• 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

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
731
Points
940
https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/6526-bae-takes-next-steps-in-construction-of-royal-navy-future-frigate/amp

While we may be Canadianizing, I hope BAE passes on lessons learned when constructing for the RN, translating into less teething pain for us.
 

LoboCanada

Full Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
News that I can't quote here suggesting the PBO is looking at the CSC program and specific alternatives such as the FREMM proposition (rejected) and the Type 31 (Light Frigates as I think of them).

FREMM proposition where Naval Group builds 3 or so in Europe and the rest at Irving but at a halved price of $30B. I don't see how sending money to foreign yards builds up our industry... Isn't this the biggest reason the shipbuilding program exists? As an industrial program and not as much a RCN/CCG one? I think the Irving lobby would do a fair amount of lobbying against this.

Type 31, wasn't considered for a good reason, as it doesn't do the job as well and faced the same criticisms as the Type 26 in not being commissioned or afloat yet.

The more likely way this ends is that the gov't has a good reason to save some money here and build 4-5 Type 26 as 'Light DDGs' and 8-10 Type 31 'GP/Light Frigates'.
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
LoboCanada said:
FREMM proposition where Naval Group builds 3 or so in Europe and the rest at Irving but at a halved price of $30B.

$30bn was only for the build so I’m not certain whether it would have been a good deal or not.
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
13
Points
180
MTShaw said:
$30bn was only for the build so I’m not certain whether it would have been a good deal or not.

Think you would have come close to that 60B figure;(knowing the French  :eek:rly: )

I mean,training,spareparts,ugrades,etc,etc
 

MTShaw

Member
Reaction score
27
Points
330
Karel Doorman said:
Think you would have come close to that 60B figure;(knowing the French  :eek:rly: )

I mean,training,spareparts,ugrades,etc,etc

Just look at how successful the Aussie sub program has been thus far.
 

RDBZ

Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
MTShaw said:
Just look at how successful the Aussie sub program has been thus far.

Aside from time taken to sort out IP related issues (the ADF don't want a repeat of the Collins class issues with Kockums), it seems to be progressing as well as any other large program.
 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
55
Points
530
LoboCanada said:
News that I can't quote here suggesting the PBO is looking at the CSC program and specific alternatives such as the FREMM proposition (rejected) and the Type 31 (Light Frigates as I think of them).

And the report has to be in by Oct 22, which is less then three months away - not much time.


 

Retired AF Guy

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
55
Points
530
MTShaw said:
$30bn was only for the build so I’m not certain whether it would have been a good deal or not.

This 26 June 2019 article in Naval Technology gives a good breakdown as to where the $69+B cost for the CSC is going. Note that the new estimate is for 26 years. Not sure if the original estimate was for 26 years or shorter.

Canadian Surface Combatant project found to cost more than $52.7bn

The 2019 Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) report has indicated that the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) programme will now cost C$69.8bn ($52.7bn) over 26 years.

The previous report, 2017 PBO, estimated the programme would cost $61.8bn ($46.84bn).

Canada plans to acquire a fleet of 15 new naval warships that will serve as the country’s major surface component of maritime combat power.

The revision in the total programme cost is a reflection of inflated costs due to construction delay and an increase in the size of the CSC.

The break-up of the cost structure includes C$5.3bn ($4.01bn) in pre-production costs, along with C$53.2bn ($40.32bn) for production, and C$11.4bn ($8.64bn) in project-wide expenses.

A major driver of costs is the increase in the displacement of the ship. The 2017 estimate was calculated on the basis of a 5,400t lightship weight, which was an estimate based on available designs for the CSC programme at the time.

Following selection of the BAE Systems Type 26 Global Combat Ship design, the weight increased to 6,790t. This increase has significantly contributed to the C$8bn ($6.06bn) difference in the two project cost estimates.

The updated plan cost includes project development, production, two years of spare parts and ammunition, training, government programme management, and upgrades to existing facilities.

Irving Shipbuilding is the prime contractor of the surface combatant project. The company awarded a subcontract to Lockheed Martin Canada to design the CSC vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy.

The Combat Ship Team responsible for design includes Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems, CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA, and Ultra Electronics Maritime Systems.

Construction of the first ship under the CSC project is scheduled to take place in the early 2020s.


 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
LoboCanada said:
News that I can't quote here suggesting the PBO is looking at the CSC program and specific alternatives such as the FREMM proposition (rejected) and the Type 31 (Light Frigates as I think of them).

FREMM proposition where Naval Group builds 3 or so in Europe and the rest at Irving but at a halved price of $30B. I don't see how sending money to foreign yards builds up our industry... Isn't this the biggest reason the shipbuilding program exists? As an industrial program and not as much a RCN/CCG one? I think the Irving lobby would do a fair amount of lobbying against this.

Type 31, wasn't considered for a good reason, as it doesn't do the job as well and faced the same criticisms as the Type 26 in not being commissioned or afloat yet.

The more likely way this ends is that the gov't has a good reason to save some money here and build 4-5 Type 26 as 'Light DDGs' and 8-10 Type 31 'GP/Light Frigates'.
I would be fine if they reconsidered the FREMM offer just based on cost, given the current situation and the fact that we still get a very good ship and I thought we recently established that the quote was for a complete ship.
 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
Oldgateboatdriver said:
I think every one knows I am not an Irving fan. This said, the situation described by spencer100 has nothing to do with Irving.

The difference between the US purchase of FREMMs and Canada's planned purchase is that the US is only buying the hull and the power plant. The combat systems, weapons systems, navigation systems, consoles for the sensors, all sensors and, I believe, even the IMPS, are all provided to the manufacturer by the US Navy (Navsea to be exact) for fitting into the hull/power plant.

In Canada, we are buying the whole complete package.

That's a big difference because there is little IP in the hull and power plant. It mostly resides in what is provided by the US government. So for the French to have transferred full IP on these other systems would have been a major renunciation of IP rights, as compared with the ones they are relinquishing to the US, which are minor in comparison.

I don't think the French would have trusted anyone with such a transfer, not just Irving, so long as the Canadian deal had to be through the yard with the overall contract to build the CSC. They may have been amenable to providing it directly to the Government of Canada, with the said government assuming responsibility to the French government for safe keeping of the IP, but I think that option was confirmed as being off the table by the GoC.
Yes, this was my understanding, that they rejected transferring the IP to Irving, but would have done the deal in the way they bid the project and it was for the complete package, systems included.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
815
Points
1,010
LoboCanada said:
News that I can't quote here suggesting the PBO is looking at the CSC program and specific alternatives such as the FREMM proposition (rejected) and the Type 31 (Light Frigates as I think of them).

FREMM proposition where Naval Group builds 3 or so in Europe and the rest at Irving but at a halved price of $30B. I don't see how sending money to foreign yards builds up our industry... Isn't this the biggest reason the shipbuilding program exists? As an industrial program and not as much a RCN/CCG one? I think the Irving lobby would do a fair amount of lobbying against this.

Type 31, wasn't considered for a good reason, as it doesn't do the job as well and faced the same criticisms as the Type 26 in not being commissioned or afloat yet.

The more likely way this ends is that the gov't has a good reason to save some money here and build 4-5 Type 26 as 'Light DDGs' and 8-10 Type 31 'GP/Light Frigates'.

From what I understand they are looking at the procurement process for those two other ship programs, not to replace the CSC but to get comparisons for the process.  The CSC is to far gone down the line to be replaced at this point, but it certainly can be cut back.

Type 31 wasn't chosen because it didn't exist at the time, and wasn't bid.  The UK was still going to build all Type 26.

The FREMM wasn't chosen because mainly the reasons you stated so they were unable to bid under the terms of the program.  They opted for trying to embarrass Canada instead. Interestingly enough they seemed to have no compliance issues with the US (mainly I think because they are providing the hull and all combat systems are Gov't Supplied Equipment for that program).
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,789
Points
1,160
Underway said:
Interestingly enough they seemed to have no compliance issues with the US (mainly I think because they are providing the hull and all combat systems are Gov't Supplied Equipment for that program).

Because FFG(X) doesn’t have the same requirements as CSC.  Canada will never have DDGs (or CGs, etc.) so CSC is the Capital Ship requirement.
 

Spencer100

Sr. Member
Reaction score
28
Points
280
Good2Golf said:
Because FFG(X) doesn’t have the same requirements as CSC.  Canada will never have DDGs (or CGs, etc.) so CSC is the Capital Ship requirement.

I would say if the CSC was in the water now it would be more that everyone else's DDG's (other than USN, SK, Japan.) Like the Hobert's are going to be stronger in many ways than the RAN's Air warfare destroyers.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,789
Points
1,160
Spencer100 said:
I would say if the CSC was in the water now it would be more that everyone else's DDG's (other than USN, SK, Japan.) Like the Hobert's are going to be stronger in many ways than the RAN's Air warfare destroyers.

Agree, was specifically thinking of them not being Arleigh Burkes or Zumwalts.

Regards
G2G
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
30
Points
530
True enough, although there is some possibility of an AAW Type 26 eventually replacing the Daring class which the UK classify as as a DDG although it is on the mid range of missile load out. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-type-4x-destroyer-an-early-look-at-an-early-concept/?fbclid=IwAR3t0s90YX-OgP3hiGt3RVQlkw0rX_FHSLO-U06Tzazp8B5ajPFH12b7yws


About the FREMM and Type 31, the mission bay of the T26 was a notable item on the bucket list for the RCN. Do either of those ships compare the same or are they a pale shade of the T26. Also, CCS was (as I understood things) a non-starter for the FREMM proposal.

Cheers
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,789
Points
1,160
CC, amazing that T45 only has 10-15 years left in it...so used to seeing 40-50 year cycles, not 20-25.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
76
Points
560
Looks like building and delivery of CSCs (first delivery still officially "Mid 2020s" https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/canadian-surface-combatant.html) slipping further into never never land with COVID-19, Irving (and others will now get this work); by 2040s Halifax-class will be about as ancient as CCG's icebreakers are now):

Canada to spend $1.5B to maintain its fleet of frigates well into 2040s

The federal government announced Tuesday a $1.5-billion program for maintenance contracts with shipyards in three provinces to keep Canada’s fleet of 12 frigates operational until a new generation of warships replaces them in the 2040s.

The Davie shipyard in Quebec and Seaspan Victoria Shipyards in British Columbia were each awarded a $500-million contract for maintenance work on the country’s fleet of Halifax-class frigates.

“These frigates were brought into service beginning in 1992 and now form the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy,” Public Services and Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough said in Victoria, B.C., Tuesday.

“The workers here at this shipyard will be using your skills and talents to support the Royal Canadian Navy, making sure our women and men in uniform have the ships they need to carry out important missions at home and abroad.”

A similar deal with Irving Shipyards in Nova Scotia is being finalized now [emphasis added], the government said.

The contracts announced Tuesday cover a five-year period, with the value expected to rise as the government adds more work [emphasis added], officials said.

Jeff Collins, a Fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and a researcher on Canadian defence procurement, said these refits are designed to ensure that the Royal Candian Navy (RCN) maintains a combat capable surface fleet to the 2040s, when the first of the new Canadian Surface Combatants – to be built by Irving in Halifax – begin entering into service.

“The Halifax-class are now arguably past the mid-life point of their operational lives, especially when looking at those initial ships that rolled out in the early 1990s,” Collins said.

“As we know from the Iroquois class destroyers and original Protecteur class replenishment ships, the older the ships the higher the maintenance costs will be.”

Docking maintenance work periods are critical to ensure the RCN has at least eight of its 12 patrol frigates ready for deployment at all times, officials said Tuesday.

“This contract is different from the $4.3 billion modernization and frigate life extension program that took place in Irving and Seaspan between 2010-2018,” Collins said.

The Halifax-class Modernization/Frigate Life Extension (HCM/FELEX) program saw the replacement and updating of combat and operational equipment, Collins said.

The Canadian frigates, which were commissioned between 1992 and 1996 [emphasis added], also got a new sea-to-land strike missile capability, something the warships did not have initially, he said...

Timothy Choi, a maritime strategy expert at the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies, said that while the life extension program focused on the weapons and certain electronic systems, they left the more mundane hull, mechanical, and engineering improvements mostly untouched [emphasis added].

“That’s what these latest batch of refits will focus on, though some combat systems improvements will also be carried out such as the Naval Remote Weapon System,” Choi said.

The deal is another major win for Davie shipyard, which bills itself as “Canada’s largest, longest-established and highest capacity shipbuilder.”

Davie was left out of Canada’s massive naval procurement program in 2011 because it was suffering from financial troubles at the time.

But it has since advocated to be allowed to participate in the wider program...

Collins said one of the unanswered questions for him is what happens if work on the new Canadian Surface Combatants is delayed and the Halifax-class frigates require another round of comprehensive modifications to their combat and operating systems similar to work carried out in 2010-2018 [emphasis added].

“Such work is very complex, involves multiple prime contractors and a careful dance of rotating ships in and out to ensure RCN operational capability,” Collins said.

Irving and Seaspan have the institutional knowledge and relationships in place to undertake this but both, especially Irving, will be busy with completing their existing orders for the navy and the Canadian Coast Guard, Collins said.

“There will likely be a premium to be paid to move that work to Davie and in a time of massive government spending and, I am sure, later, deficit reductions, is that a premium a government of any stripe will pay?” Collins said.
https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2020/08/12/canada-to-spend-1-5b-to-maintain-its-fleet-of-frigates-well-into-2040s/

Mark
Ottawa
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
I think you (and that journalist too) are misunderstanding the situation.

The current plan (no change announced at any point,or even inkling that there would be changes) calls fro the first CSC to hit the water around mid-2020's, with one new ship coming off the line every year after that for fifteen years. One HALIFAX will retire for each CSC coming online. So we will start decommissioning HALIFAX frigates around mid 2020's and keep decommissioning them as the CSC's come on line.

Basically, the current plan already calls for the last serving HALIFAX to retire around 2040. This is just letting out the contracts for their maintenance to that date.
 

JMCanada

Member
Reaction score
38
Points
380
LoboCanada said:
The more likely way this ends is that the gov't has a good reason to save some money here and build 4-5 Type 26 as 'Light DDGs' and 8-10 Type 31 'GP/Light Frigates'.

The UK said they were going to build 8x T26 plus 5x T31s. Up to now have order only 3 & 5 respectively. Wouldn't be much surprised to finally see 6 + 8 due to the high cost of the T26.
Similarly the RCN could end up with 6-9 x T26 and 9-6 x T31 or equivalent, but at least no less than six units of the T26. However with BAE and LM out of the T31, there may be strong reaction to change or move away from the original plans of 15x T26 units.

On the other hand, nobody has mentioned Navantia proposal which...
- was one of the three contenders
- F110 (some 6300 tonnes) has 240 sq.m of multimission bay
- will fit same SPY(7) Aegis radar as the CSC
- has a similar CODLAG propulsion scheme as the CSC, with 11.5 MW electric power.
- might supply (as per some rumours) 2 additional F110 ASW frigates to Norway to replace the Helge Ingstad. Actually Norway has recently signed a contract with Navantia to upgrade/adapt one frigate to warmer seas (and weather).
 
Top