• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

AirDet

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
15
Points
230
So what are other NATO navies doing to combat these SWARM threats? Can we employ these solutions without having a major affect on the project Critical Path or costing?

I know there was talk of the RN putting some sort of DE weapon on the hgr. Has the technology matured enough for this to even be practical? I assume the advantage would be not having to reload.

It's too bad I won't get to sail on these Gucci new boats.
 

Cdn Blackshirt

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
34
Points
530
So what are other NATO navies doing to combat these SWARM threats? Can we employ these solutions without having a major affect on the project Critical Path or costing?

I know there was talk of the RN putting some sort of DE weapon on the hgr. Has the technology matured enough for this to even be practical? I assume the advantage would be not having to reload.

It's too bad I won't get to sail on these Gucci new boats.

I read two articles recently on European updates.

The French appear to be purchasing a new 40mm CTA CIWS for fairly immediate installation and Germany just approved a new laser-based CIWS research project.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
781
Points
1,010
So what are other NATO navies doing to combat these SWARM threats? Can we employ these solutions without having a major affect on the project Critical Path or costing?

I know there was talk of the RN putting some sort of DE weapon on the hgr. Has the technology matured enough for this to even be practical? I assume the advantage would be not having to reload.

It's too bad I won't get to sail on these Gucci new boats.
EW is important to combat this threat. The same methods to distract, seduce and confuse missiles work. In some ways, a powerful ECM Jammer can really mess up these UAS as their network is what makes them dangerous. Once you remove that they are heavily degraded.

But no one talks about EW, it can be difficult to understand without the proper science background and even harder to talk about without violating OPSEC. And it's not nearly as sexy as shooting missiles.

Every major warship of the NATO countries has some form of EW, some take it very seriously and invest in high capacity.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
73
Points
560
Remember that in 2012 Irving was awarded mandate under NSS for large combat ships including CSC (In 2013 CSC construction was "not expected to begin before 2020"! P. 6 PDF http://navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NSPS-Update.pdf); Type 26 design was selected in Feb. 2019 ( https://jdirving.com/Government-of-Canada-selects-design-for-Canadian-Surface-Combatants.aspx ). So minimum 12 years from then to first delivery? An absurd way of shipbuilding. And poor Halifax frigates.

Mark
Ottawa
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,746
Points
940
The UK and Australia will have theirs in the water for quite some time before ours even gets launched
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
198
Points
630
It reads as though the Made in Canada mods are what is causing the grief and not Irving itself. I haven't read or seen any seriously bad reports on what they have produced so far so I am more inclined to think that the problem lies with the multitude of changes
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
781
Points
1,010
It reads as though the Made in Canada mods are what is causing the grief and not Irving itself. I haven't read or seen any seriously bad reports on what they have produced so far so I am more inclined to think that the problem lies with the multitude of changes

The UK and Australia will have theirs in the water for quite some time before ours even gets launched

What seems to be missing in this article but was written into the CTV one on the same topic was that the UK and Australia are expecting their first build to take 7.5 years as well. The UK experience is informing our timelines.
 

FM07

New Member
Reaction score
16
Points
130
I read the Global Article which states

"All eyes are currently on the upcoming report from the parliamentary budget officer, which is to be released later this month and provide an updated cost for the Type-26 along with estimates for purchasing two other warships."

What are these 'two other warships' they speak of?
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
91
Points
380
I read the Global Article which states

"All eyes are currently on the upcoming report from the parliamentary budget officer, which is to be released later this month and provide an updated cost for the Type-26 along with estimates for purchasing two other warships."

What are these 'two other warships' they speak of?
FREMM and the Type 31 frigate.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
73
Points
560
Oh dear, maybe only 10 CSCs?:

Navy needs to prepare for tough talks over warship delays, cost increases: Norman​


Retired vice-admiral Mark Norman is warning the Royal Canadian Navy to start preparing for some hard discussions as delays and escalating costs continue to buffet the country's $60-billion plan to build new warships over the coming decades.

The Department of National Defence revealed this week that the first of 15 new warships being built to replace the Navy's 12 frigates and three already-retired destroyers will be delivered in 2030 or 2031, years later than planned.

News of the schedule slip comes ahead of a highly anticipated update from the parliamentary budget officer on the cost of the overall project, though defence officials have maintained the $60-billion budget set in 2017 remains sufficient.

While the department's assertions are encouraging, Norman told The Canadian Press on Tuesday [Feb. 2] that there is a direct correlation between delays and cost increases when it comes to military procurement projects.

And while Norman hopes it doesn't reach that point, the former navy commander and vice-chief of the defence staff suggests officials should nonetheless start getting ready for pressure to scale back the number or quality of new ships.

"These are all conversations that I think legitimately, at some point, are going to have to happen," Norman said. "To pretend that they're not going to happen is naive. This is all about tradeoffs at the end of the day."

For his part, Norman is firmly in the camp that if the conversation comes down to significant cuts to the new warships' capabilities or building fewer vessels to save billions of dollars, quality should trump quantity [emphasis added].

"There's only so much blood you can get from that rock or you end up producing something which isn't really a frontline warship anymore," he said. "And ultimately, that's what this is all about."

The new warships to be built in Halifax are based on the British-made Type-26 and are to be the backbone of the navy for decades. The project, which originally had a budget of $26 billion, is the largest military procurement in Canadian history.

The Type-26 will replace the navy's existing fleet of 12 Halifax-class frigates as well as its three Iroquois-class destroyers, which were retired several years ago. Those two classes had different roles and abilities, which the Type-26 will be expected to adopt.

The decision to combine the two classes into one is part of why the current project is so complicated, said Norman. It is also why there is only so much flexibility when it comes to the systems and capabilities that are to be built into the Type-26.

The federal Liberal government has committed to building 15 new warships as part of its defence policy, which was unveiled in June 2017 and increased the project's budget from $26 billion to $60 billion.

The ships are being ordered in batches and defence officials say they are still working on the exact numbers. Such an approach gives the government flexibility to cut back on the numbers later if it wants.

All eyes are currently on the upcoming report from the parliamentary budget officer, which is to be released later this month and provide an updated cost for the Type-26 along with estimates for purchasing two other warships.

The report could kickstart fresh debate around the Type-26 and Ottawa's decision to build the ships in Canada, particularly given a French-Italian consortium's assertion that it could build a new fleet faster and cheaper in Europe.

Norman, who is on record saying the navy needs at least 10 new warships but he hopes it gets all 15 [emphasis added], said restarting the process or "throwing the whole thing out, the baby with the bathwater, is a very bad idea."

At the same time, he warned that Canadians need to be careful when comparing the costs of different ships and proposals. To that end, he lamented that the government and military were not more forthcoming with information about the project.

This week's revelation about the delay in delivery of the first Type-26 was the first real update from the Defence Department and government on the warship project in many months...

Mark
Ottawa
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
701
Points
940
So is Irving going to cry for more money because these delays have created a work gap?
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
701
Points
940
That article was posted on 3 February 2017. Since then, a sixth Harry DeWolf has been ordered, and two additional modified Harry DeWolfs are planned.
Thats what I am saying, Irving cried layoffs due to delays in the CSC program, government ordered more AOPS to keep the yard going. Now more delays mean the CSC won't hit water till the 2030s, while the last AOPS will be done by the mid 2020s. So is Irving going to cry layoffs again?
 

Stoker

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
172
Points
680
FREMM and the Type 31 frigate.
Makes no difference we are too far into the design process to start over, it still will cost billions from the delay and it still has to be built in Canada. If it came down to it build a lesser number of type 26's than settling for the FREMM or type 31.
 
Top