• 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
255
Points
880
The four knots are lost as a result of having half the engines but it leads to using a lesser strength of steel on the Absalon than on the Ivar Huitfeldt.

However, on the Absaslon, the second engine room (with the other two engines and one larger DG) is used as mess decks for habitation. On the Ivar Huitfeldt, these mess decks are pushed into the flex deck area. Similarly, the ASW systems at the stern of the IH take some of the room of the flex deck. Finally, the Absalon does not have a traversing system for the helicopters - IH does and obviously, to operate a large helicopter such as the Canadian CH-148 Cyclone in the North Atlantic for ASW, you need the traversing gear and the air stores and shops. All these take the rest of the flex deck room.

BTW, the IH is not "fitted for" the 5 inch gun. There is an intention (and some of the sub-systems are located to help) of replacing the two 76 mm guns with a single 5 inch gun at a later time. But it's one or the other and the 5 inch gun is not as good as two 76 mm guns for anti-air defence or for asymmetrical warfare against small high speed boats. The 5 inch gun is obviously superior for surface warfare against large armed ship and for naval gun support of troops on shore. Either is a compromise, but the IH cannot have both a 5 inch and retain one 76 mm.

There is another aspect, and I don't know to what extent it would come into play because the requirement to work with a US carrier group seems something new, but with four diesels instead of gas turbines for higher speeds, the IH has a considerably slower acceleration / braking power curve and those are two extremely important aspects when operating with American carriers (lest one wishes to be runneth over). I don't know how that would affect the evaluation.

Finally, if you look at what Odense is doing for the AOPS, when you eliminate propulsion, command and surveillance system, it basically is providing the architecture work for the hull and living spaces, period. I would not necessarily see that as a leg up on the others. I hope that ultimately, it is the Canadian government and the Navy who decides the design it wants, not Irving. (in which case we would get the design that Irving can produce with the greatest differential between it's real low cost and how much - based on looks and gobbledygook - Irving can get the government to agree to spend, including all "justifiable" extras  :nod:).
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
2,025
Points
940
I find it odd that Davie does not show the progress on the Resolve Class AOR? According to their schedule, sometime next year it should be ready.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
834
Points
1,060
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The four knots are lost as a result of having half the engines but it leads to using a lesser strength of steel on the Absalon than on the Ivar Huitfeldt.

However, on the Absaslon, the second engine room (with the other two engines and one larger DG) is used as mess decks for habitation. On the Ivar Huitfeldt, these mess decks are pushed into the flex deck area. Similarly, the ASW systems at the stern of the IH take some of the room of the flex deck. Finally, the Absalon does not have a traversing system for the helicopters - IH does and obviously, to operate a large helicopter such as the Canadian CH-148 Cyclone in the North Atlantic for ASW, you need the traversing gear and the air stores and shops. All these take the rest of the flex deck room.

BTW, the IH is not "fitted for" the 5 inch gun. There is an intention (and some of the sub-systems are located to help) of replacing the two 76 mm guns with a single 5 inch gun at a later time. But it's one or the other and the 5 inch gun is not as good as two 76 mm guns for anti-air defence or for asymmetrical warfare against small high speed boats. The 5 inch gun is obviously superior for surface warfare against large armed ship and for naval gun support of troops on shore. Either is a compromise, but the IH cannot have both a 5 inch and retain one 76 mm.

There is another aspect, and I don't know to what extent it would come into play because the requirement to work with a US carrier group seems something new, but with four diesels instead of gas turbines for higher speeds, the IH has a considerably slower acceleration / braking power curve and those are two extremely important aspects when operating with American carriers (lest one wishes to be runneth over). I don't know how that would affect the evaluation.

Finally, if you look at what Odense is doing for the AOPS, when you eliminate propulsion, command and surveillance system, it basically is providing the architecture work for the hull and living spaces, period. I would not necessarily see that as a leg up on the others. I hope that ultimately, it is the Canadian government and the Navy who decides the design it wants, not Irving. (in which case we would get the design that Irving can produce with the greatest differential between it's real low cost and how much - based on looks and gobbledygook - Irving can get the government to agree to spend, including all "justifiable" extras  :nod:).

Thanks OGBD.

Devilish details.

I have been working from this information:

Additional Notes
The foredeck (A-position) is prepared for an installation of a 127 mm Gun Mk M/02 LvSa (5” Mk 45 Mod 4), the B-position is containerized and can eventually be fitted with an additional 35 mm CIWS Mk M/04 LvSa.

http://www.navalhistory.dk/English/TheShips/Classes/IverHuitfeldt_Class(2012).htm

As to what OMT is providing - I would hope that it's scope of supply would include project management and scheduling.  Because that is what enabled OMT to build the vessels rapidly and cost-efffectively at a civilian yard.....Which may prove your point.  They are doing it the Irving way instead.
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
48
Points
530
I'm not sure I understand why there has to be so much compromise...

The CPFs fit all of the requirements listed, with the exception of having a 5" gun, and not having extra space for "Humanitarian" assistance. Otherwise, they're good at hunting subs, swift enough to keep up with U.S. aircraft carrier battle groups (trust me, been there), and armed with the best surface-to-surface missiles that we can get.

If I recall, wasn't there a plan in the 90s for the first 3 in the Halifax-class to have an extra watertight section? That could be used for "humanitarian" assistance packages. As for the 5" gun requirement, I'm not naval architect; how much work would it be to lengthen the focsle, add some structural reinforcements, and tack on a 5" in place of the 57mm?

What I'm getting at is... Halifax-Class 2.0?
 

hugh19

Full Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
No the extension was for a Mk 41 VLS.  No you can't replace a 57mm with a 127mm without major mods and losing mess deck space. 127mm penetrate the deck the 57 doesn't
 

Lumber

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
48
Points
530
sledge said:
No the extension was for a Mk 41 VLS.  No you can't replace a 57mm with a 127mm without major mods and losing mess deck space. 127mm penetrate the deck the 57 doesn't

I didn't mean modify an existing Halifax-class. I meant have a warship designed that is basically the CPF, but with a slight longer focsle to accommodate a 127mm, and an added section in the middle for additional "humanitarian" space. Then build that ship from the ground up.
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
227
Points
630
Lumber said:
I'm not sure I understand why there has to be so much compromise...

how much work would it be to lengthen the focsle, add some structural reinforcements, and tack on a 5" in place of the 57mm?

What I'm getting at is... Halifax-Class 2.0?

Ask a local welder and he'll have it done in a couple of weeks, ask Irving and it will double the cost of the hull and add two years to the development time
 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
369
Points
1,010
Oldgateboatdriver said:
[snip]

However, on the Absaslon, the second engine room (with the other two engines and one larger DG) is used as mess decks for habitation. On the Ivar Huitfeldt, these mess decks are pushed into the flex deck area. Similarly, the ASW systems at the stern of the IH take some of the room of the flex deck. Finally, the Absalon does not have a traversing system for the helicopters - IH does and obviously, to operate a large helicopter such as the Canadian CH-148 Cyclone in the North Atlantic for ASW, you need the traversing gear and the air stores and shops. All these take the rest of the flex deck room.

[snip]

My understanding is that the Iver Huitfeldt actually has one less deck than the Absalon, so if you used the IH's lengthened hull c/w ASW system and added back the additional deck of the Absalon (to regain the Flex Deck capability) you could meet most of the requirements listed.  No idea how much the traversing system for the helicopters takes, but would it still leave you enough room for a useable flex deck?  Also, I'm wondering if the re-introduction of an additional deck to the basic IH design might reduce the overall speed even with the 4 x diesel engines.

My reference for this is from:  http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivar-huitfeldt-class/

"The exterior is easily distinguished from Absalon Class as the Iver Huitfeldt is one deck lower, and lacks an internal multipurpose deck (flex deck)."
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
255
Points
880
Not quite GR66.

The Absalon's hull is higher by about one deck, but it does not have an extra deck internally. The extra height of the formed hull is required because you need the extra head space to use the flex deck for its purpose. Think of the standard height of a deck or passageway on one of our frigates: you would not be able to fit an army truck, or container, or any other large earth moving equipment for disaster relief in such a low height. so below deck, the flex deck is actually double height to accommodate this type of equipment.

However, if you retain that extra hull height for the "frigate" version, the problem becomes too much top weight and you can't accommodate heavy mast equipment (same reason BTW why the FELEX could not fit the APAR/SMART-L combination Canada would have preferred over the SMART-S).

Again here, if you wish to take part of one and fit it in the other, you run into serious re-design and engineering issues of stability, etc., etc., etc.

All I was saying is, every time you want to modify something from the actual design used, you run into producing something new - even if it looks similar on the outside - and you are not designing "off-the-shelf" anymore, with the consequences on costs saving from "having done it before" being lost.

For instance, from a fitted equipment/flex deck combination point of view, the closest design in the mix would be the Type 26 global frigate, but it's too slow. But to up-engine it for speed would be a major redesign, as aspects such as gearboxes, clutches, cooling systems, hull strength (what class of high tensile steel to use) and so forth are all affected by the power curve of the fitted engines.

As I noted before, nothing in naval engineering/naval architecture is as simple as it may look to outsiders, and little is as "off-the-shelf" as one would like it.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
834
Points
1,060
Oldgateboatdriver said:
.....

As I noted before, nothing in naval engineering/naval architecture is as simple as it may look to outsiders, and little is as "off-the-shelf" as one would like it.

I think that largely depends on whether you want a fitted suit or a pair of coveralls.

The more freeboard that you leave in the design the easier it is to incorporate the unexpected.  In which case buying the T45 design and not using all its "capacity" would be a better strategy than buying the T26 design which would be "tight" from the get go.

Having said that - the T45's power and electrics do not tend to give one the "warm-fuzzies".
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
56
Points
330
Lumber said:
If I recall, wasn't there a plan in the 90s for the first 3 in the Halifax-class to have an extra watertight section? That could be used for "humanitarian" assistance packages. As for the 5" gun requirement, I'm not naval architect; how much work would it be to lengthen the focsle, add some structural reinforcements, and tack on a 5" in place of the 57mm?
Wasn't there also something, very much along this line (new-build stretched CPF), floated by DND as a Halifax replacement late 90s/early 2000s, several iterations of policy before the "new shipbuilding strategy" and the current CSC process?
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
sledge said:
No the extension was for a Mk 41 VLS.  No you can't replace a 57mm with a 127mm without major mods and losing mess deck space. 127mm penetrate the deck the 57 doesn't

Batch 2 design of the CPF program did have an extra 32' in hull length, indeed for the Mk 41 VLS, and the ship was to be fitted with additional systems so that it could function as an AAW fleet defence role. That was cancelled, and the design for the most part reverted back to the Batch 1 design. I think Montreal was the first of the Batch 2 ships. There was, for a brief time in (i think) 1989 or 1990 an idea for a 3rd Batch of 4 (6?) ships that was essentially the stretched version the original design, had a VLS and the same 57mm gun, I recall seeing a proposed design sketch at Black Rock where it had only a flight deck for a helo and no hanger. Anyway, it was either never fully designed, or if it was, it was shelved very quickly thereafter. But,  that type of ship was definitely announced on the parade square at Nelles as a government commitment along with, if you can remember this classic idea- the 2500 tonne corvette known as the Canadian Surveillance and Sovereignty Enforcement Vessel.  I think all of this was a little much for Canadian shipyards who were struggling to to produce the CPF on time, had the MCDV on order, were dealing the idea of either nuclear or AIP submarines, refitting the 280's etc. A rare time when there was too much work for the shipyards. 

BTW, in the early 1970's there was an idea put forward (with other options) to replace the entire surface fleet with only 4 ships. Large vessels of 10,000 tonnes with - get this- space and landing spots for 9 helicopters: http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vo9/no1/10-haydon-eng.asp

A copy of the concept picture for this vessel was in the Chiefs office at Black Rock, I think he took it with him when he retired in 1987. 
 

MikeKiloPapa

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oldgateboatdriver said:
The four knots are lost as a result of having half the engines but it leads to using a lesser strength of steel on the Absalon than on the Ivar Huitfeldt.

Rubbish !!....While its true that the Absalon class uses a lower grade base steel than the Huitfeldts, around all of the vital areas of the vessel , ie the CIC, weapons deck, ammo stores, engine control room , bridge , guns etc they use the same thicker armor steel ( ARMOX) as the frigates......and none of it has anything to do with their speed or number of engines.

However, on the Absaslon, the second engine room (with the other two engines and one larger DG) is used as mess decks for habitation.

It most certainly isn't......like the frigates, the Absalon has 2 separate engine rooms and with a very similar layout but with only 1 ME and 2 DG in each instead of the 2+2 of the Huitfeldts.

On the Ivar Huitfeldt, these mess decks are pushed into the flex deck area
.

Again...no....oh and its Iver not Ivar !......and lets just get one thing straight ......contrary to what you claim the Absalons does indeed have 1 more deck than the frigates and each of those is somewhat smaller/lower than on the Huitfeldts. So their internal arrangements/layout is actually quite different to each other which is why your statement makes no sense.

Similarly, the ASW systems at the stern of the IH take some of the room of the flex deck
.

No...see above.....IH is not fitted with a TAS/VDS system but prepared for one by reserving space for it.....just like on the Absalon. Not in any way shape or form related to the presence or absence of a flex deck!

Finally, the Absalon does not have a traversing system for the helicopters
Yes it does.....like all helicopter carrying ships in the RDN it is equipped with Mactaggart Scotts TRIGON handling system.

BTW, the IH is not "fitted for" the 5 inch gun.

Yes it is!........The only thing needed to fit a MK45 mod 4 is to remove the adapter ring that is used to mount the current 76mm Oto ....everything from the base mount, space beneath the gun , ammo stores and hoists, to electrical interface  etc is designed for and with a 5" gun in mind.

There is an intention (and some of the sub-systems are located to help) of replacing the two 76 mm guns with a single 5 inch gun at a later time.

Incorrect.....there was an intention to replace the  A position (called P1 in RDN parlor) 76mm gun with a MK45 and then fitting an additional 35mm Millenium CIWS in the B gun position(P2..currently fitted with the other 76mm in a Stan Flex container) , mirroring the fitout on the Absalons.......however those plans seems to have been quietly shelved, partly because the 2x76mm( or 1x76mm+1x35mm) is actually a better fitout for their core AAW role and because the 5 inch with its +$25M pricetag just isn't worth the squeeze for what it does.

But it's one or the other ... but the IH cannot have both a 5 inch and retain one 76 mm.

:facepalm:...Yes it can....ffs!!..at least you are consistently wrong.


the IH has a considerably slower acceleration / braking power curve
The CODAD propulsion configuration is definitely a compromise, sacrificing a little speed/acceleration for much longer range. Despite this the IH makes the most of their rather modest ~33MW and are actually surprisingly fast and responsive..and in the real world only marginally slower than similar GT equipped warships.

and those are two extremely important aspects when operating with American carriers
Which is exactly what the IH frigate HDMS Peter Willemoes will be doing for the next 6+ months as part of CSG2

Finally, if you look at what Odense is doing for the AOPS, when you eliminate propulsion(you dont ), command and surveillance system, it basically is providing the architecture work for the hull and living spaces
So basically designing an entirely new ship then.....for something that is supposedly based on the Svalbard its funny that the DeWolf has almost nothing in common with the former....its longer, beamier , has much greater displacement, uses (partly) naval build standards not commercial like the Norwegian vessel,  different boat spaces and hangar layout , other weapons and sensors etc ....and looks nothing like the Svalbard in fact .
 

MikeKiloPapa

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Oh and OGBD ....before you try to discredit me again by alluding to my army past , i would like to point out that ..yes ..i was a Lance Corporal in the Danish Army and a technician by trade , working mostly on tanks (Leo 1 and 2 ) . But then i went and got myself a degree in marine engineering and now work as a naval engineering rating in the Royal Danish Navy.
Besides that though, i also happen to know and work with several of the people who designed and built both the Absalon and Iver Huitfeldt classes, just as i know many of those who operate them know.

I also have access to the blueprints and build specifications of both vessels, as well as to the actual ships when they are in home port....which all gives me a fair degree of confidence in saying : when it comes to Danish Warships i KNOW.....and you might think you know....though judging by what you have written so far you are either getting your info from google or simply just making shit up.

 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
255
Points
880
Good morning MikeKiloPapa.

First of all, I would like to thank you for all the good information you put in your posts above. It is truly appreciated, even if humbling.

Let me also say that, if you go back and read the post you allude to where I would have "tried to discredit you", you will see that it didn't. I merely indicated at the time that your profile, all army, did not explain where your expertise would come from, but also indicated that you might have other sources not disclosed. You have now disclosed it and it is clearly valid expertise, probably making you the SME in these forums on those ships, from an engineering point of view.

Also, I know it is Iver, but my damn autocorrect must be Russian and keeps changing it to Ivar on me all the time and I don't always spot it.

Finally, I will tend to simplify things and cut details out that may make more knowledgeable people cringe when I am trying to make a specific point. In the present case, the point was simply that the Canadian government has issued specs and is asking, through Irving, for detailed bids on the basis of an existing design because the bidders (Odense for your  country) have "already built one". Some people, in these forums and in other places, take the view that the Absalon and the Iver Huitfeldt are one and the same because they look similar on the outside, and therefore you can just cut this part here, take that part there, etc. and it's no big deal. So I was countering by showing that in naval architecture, everything is connected to the rest and therefore, a change here leads to another change there and, etc. etc. you get a complete new type of ship from the one you started with.

I very poorly chose the examples of the results of such movements in internal arrangements based on my flawed information (I apologize, as my knowledge is based on open source information only, and it does not give full deck by deck arrangements, so I have to build a mental pictures from various videos, TV shows, and government info put out on the internet - sometimes Google, but as little as possible). However, you make my point even more eloquently when you stated that "their internal arrangement/layout is actually quite different".

In other words, and I think you make that point too, even though they are of similar look and hull form, they are two different class of ships. And my point was that if you take parts of one and parts of the other, you end up with a third design different again from the other two, and thus not an "off-the-shelf" design.

Now, let me address some of the points in your post (in yellow) and ask you a few questions if I may:

MikeKiloPapa said:
Rubbish !!....While its true that the Absalon class uses a lower grade base steel than the Huitfeldts, around all of the vital areas of the vessel , ie the CIC, weapons deck, ammo stores, engine control room , bridge , guns etc they use the same thicker armor steel ( ARMOX) as the frigates......and none of it has anything to do with their speed or number of engines.

Poorly expressed myself here, but you confirm my point: Other than the protected spaces, the Absalon use a lower grade of steel for most of their hull. Nothing wrong with that as it saves money, and I am sure your naval architect friends will confirm to you that the grade of steel used is related to the expected speed of  a given ship design. The faster the expected speed, the higher the grade of steel.

It most certainly isn't......like the frigates, the Absalon has 2 separate engine rooms and with a very similar layout but with only 1 ME and 2 DG in each instead of the 2+2 of the Huitfeldts.


Again...no....oh and its Iver not Ivar !......and lets just get one thing straight ......contrary to what you claim the Absalons does indeed have 1 more deck than the frigates and each of those is somewhat smaller/lower than on the Huitfeldts. So their internal arrangements/layout is actually quite different to each other which is why your statement makes no sense.

Just a few questions here: Would I be correct in understanding that in the Absalon, that "extra" deck is only from the Engine rooms and forward, but that I was correct that the flex deck area is no more decks, in number, but much higher, than in the Iver? Also, would it be correct to say that, in the Absalon, there are no living quarters aft of the engine rooms, but in the Iver, there are such quarters?.

No...see above.....IH is not fitted with a TAS/VDS system but prepared for one by reserving space for it.....just like on the Absalon. Not in any way shape or form related to the presence or absence of a flex deck!

Yes it does.....like all helicopter carrying ships in the RDN it is equipped with Mactaggart Scotts TRIGON handling system.

We do not consider the TRIGON handling system to be a "traversing" system in Canada. The one system that is acceptable for us is an equivalent to our 'bear trap" and undermount system of rails below deck. That is because we tend to use our helicopter in weather like this, unlike every body else: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5p1xx0ysfeM

Yes it is!........The only thing needed to fit a MK45 mod 4 is to remove the adapter ring that is used to mount the current 76mm Oto ....everything from the base mount, space beneath the gun , ammo stores and hoists, to electrical interface  etc is designed for and with a 5" gun in mind.

Do you mean that the magazine, handling room and hoist shafts are of the right size to take either a 76 mm or a 5 inch handling system, or that you actual handling system (belts, ammo holders in the hoist, raming bars, clamps, and storage shelves in the magazines) don't have to be changed to handle either size? 

Incorrect.....there was an intention to replace the  A position (called P1 in RDN parlor) 76mm gun with a MK45 and then fitting an additional 35mm Millenium CIWS in the B gun position(P2..currently fitted with the other 76mm in a Stan Flex container) , mirroring the fitout on the Absalons.......however those plans seems to have been quietly shelved, partly because the 2x76mm( or 1x76mm+1x35mm) is actually a better fitout for their core AAW role and because the 5 inch with its +$25M pricetag just isn't worth the squeeze for what it does.

I see here that I am incorrect for two reasons: (1) because the idea has been abandoned already and (2) because I did not mention the extra detail of replacing the second 76 mm gun by  a millennial 35 mm. Otherwise, we seem to be in agreement that the 5 inch gun even with the millennial 35 mm, is not as good a combination for AAW as the two 76 mm. It confirms my view that the two types of guns have different functions.

:facepalm:...Yes it can....ffs!!..at least you are consistently wrong.

I believe you will find that the Millenial 35 mm is much lighter than the 76 mm gun (even in the STANFLEX container) and that the 5 inch gun is much heavier than the 76 mm gun. As a result, if you install the 5 inch gun you have to replace the second 76 mm gun with the lighter millennial to maintain weight distribution and stability. Could this be verified with your naval architect friends?

The CODAD propulsion configuration is definitely a compromise, sacrificing a little speed/acceleration for much longer range. Despite this the IH makes the most of their rather modest ~33MW and are actually surprisingly fast and responsive..and in the real world only marginally slower than similar GT equipped warships.
Which is exactly what the IH frigate HDMS Peter Willemoes will be doing for the next 6+ months as part of CSG2

I did not mean to imply in any way that the IH could not operate in an American carrier group (in fact, I pointed out they are the only ship in the list of bidders that meet the actual top speed requirement for such ops) but that I did not know how the Canadian evaluation team would look upon the lower acceleration curve in their evaluation and wether it would affect it negatively (we have had some bad experience in Canada [no casualties - knock on wood] with ships getting squished or scraped by US carriers). Please accept that I would be very happy to see our next gen warships all be Iver Huitfeldt's

So basically designing an entirely new ship then.....for something that is supposedly based on the Svalbard its funny that the DeWolf has almost nothing in common with the former....its longer, beamier , has much greater displacement, uses (partly) naval build standards not commercial like the Norwegian vessel,  different boat spaces and hangar layout , other weapons and sensors etc ....and looks nothing like the Svalbard in fact .

Don't know what your point is here, but I believed I did not make mine correctly. There was a suggestion by a poster in here that the fact that Odense is already working with Irving on the AOPS, they might have a leg up in getting the warship contract. My point was that the portion of the AOPS work Odense got did not include the most important aspects of the upcoming bid: the combat system integration and power plant design, it may not provide them with such an advantage - that's all i meant to say.

 

 
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
:pop:  (not meant to be insulting in any which way, this exchange is interesting and educational)
 

Karel Doorman

Member
Reaction score
15
Points
180
Still sad to see that we were not in the bidding Poole(Damen),but hey that's how it goes sometimes.  :-\

When will the final decision be made?

gr,walter

 

GR66

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
369
Points
1,010
Excellent information here MKP and points well taken OGBD!


A couple of questions on the actual RFP...does anyone know if the listed requirements are must haves for the ships being offered, or are they objectives that the various designs will be scored against using some kind of points system on how close they each come to meeting the full requirement? 

Also, does the RFP specifically rule out the offering of two different versions in order to meet the full set of requirements?  For example, having the IH to fulfill the AAD requirement but not having the flex deck and the Absalon meeting the flex deck requirement but not the AAD requirement?

Do any of the other in-service designs have a flex deck? 
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
255
Points
880
Those are good questions GR66. And I suspect we will never know as the detailed RFP is kept under wrap, apparently at the request of Irving (one infers from the fact that no one is allowed to speak publicly about it without Irving's permission). Personally, I have great reservations with important contracts of the government being kept secret for no apparent good reason (other than keeping criticism down), but even greater reservation when such secrecy is kept for the benefit of a contractor - not the government -especially if it happens to be Irving Shipyards.

As for the other designs with a "flex deck", only the BAE Type 26 has such deck, unless Fincantieri decides to offer versions of it's upcoming Italian Navy P.P.A. vessel.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
86
Points
560
More on Italian PPAs:

Italian Navy’s Offshore Patrol Vessel Plans (RCN?), Part 2
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/05/08/mark-collins-italian-navys-offshore-patrol-vessel-plans-rcn-part-2/
...
635665951563873828-DSC-3377c.JPG

...[/quote]

Mark
Ottawa
 
Top