Replacing the Subs

[Retired AF Guy]

Ability to use heavy weight torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and long-range precision land attack missiles.

That kind of gives the SK-III a leg-up over the competition.

 

[deepblue202]

Question for all of you guys if they want a Requirement of 6 simultaneously operational submarines does that not mean they are looking to acquire 18 submarines instead of 12.

 

[PrairieFella]

I am going to post some important snippets from the public RFI as this is easily the most comprehensive release of potential requirements we have seen thus far. Please excuse the many quotes and long post but the RFI is 31 pages, so I will split the quotes up somewhat regarding their relevancy to each other. If you are not interested in reading the entire post here, here is my summary of some important points.

CPS will have the contract awarded by 2028, delivery of first submarine no later than 2035 and initial operational capability achieved no later than 2037.

Respondents to the RFI must have an in-production submarine or an in-service submarine alongside the capability to deliver no later than 2035.

Requirement of 6 simultaneously operational submarines.

Endurance minimum of 7000nm at 8kts & minimum of 21 days of continuous dived operations on station. Minimal capability of 60 days self-sustained operation.
Ability to use heavy weight torpedoes, anti-ship missiles and long-range precision land attack missiles.

Will operate near and in ice, with potential to operate under ice for short periods of time to transit from one ice free area to another.

Core crew of no more than 40 personnel, must be able to accommodate 8 additional personnel in permanent bunks.

Ability to deploy and recover off-board crewed and uncrewed systems.





There is a set of procurement, construction, delivery and operational questions for interested parties as well. They provide some important information as well.

Navy folk, what do you get out of these requirements? Any interesting points, benefits or drawbacks you can think of from this?

 

[DBNSG]

Navy folk, what do you get out of these requirements? Any interesting points, benefits or drawbacks you can think of from this?

The whole project says to me that the present Government was TOLD. Again. Good.

 

[PrairieFella]

The whole project says to me that the present Government was TOLD. Again. Good.

Sure seems like a helluva capability leap from the Victoria. BZ RCN on a big win. The torpedo tube launched land attack missiles and anti-ship missiles seem like a cool added bonus to defend arctic sovereignty (or would they be some sort of VLS?). Keeping a couple boats floating near the mouth and and the exit of the Northwest Passage would definitely reinforce our claims.

 

[Czech_pivo]

Question for all of you guys if they want a Requirement of 6 simultaneously operational submarines does that not mean they are looking to acquire 18 submarines instead of 12.

From what a large number of experts on here have stated in the past, of the 1/1/1 ratio - yes, it certainly does.

 

[KevinB]

From what a large number of experts on here have stated in the past, of the 1/1/1 ratio - yes, it certainly does.

24 actually 1-1-1-1 and @Underway can give you the whole SubSafe thing in detail, as he had crushed my 1-1-1 earlier in discussions.

 

[MilEME09]

What I find interesting is the RFP wants contract sign by 28, seems a bit long from now if we are already at RFP no? Also being an existing design with land attack capabilities pretty much makes the KSS-III the only option except maybe the dutch/German 212CD. If that's the case this could be signed sooner.

 

[Rainbow1910]

Sure seems like a helluva capability leap from the Victoria. BZ RCN on a big win. The torpedo tube launched land attack missiles and anti-ship missiles seem like a cool added bonus to defend arctic sovereignty (or would they be some sort of VLS?). Keeping a couple boats floating near the mouth and and the exit of the Northwest Passage would definitely reinforce our claims.

If anti-ship missiles and land attack missiles are required on a ship of this size, I would say VLS is going to make an entry notable superior to a tube launched vessel. These munitions would have a relatively low salvo size and speed if tube launched, alongside eating into the torpedo storage capability quite a bit. VLS allows you to negate this although you'll be taking up space and weight elsewhere in the boat, some designs offer a hull section plug with VLS.

KSS-III (SK) has VLS as standard while A26 (Sweden) has VLS module options, the Japanese are considering it for future boats and I remember seeing German proposals as well.

 

[MacNav63]

What I find interesting is the RFP wants contract sign by 28, seems a bit long from now if we are already at RFP no? Also being an existing design with land attack capabilities pretty much makes the KSS-III the only option except maybe the dutch/German 212CD. If that's the case this could be signed sooner.

It's an RFI though. Wouldn't that mean RFP is yet to come?

 

[SeaKingTacco]

24 actually 1-1-1-1 and @Underway can give you the whole SubSafe thing in detail, as he had crushed my 1-1-1 earlier in discussions.

I would assume the sail 6 simultaneously is either wartime surge or 3 on ops/3 in various stages of WUPS.

 

[Czech_pivo]

I would assume the sail 6 simultaneously is either wartime surge or 3 on ops/3 in various stages of WUPS.

Here's the exact wording -

HLMR #2 – Fleet Size

Ability to perform lines of tasking as follows: 3 submarines for continental defence/global deployment, 3 submarines for national and international exercises and force generation simultaneously.

Explanation: In accordance with ONSAF, CPSP is exploring the renewal and expansion of the CAF’s submarine fleet to enable the RCN to project a persistent deterrent on all three coasts, with under-ice capable, conventionally powered submarines. The CPS fleet size must be sufficient to complete assigned missions and roles throughout its service life. In order to achieve 6 simultaneously operational submarines as described above, it is acknowledged that the total fleet size must be larger to accommodate submarines in various levels of maintenance.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

My bet is the RCN will ask for 12 in the hopes of getting 9. TB hopes to cut the program to 6.

 

[Happy Guy]

To provide some clarity with regards to Fed Gov't procurement specifically what an Request for Information (RFI) is used for as part of the federal government procurement process.

The RFI from the Supply Manual

4.5 Pre-solicitation requests​

Effective date: 2010-01-11

Before a formal solicitation is issued, solicitations for information such as Price and Availability (P&A) enquiries and Requests for Information or Letters of Interest may be issued.

4.5.1 Price and Availability enquiry​

Effective date: 2010-01-11

A Price and Availability (P&A) enquiry is a request sent to suppliers for information concerning approximate prices and availability of specific goods or services. It is used when such information is needed by Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) or by a client department for program planning or budgetary purposes. A P&A enquiry could be made directly to selected suppliers, or it may be publicly posted on Government Electronic Tendering Service (GETS). P&A enquiries must clearly indicate that the request is not a solicitation and that there are no commitments with respect to future purchases or contracts.

4.5.5 Request for Information or Letter of Interest​

Effective date: 2010-01-11

a. A Request for Information (RFI) or Letter of Interest (LOI) is used when detailed information and feedback are required from suppliers. Such requests might outline a potential requirement and request suppliers to describe their ability to satisfy the requirement and to provide ideas and suggestions on how the eventual solicitation might be structured. Responses are used to assist the client department and PWGSC in finalizing their plans for the requirement and in developing achievable objectives and deliverables. RFIs/LOIs would normally be posted on GETS in order to obtain replies from a wide audience. If a source list is to be used, the RFI or LOI may be sent only to those on the list. RFIs/LOIs must clearly indicate that they are not solicitations and that there are no commitments with respect to future purchases or contracts.

b. RFIs/LOIs identify the client department's potential requirement and its business objectives.

c. The main objectives of an RFI/LOI are to:

i. allow suppliers time to:​

A. assess and comment on the adequacy and clarity of the requirements as currently expressed;​

B. offer suggestions regarding potential alternative solutions that would meet requirements, such as solution with a lower environmental impact;​

C. comment on the procurement strategy, preliminary basis of payment elements, and timelines for the project, and​

D. comment on the draft solicitation when included with the RFI/LOI.​

ii. provide information to assist the client department to:​

​

A. determine whether to proceed with requirements/strategy as planned, and if so, further developing internal planning, approval and solicitation documents that may potentially lead to a solicitation;​

B. refine the procurement strategy, project structure, cost estimate, timelines, requirements definition, and other aspects of the requirement;​

C. become a more "informed buyer" with an enhanced understanding of industry goods and service offerings in the areas of interest; and​

D. assess potential alternative solution concepts that would meet its requirement, such as environmentally preferable solutions.​

As you can see it is the gov't simply asking industry to review the RFI and conform if it is doable and if not ask why and solicit answers from industry.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Here's the exact wording -

HLMR #2 – Fleet Size

Ability to perform lines of tasking as follows: 3 submarines for continental defence/global deployment, 3 submarines for national and international exercises and force generation simultaneously.

Explanation: In accordance with ONSAF, CPSP is exploring the renewal and expansion of the CAF’s submarine fleet to enable the RCN to project a persistent deterrent on all three coasts, with under-ice capable, conventionally powered submarines. The CPS fleet size must be sufficient to complete assigned missions and roles throughout its service life. In order to achieve 6 simultaneously operational submarines as described above, it is acknowledged that the total fleet size must be larger to accommodate submarines in various levels of maintenance.

So, looks like i guessed right.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Navy folk, what do you get out of these requirements? Any interesting points, benefits or drawbacks you can think of from this?

If we start work on the infra side today, as well as growing the support side in FMF and MEPM, plus a training plan, we might be able to sail 4 eventually. We currently only have jetty space for 1 or 2 per coast, and a single sub in EDWP will eat up more resources than multiple CPFs.

Maybe just easier to have dedicated sub bases for this plan outside of Halifax and Esquimalt actual, and just have dedicated submarine support side instead of matrixing a lot of people onto a core.

It would also need a huge injection of money on top of the growth that will be needed for CSC.

I think this is almost a political poison pill that they are throwing over the fence assuming this will become a CPC problem they can snipe on them for, but maybe that's too cynical.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

If we start work on the infra side today, as well as growing the support side in FMF and MEPM, plus a training plan, we might be able to sail 4 eventually. We currently only have jetty space for 1 or 2 per coast, and a single sub in EDWP will eat up more resources than multiple CPFs.

Maybe just easier to have dedicated sub bases for this plan outside of Halifax and Esquimalt actual, and just have dedicated submarine support side instead of matrixing a lot of people onto a core.

It would also need a huge injection of money on top of the growth that will be needed for CSC.

I think this is almost a political poison pill that they are throwing over the fence assuming this will become a CPC problem they can snipe on them for, but maybe that's too cynical.

You are giving the Liberals wayyy too much credit for having thought about any of that, let alone set a trap for the CPC.

 

[Navy_Pete]

You are giving the Liberals wayyy too much credit for having thought about any of that, let alone set a trap for the CPC.

lol, Occams political razor; the simplest solution might be the most likely because they are dumb AF.

 

[Underway]

I think this is almost a political poison pill that they are throwing over the fence assuming this will become a CPC problem they can snipe on them for, but maybe that's too cynical.

I worry about the Cretien era MHP debacle re-run as well.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I like the sub base idea.

Nanoose on the west coast and…?