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

New Canadian Shipbuilding Strategy

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
I believe she was an all-aluminium construction - a material that western navies abandoned for military vessels after the Falkland conflict because it's combustion temperature is too low in relation to the intensity resulting form the types of fires that modern missiles can cause.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
384
Points
930
Took that ship from Dili to Darwin during OP TOUCAN back at the turn of the century. She actually came alongside us while we (PROTECTEUR) was at anchor in Dili Harbour to refuel.

My fav blog has a good story on the attack and the resulting discussion regarding operations in the littoral.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-near-death-nature-of-near-shore.html

 

AlexanderM

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
160
FSTO said:
Took that ship from Dili to Darwin during OP TOUCAN back at the turn of the century. She actually came alongside us while we (PROTECTEUR) was at anchor in Dili Harbour to refuel.

My fav blog has a good story on the attack and the resulting discussion regarding operations in the littoral.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-near-death-nature-of-near-shore.html
The article brings up the issue of the time it takes to engage at such close range, when there is almost no time, but did that ship have any missile defense systems?  Point being, are there not systems that can respond quickly, but then one has to have them?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
736
Points
1,060
Colin P said:
a good reminder on going to light http://gcaptain.com/photos-show-catastrophic-damage-to-hsv-swift-following-missile-attack/?utm_campaign=Roost&utm_source=Roost&utm_medium=push

CuBkhkhVYAEUXM0.jpg

A good reminder of horses for courses.  Set aside that this vessel was leased for civilian purposes from a civilian company and operated by a civilian company.

You might as well argue for keeping RHIBs out of the water.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,791
Points
940
In that region it goes like this: "Your either on our side, or your the enemy, we don't care if your a civilian, leased or just visiting this planet..."
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
736
Points
1,060
True dat...

But it doesn't change the fact that the vessel itself is not the problem.  Inflatable rhibs, wooden dhows, aluminum ferries, steel oil tankers.  None them are immune and all of them use those waters.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
Actually, Chris, at least three of those steel hulled (steel everything really) tankers, that I know of, made it to their final destination during Gulf War I to find out that they had actually hit mines in the Gulf without noticing, and with little damage to show for it.

I know the characteristics of the missiles that allegedly hit the old HSV-2 in the present case and, IMHO, they would have just bounced off oil tanker's hulls without anybody feeling the least thing, other than seeing a small (by tankers standard) ball of flames along the hull followed by ... nothing. And they would have just kept on going.

In fact, I suspect that type of missile, allegedly used, would have done little damage to any Western frigate.

And AlexanderM: Yes, self-defence systems, such as decoys or point-defence system (such as a Phalanx) would likely have saved that ship, had they been equipped with it. But there is one caveat here: in mid-ocean, we can put these systems on full automatic and the reaction time is excellent. In close waters of the littoral, in an area with some air activity in particular, a human must be in the loop  to avoid accidents - and that means that the reaction time and actual shooting down of the oncoming missile is delayed by that much, with potential consequences. It probably cuts your timely reaction time by half.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,791
Points
940
More info on the Swift attack and on the latest attack on the USN https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Colin P said:
More info on the Swift attack and on the latest attack on the USN https://news.usni.org/2016/10/11/uss-mason-fired-3-missiles-to-defend-from-yemen-cruise-missiles-attack

Make me curious just how close that first missile got if they fired both SM-2s and an ESSM. (If they fired an ESSM, then pretty damn close!)

If they needed to fire an ESSM, what does say about the efficacy of the SM-2, especially against C-802s?
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,791
Points
940
Methinks there is a lot of people scurrying around looking at what has happened and what is happening. None them will or should divulge lessons learned, we can only hope they are learning and adapting.
 

Good2Golf

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
2,717
Points
1,160
jollyjacktar said:
An excellent article on some of the innovations and economic spin offs of our shipbuilding industry, CPF in particular.

Canadian Naval Technology
Earns Global Sales

Thanks for that link...very interesting.  I didn't know about the maritime origin of Davis Engineering's IRSS; I thought  was aerospace based.  Cool.

Regards
G2G 
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
714
Points
940
and there off,

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-competition-1.3812705



The Trudeau government is now ready to solicit bids from defence contractors interested in designing and equipping Canada's next generation of combat ships.

And it is demanding an extraordinary amount of detail and data from those companies, some of which have waited years for the program to get underway.

Even before the ink is dry on the proposal request, there are concerns among some bidders about how much Canadian content will end up in the new surface combat ships.

The federal cabinet has given the green light to release a long-anticipated request for proposals for an off-the-shelf warship design and combat systems.

Pre-qualified defence companies are expected to receive their packages on Thursday and the government is anticipated to follow up with a technical briefing to explain the details to the public.

The bidders have until April 27 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.

CBC News has obtained partial extracts of the draft request for proposal, which has been the subject of intense backroom debate among potential bidders.

The document — dated Oct. 9, 2016 — asks for an exceptional amount of detail and clearly displays the amount of control Irving is exercising over the bidders and potential subcontractors.
High stakes for taxpayers

The stakes for Canadian taxpayers are enormous and the Liberal government has wrestled, since coming to power a year ago, to get a handle on the project, expected to be the most expensive under the umbrella of the National Shipbuilding Strategy.

Internal estimates produced last year in the transition between the Conservative and Liberal governments suggest the construction cost for 15 warships could exceed $40 billion. In addition, another $60 billion — or more — could be added to the price tag when lifetime maintenance and staffing requirements going decades into the future are considered, as the auditor general has insisted.

Public Works Minister Judy Foote said last May the government won't release a cost estimate until there is a signed contract in the program, which is expected to be the largest procurement in Canadian history.

The cone of silence also extends to the draft request for proposals, which prohibits bidders and their subcontractors from talking to the media about the project, unless they receive written approval from Irving.

There's also an attempt to keep a lid on the cutthroat competition.

"Neither the bidders, nor any of their respective subcontractors, employees or representatives shall 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," said the proposal, obtained by CBC News.

The navy is looking for a warship with the capability of hunting submarines, but also defending against enemy aircraft and missiles. It is expected to be swift enough to keep up with U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups and be armed with both a single 127-millimetre gun and surface-to-surface missiles of its own.

The new surface combatants will also carry up to 200 sailors and have the deck space available to allow for the conduct of humanitarian missions, such as the at-sea rescue of migrants.

The Liberals, like the Conservatives before them, have also not committed to building a specific number of warships, which are not expected to enter service until the mid-2020s.

Rather than designing a replacement for the navy's patrol frigates from scratch, the government chose last spring to go with a proven warship design from another country.

Expected bidders include:

    Alion-JJMA Corp. (U.S.).
    Lockheed Martin (U.S.).
    BAE Systems Surface Ships Ltd. (Britain).
    DCNS (France).
    Fincantieri (Spain).
    Navantia (Spain).
    Odense Maritime Technology (Denmark).
    ThyssenKrupp Marine Systems (Germany).

Some are ship designers, while other build electronics.
Backroom battles

There have been numerous backroom brawls leading up to the release of the request for proposals, including concerns about how much high-end Canadian-made electronics — known as systems integration — will go into the new warships.

Sources, who are close to the file but only able to speak on background, tell CBC News that L-3 Communications Canada has written a letter, supported by some of the other bidders, warning the government no significant Canadian content — radar, sonar and communications — will end up in the surface combatants unless the foreign designers are forced to work with a company from this country.

The evaluation process, however, gives points to companies with higher Canadian content.

The request for proposals demands that each bidder supply an eye-watering amount of detail, including the number of "fasteners" that would be used to build each ship, including all anchors, bolts, nails, nuts, rivets and rods. The government also wants part numbers and descriptions about what tools will be used.

Some contractors see it as "an utterly incredible request," according to sources, who say "a lot of trees will die" in order to supply paper for the presentation. Some of the companies that bid on the air force's fixed-wing search and rescue plane program last January faced similar demands for detail, to the point where two bidders hired moving vans just to deliver their presentations to Public Works.

But officials working on the warship program insist — since it is an off-the-shelf design — each bidder should have all of that detailed information at their fingertips and it helps refine cost projections.

There has been a bruising fight over the federal government's demand that each contractor hand over intellectual property rights or all of the foreground and background data that goes into each design. An earlier draft of the plan said bidders would be disqualified if they failed to do so, but federal officials have agreed to a compromise.

The issue is of enormous importance because of the lucrative long-term maintenance contracts that will follow the construction.

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

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,791
Points
940
To deliver the proper aid packages on Humanitarian missions you really need a 155mm gun.

Seaspan advises it's OFSV is at 50% complete for the first ship, 12% for the 2nd, the 3rd one will start late 2016 and layout and planning underway for the Science vessel.
 

tabernac

Sr. Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
[quote author=http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-competition-1.3812705]
The navy is looking for a warship with the capability of hunting submarines, but also defending against enemy aircraft and missiles. It is expected to be swift enough to keep up with U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups and be armed with both a single 127-millimetre gun and surface-to-surface missiles of its own. The new surface combatants will also carry up to 200 sailors and have the deck space available to allow for the conduct of humanitarian missions, such as the at-sea rescue of migrants.
[/quote]

Interesting. This is the first I've heard of tangible requirements for the CSC being published in the media. On the surface, it appears a cross of OMT's Iver Huifeldt combat systems equipment fit with Absalon's A mount and flex deck would fit the bill.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
42
Points
530
Blah blah blah blah blah blah 127mm GUN!!! blah blah blah blah blah.

This is how I saw the article.

:D
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
246
Points
680
Actually, if these are the overall requirements, and the intent is still for a "off-the-shelf" design - which explains why the listing must be detailed to the point of having the exact number of attachments (a ridiculous idea that can only come from a ignorant builder, like Irving) - as they supposedly "have already built one", then they will have failed because the combination of these requirements eliminate everybody.

I also note that there does not seem to be a call for two different variants - a GP variant and then a Command/AAD version, as was originally envisaged. Also, there is no mention of any capacity to operate in ice: wasn't that supposed to be a future Canadian requirement for all warships?

Anyway, assuming the following are the models proposed by the various bidders, let's see how they meet or fail to meet some requirements:

BAE --> Type 26 (or type 45?)
DCNS --> FREMM or Horizon
Fincantieri --> FREMM or Horizon, Italian versions.
Navantia --> F100 or Hobart
Odense --> Iver Huitfeldt
Thyssen Grup --> Type 125

Out of that group, only the following have a 127 mm/5 inch gun: Type 26, Type 45, Italian FREMM - GP version only, F100, Hobart.

But you have to add the requirement of keeping up with US aircraft carrier groups. This means speed of 30 Kts (the Americans would probably prefer something closer to the Arleigh Burke's 34 Kts sustained speed capability). For inclusion's sake, I will accept those who advertise a speed of 29+ Kts.

In the group with a 127/5 gun, the only one with a speed of 29 Kts + is Fincantieri's FREMM - but that is for the GP version only, which has a limited ASW suite, and cannot meet the requirement for a "humanitarian mission deck".

In fact, the Iver Huitfeld would probably be the easiest one of all these to adapt for  a 127 mm gun in lieu of its 76 mm one, but it would have to be moved forward and lower. And the IH has the speed required (only one rated at 30 Kts out of the lot). However, if you marry it to the Abalone's flex deck for humanitarian relief, then you lose four knots and can't keep up with the US, and you also have to drop the ASW suite. Otherwise, you don't have the room to accommodate the flex deck. The Type 26 would be close to all the requirements if it wasn't for it's speed, which is way too low at 26 Kts. Improving with more powerful engines and associated gearboxes would be a complex matter, and likely expansive.

Ergo, my conclusion that, contrary to advertised intent, any proposal by the bidders will, by necessity, require a modified version of what they already have built, with the consequence that they won't be as precise as Irving may want them to be. And that's only for a few major requirements.  The detailed requirements will necessarily require changes to any of the designs thatch be proposed by these bidders, if only for things like shipboard fire fighting fitted systems (the Europeans don't use the same sizes as we do), or the electrical distribution systems (we use 125 v, they use 230 v.), etc. 
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
736
Points
1,060
Oldgateboatdriver said:
..., only the following have a 127 mm/5 inch gun: Type 26, Type 45, Italian FREMM - GP version only, F100, Hobart.

Iver Huitfeldt is fitted for the 5"
https://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iver_Huitfeldt-klassen

This frigate is also armed with two OTO Melara 76-mm guns. Also there is a single 35-mm Oerlikon Millennium Close-In Weapon System (CIWS). The last mentioned is an advanced weapon system. It has a rate of fire of a whooping 1 000 rpm and uses special air-burst ammunition to destroy incoming missiles. It is planned that in the future the two 76-mm guns will be replaced by a more potent 127-mm gun and additional 35-mm CIWS.
http://www.military-today.com/navy/iver_huitfeldt_class.htm

....

In the group with a 127/5 gun, the only one with a speed of 29 Kts + is Fincantieri's FREMM - but that is for the GP version only, which has a limited ASW suite, and cannot meet the requirement for a "humanitarian mission deck".

In fact, the Iver Huitfeld would probably be the easiest one of all these to adapt for  a 127 mm gun in lieu of its 76 mm one, but it would have to be moved forward and lower. And the IH has the speed required (only one rated at 30 Kts out of the lot). However, if you marry it to the Abalone's flex deck for humanitarian relief, then you lose four knots and can't keep up with the US, and you also have to drop the ASW suite. Otherwise, you don't have the room to accommodate the flex deck. The Type 26 would be close to all the requirements if it wasn't for it's speed, which is way too low at 26 Kts. Improving with more powerful engines and associated gearboxes would be a complex matter, and likely expansive.

Ergo, my conclusion that, contrary to advertised intent, any proposal by the bidders will, by necessity, require a modified version of what they already have built, with the consequence that they won't be as precise as Irving may want them to be. And that's only for a few major requirements.  The detailed requirements will necessarily require changes to any of the designs thatch be proposed by these bidders, if only for things like shipboard fire fighting fitted systems (the Europeans don't use the same sizes as we do), or the electrical distribution systems (we use 125 v, they use 230 v.), etc.


Odense Maritime Technology (Iver Huitfeldt)

Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) -- Marine Engineering and Naval Architecture Provider
Responsible for the engineering, design and integration of all aspects of the AOPS with the exception of propulsion, and command and surveillance systems
http://www.irvingshipbuilding.com/irving-shipbuilding-supplires-aops-subcontractors.aspx

Do you lose 4 knots because Absalon has the flex deck or because she only has half the engines that the Huitfeldt has

Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each vs two of the same engines?




 
Top