-combatant/jydwqps0

Most interesting is the double main passageway arrangement encircling the mess decks with cableways, plumbing etc... along the hull.  Lots of advantages with that arrangement for both DC and maintenance functions.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1614 on: July 25, 2019, 20:13:53 »
So does having two passage ways and the cabling on the outside a good thing in the mind of damage control?

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1615 on: July 25, 2019, 22:10:16 »
Have seen a few modern ships with that kind of routing, but you still have plenty of overhead runs as it goes to various equipment. Even on legacy/current ships, there is plenty of cabling adjacent/near the hull; your survivability comes from redundancy and distribution.

The false panels are really good for preventing spread of smoke and fire for electrical fires though, and gives folks better visibility/more time to evacuate, and does a good job at starving the fire of oxygen to slow growth. Takes more time to do major repairs, but cable work is always a dogs breakfast anyway.  If nothing else, should keep all the cable tags from getting painted over everytime a compartment gets a touch up, so the older electricians will probably appreciate that, and get to tell stories about how they spent days scraping off paint (or doing really long range continuity tests) to fix a simple light circuit.

Offline Underway

  • Donor
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 23,505
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 961
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1616 on: July 26, 2019, 20:57:10 »
So does having two passage ways and the cabling on the outside a good thing in the mind of damage control?

There are a couple of pros for this kind of design that I can think of right away:

Two main passages add redundancy for DC problems.  If the ship were to take a missile on the port side and cause a fire there, one could conceivably box it in on five sides (fwd, aft, above, below, stbd) instead of four (fwd, aft, above, below).  This would  stop the ship from being cut in half with crew still being able to move the full length of the ship on the same deck without having to go through a primary fire zone, or having to go up and down decks to do it (assuming the damage is isolated to a single deck).  It also gives one more options for attacking a fire if you can come at it from port or stbd as well.  Casualty clearers will also have more options as with a single main passage they could be cut off from casualties.

Cabling and plumbing behind false bulkheads along the outer hull is really good for maintenance.  This means that lots of the cabling will not necessarily be over ones head all the time.  Running a new cable will be much easier and faster as access is in front of you at shoulder height vs above you requiring a ladder half the time.  It also means less spaces need to be unlocked/supervised to get access to the cabling etc...  This also means the if work is being done along one passage one can still get around easily.  It sounds petty but making a section of the main passage out of bound for work is really irritating and often inhibits other work that needs to get done (say moving equipment around).  Leads to schedule conflicts between shops at FMF and work doesn't get done effectively as it could be.  A second main passage will reduce these issues.

Redundancy comes from having two fire mains down the passages so a break in one isn't as much of a problem.  Cabling and distribution for many of the important combat systems and DC control systems are already twinned port and stbd on a CPF already so this would be nothing new.

Finally from a pure ship resilience perspective of something hitting the side of the ship will first go into cables, plumbing and a passage before hitting crew/work spaces.  This increases the chances that the crew/work spaces will survive a hit or damage to them will be reduced.  Missile parts from a CIWS kill, collisions, USS Cole type damage, smaller missile/gun attacks from FAC/FIAC.  One of the best explosive defences is space and air gaps.  A missile/round may penetrate but if it explodes in a passageway that much better then in a workspace.  Its also easier to do put out a fire in a passage then in a mess/workspace as well.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,691
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1617 on: July 27, 2019, 08:52:33 »
Personnaly, I like the "wrap-around" bridge wing set-up.

Again, it's not a biggie, but it makes life a little easier for bridge crew. The Captain or OOW, should they want to switch wing to check on something can do it quickly - but more importantly - without having to navigate through the whol bridge while avoiding equipment or personnel trying to do thier job. It's less of a hassle for everyone.

Also, it makes cleaning the bridge windows of salty gunk easy - no one has to climb awkwardly unto little rails to do it, with all the attendant safety precautions. One can just go out with the spray and rags and do it anytime. As a result, you think less often about "when" you can do it and the windows can get cleaned quickly multiple times a day. Again, it doesn't sound like much, but if that ship piles up numerous little "wins" like that in everytnig, it makes life at sea a lot easier and enjoyable. In that line, I also like the "Largest-Messdeck-is Nine-Person" concept: about bloody time some comfort for the lowest rates is taken into consideration.

Finally, a word about the two passageway: one point that went unmentionned as it relates to DC is that it gives you easy and direct access to the hull, so unlike when it was in the mess decks, offices or working spaces, if you have to plug a whole in the hull, you don't have to first rip apart bunks, lockers, desks, shelving or whatever else would have been next to the hull, to be able to work.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,193
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1618 on: September 03, 2019, 19:46:23 »
UK options to replace the Harpoon on the Type 23 - https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-details-emerge-about-plan-to-replace-royal-navy-harpoon-anti-ship-missile/

Applicable to RCN esp. CSC. Note there are only two canister options available to the RN, as the LRASM is currently only a VLS missile. It appears also that the Lockheed product is the most expensive, it would cost 32M just to silo 8!!
Living the lean life