• 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

larry Strong

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
The la6test.....

https://ottawasun.com/news/national/feds-award-design-contract-for-60b-warship-fleet-to-lockheed-martin/wcm/f9c97fe9-be65-458b-82d5-dd4e4052fd27

HALIFAX — The federal government awarded U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin a long-awaited contract to design its $60-billion fleet of warships despite lingering questions about the selection process and a legal challenge from a rival bidder.

Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough announced the deal in Halifax early Friday, saying the Royal Canadian Navy’s 15 new warships will be built by Irving and based on the British-designed Type 26 frigate.

The initial contract with Irving Shipbuilding is valued at $185 million including taxes and will increase as design work progresses, the government said Friday, adding a policy will apply to ensure every dollar put into the contract will result in a dollar back into the economy.

Qualtrough made the announcement at Irving’s Halifax Shipyard surrounded by hundreds of applauding workers, and touched on the persistent suggestions it wasn’t a fair and balanced fight for the contract.

“Our government is providing the Royal Canadian Navy with the ships it needs to do its important work of protecting Canadians,” she said in a statement.

“This procurement process for Canada’s future fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants was conducted in an open, fair and transparent manner that yielded the best ship design, and design team, to meet our needs for many years to come.”

Lockheed’s design had been selected as the best last October, beating out submissions from Alion Science and Technology of Virginia and Spanish firm Navantia to replace Canada’s existing frigates and destroyers.

In a statement, Lockheed Martin Canada’s vice-president praised the decision.

“This award is true validation of our Canadian capability,” Gary Fudge said. “Our team is honoured, knowing that we offered the right solution for Canada and a proven ability to perform on complex defence programs.”

Defence Department officials will now sit down with Irving and Lockheed to figure out what changes need to be made to the company’s design, along with the navy’s requirements to make sure they fit. The department’s top procurement official, Patrick Finn, has said the plan is to keep changes to a minimum to keep costs and schedule under control.

Qualtrough said Friday the design work is expected to take three to four years to complete, with construction set to begin in the early 2020s.

The selection comes after difficult negotiations that saw Alion ask the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to quash the decision, saying Lockheed’s design did not meet the navy’s requirements and should have been disqualified.

The tribunal initially ordered the government not to award a contract to Lockheed until it could investigate Alion’s complaint, but later rescinded that decision and then tossed the case entirely last week.

Alion has also challenged Lockheed’s selection at the Federal Court, though that case is expected to drag on. Alion alleges that the Type 26 did not meet the navy’s requirements for speed and crew accommodations.

The bid by Lockheed, which also builds the F-35 stealth fighter and other military equipment, was contentious from the moment the design competition was launched in October 2016.

The federal government had originally said it wanted a “mature design” for its new warship fleet, which was widely interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy.

But the first Type 26 frigates are only now being built by the British government and the design has not yet been tested in full operation.

There were also complaints from industry that the deck was stacked in the Type 26’s favour because of Irving’s connections with British shipbuilder BAE, which originally designed the Type 26 and partnered with Lockheed to offer the ship to Canada.

Irving also partnered with BAE in 2016 on an ultimately unsuccessful bid to maintain the navy’s new Arctic patrol vessels and supply ships. That 35-year contract went to another company.

Irving and the federal government rejected such complaints, saying they conducted numerous consultations with industry and used corporate firewalls and safeguards to ensure the selection process was completely fair and unbiased.

Cheers
Larry

 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
That's the first imagery I have seen with the Sea Ceptor installed aft of the funnels. So it looks like there is 24 Sea Ceptor fwd, another 24 aft, a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS fwd, (and 2 quad future NSM above the mission bay.) 
 

Swampbuggy

Member
Reaction score
34
Points
280
Sadly, I don’t think we’re getting that same missile suite. All the drawings of the Canadian variant that I’ve seen, show only the 32 cell VLS. And possibly a RAM box or two.
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Cloud Cover said:
That's the first imagery I have seen with the Sea Ceptor installed aft of the funnels. So it looks like there is 24 Sea Ceptor fwd, another 24 aft, a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS fwd, (and 2 quad future NSM above the mission bay.)
And I'm hoping that if we don't go with the Sea Ceptor, that tactical sized Mk 41 cells, the smallest ones, can go in place of the Sea Ceptor launchers, which would make a big difference in my mind. Does anyone have more than an opinion of Sea Ceptor vs ESSM comparison, as to which is better?
 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
I'm pretty certain we will not being going with Sea Ceptor as we are part of the Sea Sparrow Project and have been for decades.  Block 2 ESSM just did test firings down in Port Hueneme last summer and we've already put money into it.  Block 2 adds an active seeker to replace the semi-active one currently in the ESSM.  This will increase the capabilities of an already pretty good missile.  Still not an SM-2 but I'm sure we'll be seeing the return of the Standard missile in the Mk 41 launchers of the new ships. 
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
AFAIK  Type 26 B (british) has only 24 VLS cells. NSM or similar antiship missiles are to be mounted into the VLS.

Type 26 A (aussie) will replace the fore 24 CAMM with 8 more VLS cells (total 32), and the aft 24 CAMM with 2 quad canisters for antiship missiles. Australia will use ESSM instead of CAMM.

Spain was about to use CAMM on their F-110 but has finally opted for ESSM also.

I've read that ESSM has about twice the range than CAMM (nearly 50 km vs 25), it is heavier as well, both are quad-packable into mk41 cells, but the main point would be compatibility with the CMS. ESSM is AEGIS-ready while some work has to be done with CAMM to integrate it with AEGIS.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
557
Points
1,060
Curious that about the CAMMs and the ESSMs.

I wonder how much impact that had on the pressure to buy the Type 26 rather than a Euro solution.

With an American boat the only option would have been the ESSMs.
With a European boat - CAMMs
With the British boat - both ESSMs and CAMMs are options

Options seem to be what our bureaucrats and politicians crave - more discussions, more meetings, more time, less accountability.

If I remember right the Euros squawked when Canada selected the ESSMs for the Halifax upgrade because they feared that it would prejudice the outcome of the design selection on the CSC.
 

Thumper81

Guest
Reaction score
1
Points
30
JMCanada said:
AFAIK  Type 26 B (british) has only 24 VLS cells. NSM or similar antiship missiles are to be mounted into the VLS.

Type 26 A (aussie) will replace the fore 24 CAMM with 8 more VLS cells (total 32), and the aft 24 CAMM with 2 quad canisters for antiship missiles. Australia will use ESSM instead of CAMM.

Spain was about to use CAMM on their F-110 but has finally opted for ESSM also.

I've read that ESSM has about twice the range than CAMM (nearly 50 km vs 25), it is heavier as well, both are quad-packable into mk41 cells, but the main point would be compatibility with the CMS. ESSM is AEGIS-ready while some work has to be done with CAMM to integrate it with AEGIS.

I think ours is going to be more in line with Australian version with 32 cells of Mk 41 VLS.  This would allow the ship to have 32 ESSM for point and 24 Standard missiles for area air defence(I think that 32 cell strike Mk 41 and an 8 cell self-defence Mk 41 cells would be better allowing for 32 missiles of both types but compared with our only 16 ESSM's now, I'll take it).  As for a CMS compatibility issue with Sea Ceptor vs. ESSM, the fire-control system dictates that more than CMS.  The Kiwi's have selected Sea Ceptor(replacing the RIM-7 which has the exact same interface as ESSM) to work with CMS on their upgrades for their ANZAC's.

As for European squaking about our selection of ESSM over their missiles, it was never going to happen as we've been part of NATO Sea Sparrow Consortium for decades and have been investing in it for a long time.  The ESSM upgrade was separate from the mid-life upgrade of the frigates.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
Probably you're right, I may have messed CMS with fire-control... for me (not a professional on that field) it's all "software". And probably I am again wrong with this last sentence  ::) ;D

In reply to C-Pook, I have not seen the bids, but would bet that Navantia-Saab had offered systems ready for ESSMs since nor Spain nor Australia use Sea Ceptor (CAMM): F-100 & Hobarts  use ESSM.

Edited (added): actually CAMM is british mainly, more than "european". France & Italy rely their air defence on the Aster missiles family.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
In any case I don't see the Brits mixing up their missile type for anyone. They probably just move the Harpoon to the Type 26 in the end, and ditch the rear vls. Maybe not...
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
557
Points
1,060
Looking at foredecks of the three variants, specifically at the "B-Gun" position where the missiles are located forard of the bridge, it appears to me from the imagery that the Aussies and the Brits are both planning to put their Harpoon/Harpoon-replacement Anti-Ship Missiles on the foredeck while the Canadian imagery shows the foredeck clear (as well as the space abaft the funnel).

On the other hand the Canadians and the Aussies both seem to have Quad Harpoons on top of the Mission Bay / Boat Deck.


Aussie 26

1l-image-Hunter-Class-Frigates.jpg


Brit 26

type_26_frigate_global_combat_ship_royal_navy_06.jpg


Canadian 26

british-type-26-frigate.jpg
 

serger989

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
In all the concepts/models I have seen, I have only seen 1 scale model with CIWS, the others have none. Makes me think they will only be outfitted onto 3 ships or something.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
I'm not harping, just checking, but you guys realize that those models are NOT accurate to the final product, right? I spoke with the Lockheed guys at DEFSEC about their model, asking how accurate it was, and they warned me that these models (and pictures) are not in any way indicative of the final product.  Actual weapon and sensor fit, as well as locations for those weapons and sensors, won't be known until the contract is finalized.

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
557
Points
1,060
Lumber said:
I'm not harping, just checking, but you guys realize that those models are NOT accurate to the final product, right? I spoke with the Lockheed guys at DEFSEC about their model, asking how accurate it was, and they warned me that these models (and pictures) are not in any way indicative of the final product.  Actual weapon and sensor fit, as well as locations for those weapons and sensors, won't be known until the contract is finalized.

Seen Lumber and acknowledged.

And they will look different again after separation into flights and life-extensions.

I think the point is that the platform can support multiple configurations with bolt-on (even Stanflex-type) configurations - MGs, Autocannons, Phalanx, Sea-Ram, Harpoon, NSMs, Chaff dispensers, CAMM or ESSM launch buckets.  Both the command system and the hull form can manage a great degree of flexibility to suit operational needs.  The presence of the Mission Bay and its various cargoes also attest to the ability of a combat ship being able to manage shifts in displacement as cargoes are moved from outboard port to outboard starboard above the water line: a capability that seems to have evaded the designers of the USNs LCS but has been managed successfully by the Danes' Absaloms.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
For the the love of all, forget the # of missiles, can we just get an OOW chair/station on the bridge?
 
Top