# Canada's procurement of new warships



## cameron (18 Jul 2007)

If a topic of this nature has been posted before then please forgive me, i've been thinking alot for a good while now of the long time period before the SCSC (hopefully) becomes a reality.  Knowing the history of Canadian governments I think all would agree that the longer a project takes to move from idea to reality the greater the danger of it falling prey to political whims and being axed.  While we have a government now that seems to take the armed forces with much greater seriousness, there's no guarantee that will be the case a decade or two or even five years from now.  

Bearing the above in mind why is there a need to go the long, arduous as well as fiscally and therefore politically uncertain route of creating an entirely new ship from scratch.  I'm using the Royal Australian Navy as an example here, they have had considerable success in taking an existing ship design and "Australianizing" it (hmm, think I just invented a word ;D) to meet their needs.  This approach is quicker, more cost effective and still provides plenty of employment for local defence contractors and shipyards.

The RAN's new AAW destroyer is based on the F100 class frigate (note that they were able to take an existing frigate design and modify it to suit their requirements for a guided missile destroyer).  Even the patriotically named ANZAC class is based on the German Meko 200 class, and I am yet to hear of any dissatisfaction expressed by either the Aussies or the Kiwis with their ANZAC frigates.  Canada should do the same, take an existing and therefore already tested and proven design, "Canadianize" it and get new ships with cutting edge next generation capabilities to the fleet faster, and more cost effectively while still providing opportunities for Canadian companies and shipyards (once it's well built Canadian shipyards and the navy can justifiably take pride in it regardless of the designs' origins).  There are many of you on army.ca who have much more experience on naval matters than I do, I would gladly appreciate your input on this.


----------



## Navy_Blue (23 Jul 2007)

Why pick someone Else's design when the CPF hull can be as modified on paper to suit our needs (I think it already has been on paper)??  That was the plan before.  Make them longer and maybe experiment with electric ships this time.  Kinda what was said but why buy the rights to produce someone Else's stuff?

Just my Thoughts.

N_B


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (24 Jul 2007)

I am in favour of buying overseas...it seems when we buy local we have more then a fair share of problems (Upholders not withstanding) I have maintained and still maintain we should look at an extended Spanish F100 or a German F124/F125 also extended to meet our C&C and AAD needs.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (24 Jul 2007)

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> I am in favour of buying overseas...it seems when we buy local we have more then a fair share of problems (Upholders not withstanding) I have maintained and still maintain we should look at an extended Spanish F100 or a German F124/F125 also extended to meet our C&C and AAD needs.



I'm in favour of building in Canada, but building a proven design exactly as is.  Engineering tweaks to any system are incredibly expensive (data integration in particular - I used to do a lot database customization for big firms).

Specifically, I believe the Armed Forces should get a credit against procurement costs for the income tax earned by people doing the construction.  It's unfair that the Armed Forces foot the premium for "Made in Canada" solutions and the Feds gather that premium back in on the other side of the Income Statement.  A "Net Domestic Production Cost" vs "Net Foreign Production Cost" is how the procurement decision should be made.


Matthew.


----------



## FSTO (24 Jul 2007)

For all of you who have access to the DIN, here is the site that has all sorts of unclass info IRT DND procurement.

http://otg-vcd-webs018.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/Cid/project-home_e.asp

If you look under CMS projects (Single Surface Combatant) there is a document that outlines a staff check on procurement options. It is quite interesting reading.


----------



## cameron (25 Jul 2007)

Navy_Blue said:
			
		

> Why pick someone Else's design when the CPF hull can be as modified on paper to suit our needs (I think it already has been on paper)??  That was the plan before.  Make them longer and maybe experiment with electric ships this time.  Kinda what was said but why buy the rights to produce someone Else's stuff?
> 
> Just my Thoughts.
> 
> N_B



If a destroyer class can be produced from the CPF hull (with a stealthier superstructure and Aegis type radar), then I say hell yeah, go for it!  Anything that will bring state-of-the-art, well built ships to the fleet quicker and reduce the possibility of them being cancelled before they even see the light of day.


----------



## aesop081 (25 Jul 2007)

cameron said:
			
		

> ..........and Aegis type radar




AEGIS is not a radar.......

AEGIS is an intgrated combat / battle management system employing the SPY-1 radar as part of it


----------



## Ex-Dragoon (25 Jul 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> AEGIS is not a radar.......
> 
> AEGIS is an intgrated combat / battle management system employing the SPY-1 radar as part of it



Good catch


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (25 Jul 2007)

FSTO said:
			
		

> For all of you who have access to the DIN, here is the site that has all sorts of unclass info IRT DND procurement.
> 
> http://otg-vcd-webs018.ottawa-hull.mil.ca/Cid/project-home_e.asp
> 
> If you look under CMS projects (Single Surface Combatant) there is a document that outlines a staff check on procurement options. It is quite interesting reading.



That's a dead link.


----------



## FSTO (26 Jul 2007)

IN HOC SIGNO said:
			
		

> That's a dead link.



You have to be on the DND Intranet to see it. Its a database of all the ongoing equipment and infastructure projects in DND.


----------



## IN HOC SIGNO (26 Jul 2007)

FSTO said:
			
		

> You have to be on the DND Intranet to see it. Its a database of all the ongoing equipment and infastructure projects in DND.


,

thanks I'll check it at work tomorrow...looks interesting


----------



## cameron (27 Jul 2007)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> AEGIS is not a radar.......
> 
> AEGIS is an intgrated combat / battle management system employing the SPY-1 radar as part of it



Thanks, that's one reason why I joined army.ca to increase my knowledge.


----------



## cameron (27 Jul 2007)

When I spoke of Aegis type radars what I really meant was phased array radars.  It was on the tip of my tongue, but I just couldn't remember the term when typing that post.  A sign of old age?


----------



## HalfmyLife (6 Sep 2007)

- The CPF is Big for a Frigate (more square footage then a 280) and the design could be tweaked to suit an AAW role. 
- Could we not take off the Harpoon and add Standard Missle's. I have no idea if you could launch them the same way as a harpoon, but the space is there   until a replacement is found. 
- Also I was led to understand that originally under the FELEX program that the CPF's were to get a phased array radar but is was scraped due to the cost (so much for the evolved sea sparrow)


----------



## Cronicbny (6 Sep 2007)

I'm pretty sure ESSM is a done deal... IE some ships (certainly one) already have them....


----------



## NCS_Eng (6 Sep 2007)

HalfmyLife said:
			
		

> - The CPF is Big for a Frigate (more square footage then a 280) and the design could be tweaked to suit an AAW role.



Could be? Sure. There was a plan originally to have the last batch of CPFs with a a VLS cell inserted in the centre of the ship. It would be very expensive, however.



> - Could we not take off the Harpoon and add Standard Missle's. I have no idea if you could launch them the same way as a harpoon, but the space is there   until a replacement is found.



Not really. They do not launch in the same fashion and and the guidance is radically different. It would require many more upgrades than just bolting on missiles.



> - Also I was led to understand that originally under the FELEX program that the CPF's were to get a phased array radar but is was scraped due to the cost (so much for the evolved sea sparrow)



Phased Array radar was one of the options looked at but it quickly became unfeasible from a cost (primary) and size/weight (secondary) perspective. The ESSM program has nothing to do with a phased array system and is a done deal so I'm not sure about your last part.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Sep 2007)

One problem with these programs is they are so big they attract far more "political" attention. From an engineering perspective a ship (even a very sophisticated ship) is well withing Canadian capabilities, however since everyone is more interested in a piece of the billion dollar price tag, the dog fighting begins with Naval staff fighting over adding/deleting their pet projects to the overall project (and thus managing or overseeing a program and enhancing their position/growing their empire) and the lobbyists vying for contracts and politicians vying for political pork to feed voters.

When external factors suppress the competition for tax dollars and prestige, the speed of procurement and rate of change actually increases; look at the evolution of warships and virtually every other type of military equipment during the World Wars of the last century, or the speed which the Army is reacting to insurgent warfare and IED's in Afghanistan.


----------



## GAP (2 Oct 2007)

Way out of my lane here, but would these littorial ships work for Canada? With 3 modules the estimated cost is $400M/ship.

The USA's New Littoral Combat Ships (updated)
01-Oct-2007 20:36
Article Link

The Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) is the U.S. Navy's newest surface combatant class. Optimized for shallow seas and operations within 100 miles of shore, but deployable across the ocean, LCS ships are a centerpiece of the USA's new focus on littoral warfare. They will help to counter growing "asymmetric" threats like coastal mines, quiet diesel submarines, global piracy, and terrorists on small fast attack boats. They will also perform intelligence gathering and scouting using helicopters and UAVs, offer some ground combat support capabilities, and share tactical information with other Navy aircraft, ships, submarines, and joint units. Swappable "mission modules," UAV robot aircraft, and robotic UUV and USV vehicles will give these small ships the specialized capabilities they require for each of these roles – and the quick-replace adaptability they need to keep up.

At present, 2 teams are competing for the final LCS design. The General Dynamics team is offering a futuristic but practical high-speed trimaran based on Austal designs and experience. The Lockheed Martin team offers a high-speed semi-planing monohull based on Fincantieri designs that have set trans-Atlantic speed records. Team Lockheed's efforts have run into serious trouble, including cancellation of the contract for their second ship. The General Dynamics/Austal team started later, and remains on track so far – but trouble may be looming.

DID places recent developments in context by explaining a bit more about the US Navy's new surface combatant; detailing the teams, key time line events, and contract awards under the program to date; and providing additional resources and links to complete our in-depth coverage. New material appears in green type. This article features a slew of updates, contracts, et. al. that have surfaced over the past few months, as the LCS program attempts to continue in the face of rising costs and stormier political seas….
More on link


----------



## STONEY (3 Oct 2007)

A few points to remember here.

Under the Halifax Class update request for proposals is the fact that 4 of the class are to be upgraded  to command and control ships.

The main reason the Halifax class is not getting a phased array radar is not the cost but the weight of the radar. The class is very close design weight restrictions and the modernization of the class has to be very carefull not to exceed them. Putting a heavy radar on top of the mast is verbotten. So they will be getting lighter less capable radars.

The Halifax class will be getting ESSM missle , it does not require a phased array radar for guidance.

The 280 class will only last a few more years and when they go ,our "area" air defence capability will go with them, as the ESSM is considered a "local" system.  So if we are to maintain an "area" air defence capability , either an off the shelf  F124/LCF/F100 or an entirely new design is required.

Cheers


----------



## Mortar guy (3 Oct 2007)

STONEY said:
			
		

> Under the Halifax Class update request for proposals is the fact that 4 of the class are to be upgraded  to command and control ships.



Really? I must have missed that section of the SOR. The HCM/FELEX briefings and documents on CID I've seen make no mention whatsoever of this plan. Do you have a source?



			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> The Halifax class will be getting ESSM missle , it does not require a phased array radar for guidance.



Some already have ESSM and have even fired a couple.

MG


----------

