# Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ



## jmt18325

Any thoughts on who will be shortlisted for warship designer and combat systems integrator, or when we can expect to find out who was shortlisted, and with which baseline product?  Looking at the list of companies attending, it looks like pretty much any western company with a recent warship design is interested (TKMS, OMT, DCNS, G+C, LM, BAE, Thales, Navantia, Fincatieri, General Dynamics, etc).


----------



## Good2Golf

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Any thoughts on who will be shortlisted for warship designer and combat systems integrator, or when we can expect to find out who was shortlisted, and with which baseline product?  Looking at the list of companies attending, it looks like pretty much any western company with a recent warship design is interested (TKMS, OMT, DCNS, G+C, LM, BAE, Thales, Navantia, Fincatieri, General Dynamics, etc).



Something tells some of us that you should be the one telling us...we're not as well suited to floating trial balloons are perhaps you might be?  You listed companies that some (many?) of us have never heard of.  I know of LM, BAE, Thales and GD...don't know the others.

G2G


----------



## jmt18325

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Something tells some of us that you should be the one telling us...we're not as well suited to floating trial balloons are perhaps you might be?  You listed companies that some (many?) of us have never heard of.  I know of LM, BAE, Thales and GD...don't know the others.
> 
> G2G



I live in a rural town in Manitoba and this is just an interest to me (I like the navy and ships - always have).  I have a screen cap on my iPad from this:

http://www.atlanticalliance.ca/userfiles/file/EN%2010%20Feb%202015%20%20PIE%20Presentation.pdf

That's where I got the names from.


----------



## Good2Golf

You have more names than most of us then, and I don't think that anyone involved inside the project would comment on the specifics of the project.  The online/media acquisition pundits will probably give the most feedback on the projects status, certainly until after the election.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

G2G

TKMS, Thyssen Krupp Marine of Germany (The Queenston/Berlins)

OMT, Odense Marine of Denmark (Absalon, Huitfeldt, AOPS and allied with Irving)

DCNS, (Can never remember what they stand for but it is the French company responsible for FREMM and the Sevastopol)

G+C, (No clue)

LM, BAE, Thales, 

Navantia, (Spanish version of DCNS - responsible for the Aussi LHDs and the F100?)

Fincantieri, (Italian Company - both military and civil - Owner of Vard which used to be Kvaerner and Aker and STX (Kjell Inge Rokke's Company)  in Vancouver and was responsible for ice breaker technology and Double Acting Hulls - Vard currently associated with SeaSpan)

General Dynamics, 

They are all legitimate contenders - Surprised not to see Damen but perhaps Thales is fronting them?

G+C is apparently Gibbs and Cox http://www.gibbscox.com/  (LCS-1,3,5 etc)


----------



## Underway

> Canada has determined that it will utilize a single prime contractor to best manage
> this procurement over three decades of design and ship construction
> – Irving Shipbuilding Inc., as the Combat Package NSPS shipyard, has been selected as Canada’s
> prime contractor for the design and build phases of CSC
> 
> _Ok no surprises here.... we already knew this...._
> 
> Canada will competitively select the Combat System Integrator (CSI) and Warship
> Designer (WD)
> – The selected CSI and WD will be key sub-contractors to the NSPS shipyard
> 
> _So we actually get a say?  From everything I read the sub-contractors were picked by Irving, the keys handed over so to speak.  If this happens the way I hope then its good news._
> 
> Canada, with the participation of ISI, will develop the RFP for selection of the CSI
> and WD. It will include:
> – The model sub-contracts, statement of work, pricing information required, and ITB VP
> contractual obligations
> – Canada’s prime contractor will award the sub-contracts to the CSI and WD, and monitor the
> commitments made in the winning proposal
> 
> _See this is where I get confused.  If Irving is awarding the sub-contracts how does the Gov't get a say in who the subcontractors are or the equipment.  Is it because the RCN gets a say in the RFP development?  I need a bit more explanation....#confused_



If Irving picks the subcontrators then Lockheed and General Dynamics are the leads for CSI.  If the gov't gets to pick then its wide open.  As for WD it could be anyone.  France is pushing hard for DCNS, BAE is in the process of building new frigates for the RN, and TKMS have a lot of great ships on the market.  I truly think it will be OMT as well, but in an open competition who knows?

For me the top WD's are OMT, BAE, DCNS and TKMS not necessarily in that order.

For CSI its Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Thales, BAE again not in that order.  I really hope for Thales but doubtfull....


----------



## jmt18325

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> G+C is apparently Gibbs and Cox http://www.gibbscox.com/  (LCS-1,3,5 etc)



Arleigh Burke as well.

The full list:

DCNS
TKMS
Fincantieri
MDA
Gibbs & Cox
Thales
Raytheon
BAE Systems
Navantia
Saab
Lockheed Martin
Atlas Elektronik
Selex ES
General Dynamics
OMT
Alion Science & Technology
Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

I have no idea what MDA is doing there.


----------



## Kirkhill

Schmoozing?


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Schmoozing?



Haha maybe....

MDA would be there to compete only for the Combat Systems Integration portion.  They are world experts in comms, remote sensing and a bunch of space stuff but they also do maritime security bits.  What they would likely do is gain the CSI and then subcontract out the shooting parts but do the comms/RMP stuff themselves.  It's not like each one of those companies are going to provide the _entire_ combat, comms and sensor suit without working with other companies.  It might be a Thales radar with a SM-6 from Lockheed and a GD comms system....


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Lerhe%20-%20CSC%20SOR.pdf

Things have gone quiet round here lately.  Time to stir the pot a little  >

The link above is to a June 2014 Dalhousie presentation by Eric Lerhe on the CSC Statement of Requirements.

My take-away from the presentation, and being as disputatious as possible, is:

The RCN intends to continue as a Blue Water Auxilliary to the USN providing ASW services to US Fleets.
Its AAW capabilities will be integrated into the USNs Cooperative Engagement Capability
The RCN will protect the size of the service by not reducing crewing levels below the current levels.

Cargo carrying capability, Naval Gunfire / Land Attack Missile support, and crew reduction are all secondary targets.

This does not seem to present a platform that the Army can operate from (or even the Special Forces) and there is nothing on the books to suggest that there will be a dedicated Army Support platform.

In other words the RCN sails on serenely in splendid isolation (as does the Army).


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/cfps/nsps/Lerhe%20-%20CSC%20SOR.pdf
> 
> Things have gone quiet round here lately.  Time to stir the pot a little  >
> 
> The link above is to a June 2014 Dalhousie presentation by Eric Lerhe on the CSC Statement of Requirements.
> 
> My take-away from the presentation, and being as disputatious as possible, is:
> 
> The RCN intends to continue as a Blue Water Auxilliary to the USN providing ASW services to US Fleets.
> Its AAW capabilities will be integrated into the USNs Cooperative Engagement Capability
> The RCN will protect the size of the service by not reducing crewing levels below the current levels.
> 
> Cargo carrying capability, Naval Gunfire / Land Attack Missile support, and crew reduction are all secondary targets.
> 
> This does not seem to present a platform that the Army can operate from (or even the Special Forces) and there is nothing on the books to suggest that there will be a dedicated Army Support platform.
> 
> In other words the RCN sails on serenely in splendid isolation (as does the Army).



I think that most of what you have said is correct, however with a few differences.  

Support to forces ashore with Naval Gunfire is very much on the navies radar, especially after Libya, where ships could have prosecuted targets better than airpower in a couple of circumstances.  Now the issue is does both versions of the CSC have this capability or only the GP version.

But the focus back on ASW is extremely interesting from my perspective.  There are so many new developments in that area which need to be taken into account.  The maturation of ultra low freq sonar is a big one.  The processing power of modern computers are making that possibility of torpedo hard kill systems a possibility as well, and linked ASW systems are going to be amazing when they get working.  Its a whole new world of ASW going on out there...


----------



## Kirkhill

So, would that put the Oto Melara Vulcano on the agenda? Giving you a 100 km stand-off capability and 32 rounds per minute?







Also -  On the ASW front - especially with the new gear - does all of the kit have to be carried all of the time?  Or are some of the capabilities compatible with Mission Bay installations (temporary).

PS - And I appreciate that you understood my tone and supplied a civil response.  Thanks.


----------



## FSTO

All I hope is that we sail far far away from the LCS concept. It has been a disaster from the start. (if you believe the critics)

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.ca/2015/08/lcs-and-miw-you-knew-this-was-coming.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

This is a case where I believe the critics. You want fast attack littoral craft, then expect them to be disposable. Basically they want a MGB, frigate, corvette, minesweeper, ASW cutter all in one platform and that crap only works in Sci-fi.


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't think the LCS is a suitable solution for much of anything (I don't like the Yanks for innovation - never their strong suit - too slow and too pricey).

But I do think that any design adopted should take  on board (pun intended) two key design elements from Denmark. 

1) Modularized Weapons and Sensors to permit easy mission conversions and systems upgrades 
2) A large, accessible, empty space that can be used for carrying stuff.


----------



## GR66

Curious as an uninformed observer.  Are the complaints about the LCS more about the systems or about the physical design of the ship?  

Austal is promoting a "Multi-Mission Combatant" which is I'm guessing more or less an LCS with a more traditional weapons fit?  (http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf).  They of course pump up the claimed advantages of their trimaran design over a traditonal hull.  Is there any validity to their claims?  Would a trimaran hull make sense in a Canadian context?

The impression I get is that the CSC concept doesn't really seek to make the "multi-mission" aspect the top priority, so could a portion of this proposed space be used to give the vessel greater range and endurance (which I'm guessing would be a benefit for a Canadian ship)?  Could extending the superstructure (and reducing the flight deck area to only allow operation of a single helicopter instead of two simultaneously) permit the addition of additional AAW missles for the Area Air Defence version of the CSC?


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66 said:
			
		

> Curious as an uninformed observer.  Are the complaints about the LCS more about the systems or about the physical design of the ship?
> 
> Austal is promoting a "Multi-Mission Combatant" which is I'm guessing more or less an LCS with a more traditional weapons fit?  (http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf).  They of course pump up the claimed advantages of their trimaran design over a traditonal hull.  Is there any validity to their claims?  Would a trimaran hull make sense in a Canadian context?
> 
> The impression I get is that the CSC concept doesn't really seek to make the "multi-mission" aspect the top priority, so could a portion of this proposed space be used to give the vessel greater range and endurance (which I'm guessing would be a benefit for a Canadian ship)?  Could extending the superstructure (and reducing the flight deck area to only allow operation of a single helicopter instead of two simultaneously) permit the addition of additional AAW missles for the Area Air Defence version of the CSC?



My take on the issue is that the LCS was oversold, under-delivered and deliberately sabotaged.

The LCS concept was based on the success of the Western Express catamaran and the JHSV project.  Relatively cheap, flexible hulls were to be fitted for a variety of missions.  Marry Western Express with Stan Flex and you should have had a useful concept.

But then the USN got its hands on it and it became a fight between Brown Water reformists (Austal - Freedom) and Blue Water, Single Hull traditionalists (Lockheed Martin Independence).  Lockheed and the traditionalists kept driving the design basis away from Austal's capabilities and towards their own comfort zone with the collusion of the Blue Water navy and their congressional supporters.  

The net effect was that the project grew like Topsy and ballooned away from the original objectives.  In my opinion, the irony is that the Blue Water types have shot themselves in the foot.  The project is now so big it cannot be allowed to fail.  More money is being spent on the LCS programme than was ever intended, money that could have be spent on real, modern, frigates (employing the Stanflex concept at a different fleet level and sharing weapons modules with the LCS) and the navy will end up with hulls that are neither fish nor fowl nor good red meat.

And like every Yankee project the product is overly complex and ridiculously expensive.  Lockmart and GD should never be given project lead on any Canadian project.  They have many useful capabilities that need to be integrated and they can do that but they should never be given Carte Blanche.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect part of the problem is the LCS program was vastly oversold and then hugely overbudget without any real gain in capability. They want a littoral combat ship that can easily and quickly self deploy across significant blue water distances. 

I suspect the Tri-hull design after some hard usage, will show structural problems over the years to come, sidelining a significant chunk of the fleet. As a experimental design program working as addition to the regular fleet they may have their uses, but I think the USN thought they could replace many of the more specialized vessels with one type. I have never been a huge fan of multi-tasking as it rarely works as well as the bean counters envision.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> I suspect part of the problem is the LCS program was vastly oversold and then hugely overbudget without any real gain in capability. They want a littoral combat ship that can easily and quickly self deploy across significant blue water distances.
> 
> I suspect the Tri-hull design after some hard usage, will show structural problems over the years to come, sidelining a significant chunk of the fleet. As a experimental design program working as addition to the regular fleet they may have their uses, but I think the USN thought they could replace many of the more specialized vessels with one type. *I have never been a huge fan of multi-tasking as it rarely works as well as the bean counters envision.*



Coming from a very different background, where I have never had the luxury of the money I needed nor the equipment I wanted I have learned that you can get a long ways towards your goals by exploiting that which is available.  Flexibility is a precondition to success in my world.  By the time I delivered the perfect solution the client's market would have moved on, in which case I would be using the perfect solution sub-optimally in another application.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ships generally have significant penalties when you give it to many tasks. it should be designed purposely for it's main task with a little flexibility to conduct others. Trying to make a ship do everything equally well, generally makes it a complete dog in all aspects.


----------



## Kirkhill

Factory Processors and Trawlers generally manage to accommodate processing modifications and capability enhancements in the same hull - just like their on-shore brethren.

And they manage to accommodate shifting loads while operating in high seas at high latitudes.  As I have noted before my work is done in the areas set aside for processing - not in designing the structures that wrap around them - but I have worked enough of those projects to recognize the flexibility and adaptability inherent in their 4000 tonne, 90 m hulls.

Pickup truck or Formula 1?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Using a hull like that for similar work is not such a stretch, not to mention the approval process for design changes generally follow a shorter loop. but when you want high speed, blue water seakeeping, shallow draft, fast attack craft, that can patrol, sweep for mines that's when you get issues.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> Using a hull like that for similar work is not such a stretch, not to mention the approval process for design changes generally follow a shorter loop. but when you want high speed, blue water seakeeping, shallow draft, fast attack craft, that can patrol, sweep for mines that's when you get issues.



Seen.

I guess that is what I was getting at in terms of my comments on the "sabotage" of the LCS concept.  A shallow water, high speed, flexible, "sprint and drift" platform that can relocate itself over intercontinental distances is one thing.   A platform that can endure in blue water is something else.  There is certainly a clear differentiation there.

On the other hand tailoring a platform so that it can only perform one role with one set of permanently installed gear appears to me to be swinging the pendulum too far the other way.  Formula 1 cars have very limited useful lives.


----------



## Lumber

Forget the LSC, forget the CSC. Let's just build a fleet of small, sleek, super fast, super stealthy FOO ships.... purpose would be to spot for a network of anti-air and anti-surface space based lasers satellites and ICBMs...  >


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> On the other hand tailoring a platform so that it can only perform one role with one set of permanently installed gear appears to me to be swinging the pendulum too far the other way.  Formula 1 cars have very limited useful lives.



Some times single role is the only option (Landing ships or submarines for instance), but most of the time Navies have general purpose ships as their most numerous class of ships, like frigates or destroyers, which, even when more specialized in one aspect are still well rounded general purpose forces.

Don't confuse not being able to switch basic equipment loads [the launching systems] (as if filling the back of a truck with weapons of different kind for delivery to the front) with lack of flexibility or single role. And don't consider that the lack of facilities in a warship to carry soldiers to combat means that they lack flexibility.

Think of the IRO before retirement. They could handle ASW, AAW, ASuW and self protect from mines. But more than that. While they carried only SM-2 missiles in their Mk-41 launchers, the actual launcher (the Mk41) could have carried quad packs ESSM's, or VL Tomahawk missiles, or ASROC's or any other ones of the SM's as required. Switching your missile load composition as required for the circumstances, now that's flexibility. And the CSC will have that same flexibility.


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Some times single role is the only option (Landing ships or submarines for instance)...



Submarines can have multiple roles. Different boats could be geared for one specific role, or rigged for flexibility. For example, SSNs vs SSBNs vs SSGNs vs Special Forces deployers.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Think of the IRO before retirement. They could handle ASW,  AAW, ASuW  and self protect from mines. But more than that. While they carried only SM-2 missiles in their Mk-41 launchers, the actual launcher (the Mk41) could have carried quad packs ESSM's, or VL Tomahawk missiles, or ASROC's or any other ones of the SM's as required. Switching your missile load composition as required for the circumstances, now that's flexibility. And the CSC will have that same flexibility.



Fixed that for you.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Some times single role is the only option (Landing ships or submarines for instance), but most of the time Navies have general purpose ships as their most numerous class of ships, like frigates or destroyers, which, even when more specialized in one aspect are still well rounded general purpose forces.
> 
> Don't confuse not being able to switch basic equipment loads [the launching systems] (as if filling the back of a truck with weapons of different kind for delivery to the front) with lack of flexibility or single role. And don't consider that the lack of facilities in a warship to carry soldiers to combat means that they lack flexibility.
> 
> Think of the IRO before retirement. They could handle ASW, AAW, ASuW and self protect from mines. But more than that. While they carried only SM-2 missiles in their Mk-41 launchers, the actual launcher (the Mk41) could have carried quad packs ESSM's, or VL Tomahawk missiles, or ASROC's or any other ones of the SM's as required. Switching your missile load composition as required for the circumstances, now that's flexibility. And the CSC will have that same flexibility.



No argument on any of your points OGBD - especially in regards to the inherent flexibility of the VLS system (or a gun that can fire multiple types of bullets.  

I am often hearing that we are a small, impoverished nation with a poor, hard done by defence force that can't afford to do everything.  Then I see us regularly (regardless of service) opt for the most expensive solution available on the lot.  Then I see other smaller, presumably more impoverished nations, like the Danes, the Dutch, the Aussies make different decisions that allow them to upgrade and modernize, while still effectively operating, in a more timely fashion than ourselves.  And I find myself puzzled.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lumber said:
			
		

> Fixed that for you.



You shouldn't fix what ain't broke.

With both hull mounted and VDS sonars, two triple tubes for Mk 46 torpedoes and the capacity to host two Seaking helicopters, the IRO were still pretty reasonable ASW platforms. As for ASuW, I agree that one 76mm gun and six .50 cal. MGs is limited but not inexistant. Also, remember that  there were plans in place and a quite fast capability for fitting two quad-harpoon launchers over the old limbo well should the need arise.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I am often hearing that we are a small, impoverished nation with a poor, hard done by defence force that can't afford to do everything.  Then I see us regularly (regardless of service) opt for the most expensive solution available on the lot.  Then I see other smaller, presumably more impoverished nations, like the Danes, the Dutch, the Aussies make different decisions that allow them to upgrade and modernize, while still effectively operating, in a more timely fashion than ourselves.  And I find myself puzzled.




First, the only reason we fail to upgrade and modernize in a timely fashion is budgetary/procurement causes that are dictated to us by politician for their own reasons (i.e. the Navy constantly keeps track of the upgrade and modernization needs of the fleet, develop plans for it and put them up - only to see them shot down. The Navy would like nothing better than to be able to constantly upgrade and modernize the equipment  on its ships instead of having to wait twenty years between programs and do all the updates in one big single shot).

I am not sure how you see Australia being different than we are. The Meko design of the  Anzac class was modular, but in practice, they have not modernized or upgraded in any significant different way than we have.

The Dutch, I would not call "impoverished" compared to us, but in any event, they upgrade and modernize even less than we do: they just change classes of ship more frequently.

Finally, the Danes are probably the only ones from your list that have an "upgrade and modernization" ongoing system, but in their case it is for financial reasons: Their fleet is much smaller than ours in terms of major surface combatant so it is a big item to absorb when constructing a new one comes up. That is why they have developed their "build-up-by-pieces" system where they build the hull and machinery, put minimal weapons onboard, and then add weapons and sensors from time to time throughout the lifetime of the ship until it's fully up to specs.

BTW, one of the reason we end up opting for the "most expensive" solution more often than not has to do with the fact that  in the RCN, we see it as a necessity for us to be fully capable to integrate into an American task force or just as seamlessly integrate into a NATO one. Very few nations (and none of the ones you mention, though the Australians are now moving that way) in the world can do that other than us and we have derived great tactical advantages from this capability.


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD - flexibility comes in many forms.  Sometimes it is a single platform.  Sometimes it is the range of platforms.

The Aussies have Frigates/Destroyers comparable to yours.  Dead right.

The Aussies also have a commercial AOR to bridge the gap.  A solution previously rejected here in Canada.
The Aussies have a pair of Troop Transports that don't show up anywhere in the RCN's shopping list.

The Dutch have Troop Transports and AORs and OPVs that allow them to provide a variety of capabilities in low risk environments (including lifting troops and refugees).

The  Danes - AAWs with ASW capability, Cmd and Spt with ASW capability, Light Frigates and OPVs with ice capabilities and crews smaller than an MCDV.

You don't get to blame the politicians for everything.  

Take a look at your own buttons-and-bows politicians.

Luego.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Kirkhill, you are looking at flexibility from a Navy overall capabilities point of view, not from an individual ship or class of ship perspective. This thread is about  a single class of ships, the combatant ones, not Navies as a whole, and it is this limited perspective I have always used as guiding my posts.

The overall flexibility in a Navy from the combination of all of its ship's type is a strategic decision. In Canada's case, it is not something derived from the Navy's choice alone, but from NDHQ. If NDHQ determined that  having amphibious capability was required of Canada, the Navy would propose what it needs and the "powers that be" would then decide the extent to which it will provide the Navy's request for materiel to do so. Then everybody would get on with the job with what is provided.

Again, though, it is important not to confuse overall flexibility with national requirements. The Australian and the Dutch have amphibious capabilities? Yes, but they live in an area where their own territory has multiple other nations nearby where they may need the capabilities (we are talking a few hundred nautical miles here, particularly for Australia - the Dutch have oversea territories as well where the capability may be needed). 

For us in Canada, on the other hand, we have no territory nearby that threaten us from a military point of view (I will except St-Pierre et Miquelon for obvious reasons). The only "military" need for amphibious ships would be for [very] far oversea employment. This requires rather a deployment model based on the US Marines style of permanent forward deployment of soldiers onboard large ships for long period of time. This would be too much of a drag  on scarce defence dollars both from the Naval and the Army point of view (can you see what would be required in Army numbers just to make it possible to  maintain 1,500 soldiers battle groups deployed permanently in 6 months rotations at sea?). If not for that type of deployment, why spend 100's of millions of dollars every year just to make it possible for the Winnipeg Riffles to practice landing on the North shore of lake Superior once in a while for a change of scenery?

Also, you seem to have an unnatural fixation with crew reduction. First of all the Danish OPV's you are talking about do not have a smaller crew than the MCDV's. When they deploy in their ordinary role (coast guard/constabulary), they have a crew of 18, but only carry two .50 cal MG's. If I wanted to deploy the MCDV in a similar role, I could actually better that and sail with a crew of 15. When the Knut Rasmunssen class deploy with more advanced weapons and a military mission, the crew goes up to 43.

But, and I can excuse you here as you have no experience of working with European (unionized or near unionized) navies, you have to consider concept of operation. The continental European navies, unlike us, the Americans and the other Anglo-sphere navies, do not permanently operate AS IF AT WAR, meaning that we have at least 1/3 of the crew manning all the fighting stations at all time, and often more than that. For instance, if they are out for an ASW exercise, it will be scheduled to start in the morning, end in the afternoon, and after its conclusion and until the next exercise the morning after, the ship will just sail around with a minimal crewing of a few seaman per watch akin to  a merchant ship. Some of those nations boast their capability to operate with a duty watch of four: An OOW, a seaman, one engineer (at a remote control console on the bridge) and one signalman. That is fine until a passing merchant ship decides to turn and ram you (which you didn't see coming because the ops room is down for the night and can't quickly escape from when you notice because your sole engineer can only operate the cruise diesel but not flash up the two gas turbines in the engine room) while everybody is asleep. It's a lesson the US learned at Pearl Harbour, and we emulate in large part.


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That is fine until a passing merchant ship decides to turn and ram you ..... It's a lesson the US learned at Pearl Harbour, and we emulate in large part.



A merchant ship turned and ramed a USN ship at Pearl Harbour? When did that happen? I think you're thinking about when Winnipeg got rammed in Esquimalt.


----------



## GR66

Lumber said:
			
		

> A merchant ship turned and ramed a USN ship at Pearl Harbour? When did that happen? I think you're thinking about when Winnipeg got rammed in Esquimalt.



He's not talking about a particular incident of ramming.  He's saying that one of the lessons learned from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was that you must ALWAYS be operating as if at war which is why we (like the US) have higher manning levels than some European navies.  That both prevents being caught by a sneak attack...as well as being prepared to avoid things like an unexpected "encounter" with a wayward merchant ship.


----------



## Lumber

GR66 said:
			
		

> He's not talking about a particular incident of ramming.  He's saying that one of the lessons learned from the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour was that you must ALWAYS be operating as if at war which is why we (like the US) have higher manning levels than some European navies.  That both prevents being caught by a sneak attack...as well as being prepared to avoid things like an unexpected "encounter" with a wayward merchant ship.



This may grind the gears of some of my former mentors and COs, but as former bridge watchkeeper, I did not feel I needed an Ops room backing me up for collision avoidance. A closed up Ops room for collision avoidance was made even more unnecessary with the introduction of CMS330. With data fusion, having any trackers at all in the Ops room is just redundant. They don't track anything; they just report what the system generates on their screens, which is the same things displayed on the bridge MFW. You have more people on the bridge of a CPF than merchant vessels have on their entire ship! Two OOWs, two look-outs, two radars, AIS, GPS and VHF. If you can't keep the ship safe with that, the Ops room isn't going to save you.


----------



## Good2Golf

I must have missed the part where OGBD said CIC was needed for collision avoidance.  Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought his reference to the Ops room was with regard to having SA on the entire space within which the Ship was operating....and it's ability to respond capably...no? ???


----------



## Lumber

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> I must have missed the part where OGBD said CIC was needed for collision avoidance.  Perhaps I misunderstood, but I thought his reference to the Ops room was with regard to having SA on the entire space within which the Ship was operating....and it's ability to respond capably...no? ???



I was responding to GR66:



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> ....as well as being prepared to avoid things like an unexpected "encounter" with a wayward merchant ship.


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD: wrt "an unnatural fixation with crew reduction"

It is what I do.  

A worker employed at a rate of $12/hr is a battery of stored energy that they sell to me at a rate of $68,390/GigaJoule, assuming a labour efficiency of 70% while they are operating on my clock.

Natural Gas sells for $3/GJ
Electricity sells for $14/GJ
Diesel sells for $17/GJ
Gasoline sells for $20/GJ

Buddy also is fully discharged in 8 hours and requires 16 hours to recharge daily, a deep cycle recharge of 48 hours every 7 days and an annual maintenance period of 2 to 5 weeks (older batteries take longer to recharge).

Buddy better be doing more for me than eating my groceries and scanning the horizon.  I can get a PLC to do that for me for a lot less.

Thus the Danish Navy, thus Maersk, thus every manufacturing facility in the world.

I need people to do the things machines can't do.  And machines can effectively keep islands in position and relocate them when necessary. Without me having to worry about widows and orphans.

By the way, 1 GJ = 272 kWh ($17 for diesel or $68,390 for Buddy) and an electric motor or a Combined Heat and Power plant are upwards of 90% efficient.


----------



## Baz

Lumber said:
			
		

> I was responding to GR66:



I think he meant while doing other warship like things.

I'd have to look up the details, but there was (is?) a Canadian Cdr who was RN, who was on board (the XO?) a UK Destroyer (Frigate?) during the tanker wars.  The whole bridge got so involved in trying to spot something on the engaged side, including both lookouts, that they missed the scheduled turn of the escorted force, in the Straights Of Hormuz.  As the story was told to me the lookout on the unengaged side went back to have a peek and was confused because there were no lights or stars; and then hit the alarm when he realized that was because they were about to be run over by a super tanker.   Almost lost the ship...

Not disagreeing with anyone... it's just things get more complex when people are shooting at you so redundancy isn't a bad thing, and that whole train as you fight thing... 

Edited to add: story was told to me directly by said Cdr, who was my XO at the time, whom I know by name but won't write.  Disclaimer: that's how I remember him telling it...


----------



## Lumber

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> OGBD: wrt "an unnatural fixation with crew reduction"
> 
> It is what I do.
> 
> ...



I once discovered that I had accidently sent half my bridge watch either for coffee or pee-breaks. There were only 4 of us on the bridge (myself, a helsman, bosnsmate and navcom). I wasn't one bit worried about being able to keep the ship safe; I even quickly developped a plan to respond to a man overboard (I would be the one sounding the general alarm and pipping the ship to resuce stations). No, the only thing I was worried about was the CO coming to the bridge and discovering my ineptitude!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CCG ships generally sail with 1 officer of the watch, 2 quartermasters, which normally one is off the bridge and resting/security checks. In bad vis or on a call, one or more deckhands will be called out to watch sectors. Radars and such are fabulous unless you are looking for a guy in a kayak or standing on a bit of ice.

Merchant ships run with the slimmest of crews for economy reasons, but when things go wrong they have little recourse and the ship and cargo can be lost. accident rates can also be quite high depending on locations and crewing. I have to wonder if the cost of ships, cargo and insurance is really being factored properly against the cost of crewing. I suspect crewing and training is the easiest bit to cut.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin - for the merchant fleet you have to ask yourself how many containers reach port vice how many containers are lost at sea.  How many barrels of oil....etc.

As to the manning of government vessels, I would suggest that you are "over-manned" (a relative term) precisely so that when things go pear-shaped on a merchant vessel you can jump in to ensure those containers, barrels, ships and crew are not lost.  Kind of like the government facilitating trade by building highways and hiring coppers.


----------



## Good2Golf

Lumber said:
			
		

> I was responding to GR66:



Ack.  OGBD's point, as the starter of the "BE PREPARED, ALWAYS" line of thinking, still holds water though...and you never know...there may also be some future KAPITAN MANs out there that our Ships need to be capable of dealing with...


----------



## Underway

There are plenty of times that my ships have needed everyone for some unforeseen situation.  A tow in a storm for example in which reduced crewing would have made things rather dicey.  It was great to have the extra help for the evolution.  Prob could have done it with less but it didn't hurt to have more people.  In the Canadian waters situation help is a very long way away if there is an emergency of some kind, any kind.  In European waters its most likely in visual range.  Europe is positively crawling with traffic both airborne and waterborne.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Colin - for the merchant fleet you have to ask yourself how many containers reach port vice how many containers are lost at sea.  How many barrels of oil....etc.
> 
> As to the manning of government vessels, I would suggest that you are "over-manned" (a relative term) precisely so that when things go pear-shaped on a merchant vessel you can jump in to ensure those containers, barrels, ships and crew are not lost.  Kind of like the government facilitating trade by building highways and hiring coppers.



On containers http://gcaptain.com/how-many-shipping-containers-lost-at-sea/#.VfLp-_mnRyE

ships lost http://www.actuarialeye.com/2014/03/30/how-many-ships-disappear-each-year/

Governments generally can't afford to lose even one ship to accidents. Commercial shipping is much safer than it used to be. However with the larger container carriers being built just the loss of one of them with a full load is likely to have a economic ripple.


----------



## CougarKing

An update:

Canadian Global Affairs Institute



> *Mark Collins – RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatant Will be Foreign Design*
> November 20, 2015 Global Affairs Staff
> 
> Makes sense, the major European players are included plus one American:
> 
> Results of pre-qualification process for Canadian Surface Combatant
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada today announced the results of the pre-qualification process, the first step in the competitive procurement process to select a Combat Systems Integrator and a Warship Designer for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC).
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## Kirkhill

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> An update:
> 
> Canadian Global Affairs Institute



I'm going with an OMT hull with LockMart systems for 50 cents Alec.  Now if only they will guarantee the Stanflex philosophy.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I'm going with an OMT hull with LockMart systems for 50 cents Alec.  Now if only they will guarantee the Stanflex philosophy.



I don't care what they do, as long as they start cutting steel and ordering engines. Lots of them. Big ships, little ships, stealthy ships submarines, surveillance ships, drone ships >>I don't care what, but they need to get moving. There are people who this project in some form of iteration 20+ years ago, and are planning to retire and nothing has been done. Get movin people. Build it, and they will come...


----------



## dapaterson

Commander, RCN states that budget is not enough: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/warships-30-billion-navy-mark-norman-1.3347145


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A few comments on my part here:

First of all, I thought this was a very good presentation by the Admiral: Short, clear sentences; no mumbo-jumbo or buzzword that make you sound like a politician; direct answers to direct questions, and taking responsibility where responsibility lies. Moreover (and this one is a personal beef) I appreciated seeing a senior military officer meeting the press dressed appropriately in DEU, not in "look at me I'm a crusty combat type" gear.

Second of all, I will admit to being surprised to learn that the 26 B$ of the NSPS identified for the SCSC is for the overall program - not just the ships, which are apparently only 14 B$ of it. 

I had always assumed the higher figure to be for the ships only, which to me made sense, as being about 1.5 B$ each for the GP version and about 2.5 B$ each for the three AAW/Command version. With the lower costs, I can see this makes no sense: 15 ships for 14 B$ means each one is below one billion dollars. They must have been on drugs: The CPF's cost about 800 millions each to build in the early to mid nineties, and just TRUMPing the tribals cost about as much for each.

Third, I am happy to see that the Navy wants to be heard publicly about its requirements. We don't  do that often enough and in my mind, every opportunity to explain to Canadian what we do and why it can be so expensive should be seized upon. Canadians, in my experience, understand - they don't like spending that kind of money - but they understand, if they are told the facts.

Finally, I appreciate his candour when saying, we tell the government "this is what we need and how much it costs, or this is what capability the money you want to spend buys" but when all is said and done, the government decides and we get on with the job with what we are given (in my early days in the Navy, we used to say "The Queen will provide"). I made that very point on a different aspect of this discussion in my above post #30 of Sept 09, 2015 at 16:59:11. 

A little side note: In the "Power and Politics" video, it's hard to see because they have a "exclusive interview" electronic box in front of it, but in the short clips of the Admiral's interview aired on the National, you can see that the ball cap on his desk behind him says "HMCS HARRY DEWOLFE  PGB 430". I guess they have decided that the AOPS are "Gun Boats (PG), Icebreaking (B)".


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> A few comments on my part here:
> 
> First of all, I thought this was a very good presentation by the Admiral: Short, clear sentences; no mumbo-jumbo or buzzword that make you sound like a politician; direct answers to direct questions, and taking responsibility where responsibility lies. Moreover (and this one is a personal beef) I appreciated seeing a senior military officer meeting the press dressed appropriately in DEU, not in "look at me I'm a crusty combat type" gear.



Agreed,



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Second of all, I will admit to being surprised to learn that the 26 B$ of the NSPS identified for the SCSC is for the overall program - not just the ships, which are apparently only 14 B$ of it.



You're dating yourself OGB.  Its the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project now not the Single Class Surface Combatant (SCSC).  That particular program died about 2008 or so.  If you don't stop using it I'm going to start calling certain ships Henry.... :subbies:



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> A little side note: In the "Power and Politics" video, it's hard to see because they have a "exclusive interview" electronic box in front of it, but in the short clips of the Admiral's interview aired on the National, you can see that the ball cap on his desk behind him says "HMCS HARRY DEWOLFE  PGB 430". I guess they have decided that the AOPS are "Gun Boats (PG), Icebreaking (B)".



Once again dating yourself.  It went from Gunboat or Patrol Gunboat to now "Patrol Combatant (PG)" as I guess that covers more types of ships...  Gunboats used to have a very specific brown water job and now they are doing blue water work... at least in our case they will be.  I do think its probably the best classification for the ship, can't really think of a better place to pigeon-hole them into.


----------



## ringo

Build 10 CSC all to the same design, do not build 3 AAW and 7 ASW, all 10 should be equally able in AAW and ASW.
They should be commissioned one per year over 10 years.
Order in pairs update design over build period.
Each ship should be able to operate two helicopters.
Build hulls overseas and fit out in Canada?
BTW is Irvings building yard covered, if not they do not deserve the build.
Going to have to be huge increase in defence budget to get more than 10 CSC.


----------



## jmt18325

I think at anything less than 12, we're going to compromise our ability to operate effectively year round.  12 allows 4 to be at sea at all times.


----------



## ringo

I hope for more than 10 CSC as well but believe it will be 10 CSC and 5 AOPS, maybe if we get out of submarines or settle for interim AORs on permanent basis we can get a couple more CSC.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Getting out of submarines creates a whole host of other issues with domain awareness.

On paper, it may look like you are saving money, but you are giving up quite a lot of capability by not having them.


----------



## jollyjacktar

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Getting out of submarines creates a whole host of other issues with domain awareness.
> 
> On paper, it may look like you are saving money, but you are giving up quite a lot of capability by not having them.



And credibility too.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and the ability to train for ASW, something that has bitten us badly more than a few times in the past.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin P said:
			
		

> and the ability to train for ASW, something that has bitten us badly more than a few times in the past.



I am a bit less concerned about this part, but yeah, real world ASW is a gut check that you don't get in a sim.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am a bit less concerned about this part, but yeah, real world ASW is a gut check that you don't get in a sim.



I would still be concerned. There are still way too many "unstable" nations that could potentially be at times our enemies/opponent in our area of action and who own and operate diesel submarines. 

I know they may not be up to Western levels of maintenance and training, but they often work for governments that are more casual than we are with their seaman's lives. And that is sufficient to create a threat. Remember that, at the rate they were cranking out boats, the German by 1942 were sailing U-boats with crew as green as those of the corvettes that were fighting them. They were going to sea with fresh recruits barely trained and a couple of merchant seaman officers turned naval captains and a few merchant seaman engineers per boat. They still made quite an impression.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Our first U-Boat kill was a green corvette captain vs a green u-boat captain, thankfully our guy did everything right. Due to the lack of subs, Canada struggled to get subs loaned to her in WWII to train her escorts in sub hunting.


----------



## GR66

I'd strongly agree that ASW should be a priority focus for us...with the new CSC, by maintaining a submarine capability and with MPAs.  I personally think it's important for our own sovereignty but also in support of the US as our primary ally.

I can't think of anything that would have a bigger political and military effect (both psychologically and in terms of changes to overall strategy) on the US than the loss of one of their aircraft carriers.  While there are multiple possible threats to a carrier I'd guess that a lucky diesel sub is the greatest one.  

I'm sure the US would be happy to see us bring as much and as varied capabilities to the table as we can, but I'd be willing to bet that a strong ASW contribution would be at the top of their wish list.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Since we are not going to have Mistral like ships, I agree ASW is a skillset we can focus on, but also I would throw in Mine hunting as a skillset that seems to be ignored and would suit us well. It could also be used to increase leverage Canadian companies into the underwater robotics and detection game which we have done well in already. Harbour and approaches mine hunting could be also tasked to Naval Reserve units near major harbours who can practice the skill sets right in their own backyard.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Colin, what do you think the KINSTON's are?

Their MM designation means Mine warfare Multi-purpose.

They can sweep, but they also have the electronics to do route survey and, if you fit the type of remote control equipment you are talking about onboard, to mine hunt. In fact, they have tested all sorts of such equipment and, I am sure will continue to do so.

There are however, snags with what you are proposing. First of all, most of the European navies already have very developed and advanced mine hunting forces, and are therefore years ahead of us (and need them since, to this day, they still find mines from all the past wars suddenly showing up along their coasts and harbours). 

Second, as historically demonstrated, there is little to no mine threat to Canada, and North America in general, and in both world wars, we ended up using the sweepers as coastal escorts. There is a good reason why this is so: we are so far away from other countries that we might end up at war with. As a result, the chances of an "enemy" surface vessel making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific to our close coasts or harbour entrances to lay a reasonable number of mines is pretty insignificant.  And if you wish to do it by submarines, you face two difficulties - first, again, making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific without being detected, and second, the fact that a submarine can only carry an extremely limited number of mines, and only at the cost of landing some or all of its torpedoes. Much more economical and efficient to send submarines to actually do their job with their own torpedoes.

As fora "covert" limited mining operation by merchant ships in peace time, as I have discussed a long time ago in another post, it would also be extremely difficult and could have repercussions. First, Merchant ships are not designed to lay mines - second, a good deal of the crew, if not all of the crew, would have to be involved (and what are the chances of that) because laying mines at sea is a difficult undertaking that required cranes, booms or tracks of some sort and onboard handling equipments (mines are not light), which merchant ships don't usually carry, The highest likelihood then, is that it is done on government's order, and if so, it can be traced back to such government and laying mines in another's waters by any government is an act of war.


----------



## GR66

I understand a smaller ship can be fitted with a containerized towed-array sonar to allow it to detect enemy submarines, but how difficult would it be to fit them with weapons to engage what they detect?  Can the Kingston-Class or AOPS (or something similar) be fairly easily fitted with something like an ASROC launcher if necessary or would they also need new control systems?  Would they instead rely on a helicopter or MPA to engage the targets they detect?

I'm guessing both of those types of air assets would be just as difficult to obtain quickly in a conflict as the new ship itself would.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I know the Kingstons were designed for that in mind, but how often do they practice that skillset? I hadn't considered the European experience, thanks for that, my main thought is to back up the US which appear to have limited interest in that field, despite throwing some big bucks at it with little result.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> There are however, snags with what you are proposing. First of all, most of the European navies already have very developed and advanced mine hunting forces, and are therefore years ahead of us (and need them since, to this day, they still find mines from all the past wars suddenly showing up along their coasts and harbours).
> 
> Second, as historically demonstrated, there is little to no mine threat to Canada, and North America in general, and in both world wars, we ended up using the sweepers as coastal escorts. There is a good reason why this is so: we are so far away from other countries that we might end up at war with. As a result, the chances of an "enemy" surface vessel making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific to our close coasts or harbour entrances to lay a reasonable number of mines is pretty insignificant.  And if you wish to do it by submarines, you face two difficulties - first, again, making it across the whole Atlantic or Pacific without being detected, and second, the fact that a submarine can only carry an extremely limited number of mines, and only at the cost of landing some or all of its torpedoes. Much more economical and efficient to send submarines to actually do their job with their own torpedoes.
> 
> .....



There is another type of minewarfare though, isn't there?  What you have described is "offensive" mining as I understand it.  In WW2 and WW1 weren't a lot of the sown mines actually sown by local forces for "defensive" purposes?







And closer to home - The Golden Gate minefield


----------



## Fabius

When we discuss ASW in the context of the RCN why is there not consideration given to the role a helicopter carrier, BHS, LHD, etc. can play in the ASW fight?  Outfitted with a complement of ASW aircraft (helicopters) these small flat tops have seemed to have a promient role in ASW operations with other navies both now and in the past.  
Such ships played a key piece in the hunter killer groups in the Battle of the Atlantic, and have seen similar use during the Cold War.  Even now we see the Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces deploying ships of this nature (see the Hygua Class as an example).

It seems to be that when we discuss ASW ships in the context of the RCN's future we are strictly focused on surface warships such as the Halifax Class and discount any other other concept.

Perhaps this is just because this is the Surface Ship RFQ thread after all.  ;D


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> I know the Kingstons were designed for that in mind, but how often do they practice that skillset? I hadn't considered the European experience, thanks for that, my main thought is to back up the US which appear to have limited interest in that field, despite throwing some big bucks at it with little result.



The Kingston Class haven't practiced mechanical mine sweeping in many years. They do however practice mine warfare in the form of route survey and bottom object inspection. The latest concept of use for the Kingston Class lists a refocusing of the Class, acquiring new mine hunting equipment and a review of a life extension past the classes original 25 yr service life.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The Kingston Class haven't practiced mechanical mine sweeping in many years. They do however practice mine warfare in the form of route survey and bottom object inspection. The latest concept of use for the Kingston Class lists a refocusing of the Class, acquiring new mine hunting equipment and a review of a life extension past the classes original 25 yr service life.



Not surprised with the last part.  They are coming due for a life extension.  I would guess right around when the AOPs are mostly online???


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Not surprised with the last part.  They are coming due for a life extension.  I would guess right around when the AOPs are mostly online???



The Class is in good shape and there is a long list of upgrades currently being implemented included a replacement for the 40MM. It interesting to note both the Kingston Class and AOPS concept of use lists the Kingston Class to continue to operate in the Arctic as a platform for chart work.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here I go, sounding the Lurblaeseren for the Danes again.   [  If anyone is interested.

https://www.navalengineers.org/ProceedingsDocs/ASNEDay2015/Technical%20Paper%20Sessions/Sorensen_Paper.pdf

The author, of OMT, may be working on your ships as we speak.  Who knows.

Anyway, I find his comments about modularity, combat information systems, flexibility, commonality across classes and In Service Support verry interesting.






One common system for the CSC, AOPS, JSS and the MCDV with plug and play pieces.  And fast upgrades.

And I will put one more plug in for the Flex Deck Concept, particularly as described by the Dutch shipyard Damen and their Crossover series.

As someone interested in getting muddy boots and pongos onboard pristine, if bolshie, RCN vessels, obviously the Flexdeck/Crossover deck appeals to me.

But might it not also offer the RCN advantages as well?   I mean in addition to a glorified boat deck.

Would it be possible to increase the carrying capacity of the crossover crane to 50 tonnes so as to be able to lift the deckplates on the flexdeck and access the machinery spaces so you could yard out your own engines and drop them on the dockside and bring another engine on board?  Or even carry a spare if the situation warranted?

The crossover crane is already envisaged as having a capacity of up to 40 tonnes to be able to lift LCVPs according to the product sheet accessible from here.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Some foreign (mostly NATO) frigates with good images (I've done Norwegian, Danish and Dutch):
http://defencyclopedia.com/2016/01/02/top-10-most-powerful-frigates-in-the-world/
















Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Pat in Halifax

I don't believe I am going to say this but here goes. IAW CFDS, support to multi national TGs in foreign operations is but one portion. For the remainder, anything much beyond a PRE MLR Halifax class is a bit of overkill. My thoughts recently have been a small force for blue water ops and a shitload of OPVs in the 1000-2500 ton range with constabulary capabilities. I sit back now and have to ask, do we really need a large fleet of AB/Type 45/FREMM type vessels... I mean really? As much as I would love to see a huge surface combatant fleet harkening back to the 60s, do we REALLY need it?
I worked the CSC Project in Ottawa 2011-2012 and am proud of the work I did toward it but now that I am out, I really have to ask myself if this is the right move for us. Yes, we are a maritime nation but for the price of one CSC we could potentially build (and crew) 2-3 smaller vessels. Sending even a skeleton crew of 160 on a Halifax class on a FISHPAT/NANOOK/CARIBE is NOT the best use of our limited HR resources.
I want to see a strong Navy as much as anyone but maybe a step back from the table is in order. I realize some of you may think me out to lunch and that is fine.

Pat


----------



## dapaterson

Pat:  I'm not in violent disagreement.  A corvette navy plus half a dozen or so major combatants might be an option; as I recall, the KINGSTON class spend more days at sea than the HALIFAX.  Much of this goes back to a need for a clearly enunciated defence policy for Canada - what do we want the RCN to do?


----------



## jollyjacktar

I have no objection to a Corvette navy once more as Pat is proposing.  Were we to downgrade, I would want to make sure they they're capable of something better than getting outrun by the Dartmouth Ferry or the like.


----------



## dimsum

Agreed as well.  Also, the Russian experience in Syria has proven that corvette-sized ships can fling long range missiles.  

A fleet of corvettes based on the Norwegian Skjold-class would be a sight to see   :nod:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skjold-class_corvette


----------



## AlexanderM

Nothing wrong with the Corvette concept, would prefer something a little larger, say up to 3000 tons or slightly above, with one or two VLS 41 launchers, capable of:

Littoral
Escort
Anti-Piracy
ASW

Would need a good range.  There are a number of designs that can carry a Cyclone sized helo.  3-4 Ivars and 6 or more Corvettes per coast.


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Nothing wrong with the Corvette concept, would prefer something a little larger, say up to 3000 tons or slightly above, with one or two VLS 41 launchers, capable of:
> 
> Littoral
> Escort
> Anti-Piracy
> ASW
> 
> Would need a good range.  There are a number of designs that can carry a Cyclone sized helo.  3-4 Ivars and 6 or more Corvettes per coast.



AM, even just one Mk.41 (or 57) would be quite a capability! :nod:


----------



## deepblue202

How about the Sigma Frigate 10514 http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-frigate-and-corvette/sigma-frigate-10514


----------



## GR66

For those of us interested readers that are uneducated about such things what are the biggest cost factors in making this program so expensive?

I'm guessing it's not the actual construction of the hull itself.  Is it the initial cost of creating the industrial capacity to build the ships in the first place?  Is it the design cost of modifying a basic design to meet our specific Canadian requirements and integrating those systems to work together?  The cost of the weapons?  The cost of the sensors?  The lifetime maintenance cost of the ships?  The cost of crewing them?

Knowing that might help to understand what kind of actions might actually have a realistic chance of improving the process.  What actions or decisions might actually have a realistic impact on the long term affordability of our Navy.

- Do we have the actual hulls built elsewhere (domestic political impacts?)
- Do we stick to an existing design with established systems integration (have to suit our doctrine of operations to the platform?)
- Do we reduce the number and/or capability of the weapons and/or sensors fitted (reduce our capability?)
- Do we go for lower maintenance designs (does that affect survivability and redundancy?)
- Do we go for ships with smaller crew requirements (does that change our basic method of operations?)
- Do we stick with the plan and just have fewer ships (what are the effects of that?)


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66 said:
			
		

> For those of us interested readers that are uneducated about such things what are the biggest cost factors in making this program so expensive?
> 
> I'm guessing it's not the actual construction of the hull itself.  Is it the initial cost of creating the industrial capacity to build the ships in the first place?  Is it the design cost of modifying a basic design to meet our specific Canadian requirements and integrating those systems to work together?  The cost of the weapons?  The cost of the sensors?  The lifetime maintenance cost of the ships?  The cost of crewing them?



You forgot one:  The cost of Canadian politics (politicians)?


----------



## Kirkhill

On the OPV front:

Here is one of the, if not the, most modern OPV on the oceans just now.

HNLMS Holland - 



> The general characteristics of the class is a displacement of 3,750 tons, speed of up to 22 knots, length of 108.4 meters and a range of 5,000n.m. with the speed of 15 knots. The endurance is 21 days. The complement is just 52 people while there is additional accommodation for more than 40 in really spacious rooms (it was like.. a floating hotel to me comparing with other ships such as a Type 23 frigate).


  

Complete with ship's bar apparently 












Here's a link to a very nice presentation - lots of facts, photos and videos.

http://navalanalyses.blogspot.ca/2014/11/holland-class-offshore-patrol-boats-of.html


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's a less "glossy" view of the Hollands, but with some really interesting costing information (ca 2010)



> For an OPV - called Ocean Going Patrol Vessel by the MOD - it's huge at 3750t. Even if the MoD calls them 'small flexible patrol vessels'. It's bigger than the 3320t M-class it replaces.
> There are a couple of reasons for this. First, mild steel is used to build the vessels. This is heavier than the high tensile steel used for frigates. Mild steel is cheaper and since the ships will only do 22 knots, high tensile steel is not necessary. A plus is that this cheaper steel is actually more blast resistant. The second reason is the use of a lot of armour on the ships and the last reason is the need to operate the NH-90 helicopter up to Sea State 5.
> 
> Length: 354ft.
> Propulsion: Diesel-electric
> Max Sustained Speed: 22kts
> Range: 5000nm (@15kts)
> Endurance: 21 days
> Crew: 50 (max. 90 + 100 evacuees)
> Armament: 1x 76mm Oto Melara, 1x30mm Marlin WS, 2x 12.7mm Hitrole (all remotely operated)
> Stern Launch: 1
> RHIB Davit: 1 RHIB
> Aviation Facilities: One NH-90 + hangar
> Cost: €120 million a piece of which about €30 million is for the Integrated Mast from Thales.
> 
> On paper it actually has a lot in common with the notional characteristics of the future Offshore Patrol Cutter from the USCG.



http://www.informationdissemination.net/2010/03/holland-class-opvs-will-need-change.html

Edit to add a further discussion link

http://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.ca/2012/03/neither-frigate-nor-opv-be.html


----------



## jmt18325

I would be in favour of getting 6 very capable Canadian Surface Combatant ships, and something like 12 corvettes (in addition to the AOPS and a patrol boat class to replace the MCDVs).  I think it would serve Canada's needs well.


----------



## Kirkhill

And while about it 

A neat little technical article about propulsion systems  http://202.114.89.60/resource/pdf/5220.pdf

It may help to answer why the AOPS opted not to use an all electric drive system based on Azipods 



> With a well designed system, a mechanical propulsion has a full load efficiency in the range of 98%
> whereas an electric drive has an efficiency of about 90--92%.



And it also addresses changes in ships operations that reduce/eliminate the need for a high-speed sprint capability

Apparently the German F123 (designed for 1990) was expected to do the following:

15% of the time Loitering at 0 to 10 kts
55% of the time in Transit at 12 to 20 kts
20% of the time in High Speed Transit at 20 to 26 kts
And
10% of the time in Sprint Mode

Meanwhile the German F125 (designed for 2010) is expected to do:

32% of the time Loitering at 0 to 10 kts
54% of the time in Transit at 12 to 20 kts
14% of the time in High Speed Transit at 20 to 26 kts.
And
Exactly 0% of the time in Sprint Mode.

The elimination of the Sprint Mode, made possible by greater reliance on helos, UAVs and high speed interceptor boats, results in the following change in power requirements (5200 ton frigate):

To achieve a maximum speed of 20 knots (Transit) you need a 15 MW power plant
To achieve a maximum speed of 25 knots (High Speed Transit) you need a 25 MW power plant
To achieve a maximum speed of 30 knots (Sprint Mode) you need a 45 MW power plant

You see the latter in both the Halifax and the Italian Fremms.
Ivar Huitfeldt conforms to the German F125 concept  and the Absalon is scaled according to the Transit model.

Ivar Huitfeldt - 32.8 MW to drive 6645 tonnes through the water at 30 kts
Absalon (same hull form as Huitfeldt) - 16.4 MW to drive 6300 tonnes through the water at 24 kts.

Does the RCN need sprinters or can it manage with drifters?  How many of each?  Can the same hull be used for logistics as for combat?  Can hulls be fitted with additional engines if circumstances demand?

Many thanks to Pat and Mark for finding me some new paths to surf.  :nod:


----------



## AlexanderM

Not saying we need these, but here is what can be done inside 3200 tons. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formidable-class_frigate


----------



## Stoker

I would say get 12 of these, 6 on each coast. I was on LÉ Róisínand its quite nice. 1500 tonnes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%89_R%C3%B3is%C3%ADn_%28P51%29


----------



## Underway

Can't do Cyclone on a hull that size without a massive loss in capability.  Also even with a small helo you need a larger ship to do proper helo ops at the sea states that we get in the northern latitudes.  The helo is such an important part of the Canadian TG.

Corvette navies you notice are built by countries that have no need to deal with big oceans, only sail in brown or close to home blue waters and finally have limited funds.  Its no surprise the Med nations, Baltic nations (North Sea included) and South Pacific nations all build corvettes.  The Russian Black Sea fleet has corvettes but their Northern and Pacific Fleets really don't have any (for those same reasons).   No need to build a ship with legs if all you're gonna do is hang out at home in nice calm waters.  The Canadian situation is very different and the job requirements handed to us by the government require a big (relatively) ship navy.  Even the AOP's are a big ship by corvette standards.

If the cost of a ship is based mainly on its weapon/sensor systems then really capable corvettes are going to cost pretty close to the same as a bigger ship.  Unless you accept a loss in capability.  So if you want a less capable navy well then build less capable ships.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> Can't do Cyclone on a hull that size without a massive loss in capability.  Also even with a small helo you need a larger ship to do proper helo ops at the sea states that we get in the northern latitudes.  The helo is such an important part of the Canadian TG.
> 
> Corvette navies you notice are built by countries that have no need to deal with big oceans, only sail in brown or close to home blue waters and finally have limited funds.  Its no surprise the Med nations, Baltic nations (North Sea included) and South Pacific nations all build corvettes.  The Russian Black Sea fleet has corvettes but their Northern and Pacific Fleets really don't have any (for those same reasons).   No need to build a ship with legs if all you're gonna do is hang out at home in nice calm waters.  The Canadian situation is very different and the job requirements handed to us by the government require a big (relatively) ship navy.  Even the AOP's are a big ship by corvette standards.
> 
> 
> If the cost of a ship is based mainly on its weapon/sensor systems then really capable corvettes are going to cost pretty close to the same as a bigger ship.  Unless you accept a loss in capability.  So if you want a less capable navy well then build less capable ships.



I believe the sea keeping requirement to manage boats and Cyclone size helos in sea state 5 is what drove the Hollands up to 3750 tonnes and the Svalbard up to 6000 tonnes.

HMS Clyde - at 2000 tonnes can land a Cyclone but has no hangar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257)


----------



## GR66

Does this meet the criteria for a reasonably capable vessel with blue water helicopter capability, a VLS system, ASuW missiles, mission bays, a smaller crew, an in-production hull, and interoperability with our allies?

https://web.archive.org/web/20140806123312/http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf


----------



## AlexanderM

GR66 said:
			
		

> Does this meet the criteria for a reasonably capable vessel with blue water helicopter capability, a VLS system, ASuW missiles, mission bays, a smaller crew, an in-production hull, and interoperability with our allies?
> 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20140806123312/http://www.austal.com/Resources/PromotionSlides/dd47585d-170b-4e43-a80c-2d849e065b2d/mm-brochure-horiz2011.pdf


12 please.


----------



## AlexanderM

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I believe the sea keeping requirement to manage boats and Cyclone size helos in sea state 5 is what drove the Hollands up to 3750 tonnes and the Svalbard up to 6000 tonnes.
> 
> HMS Clyde - at 2000 tonnes can land a Cyclone but has no hangar.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Clyde_(P257)


The Hollands would work just fine, plenty of freeboard and stability, hopefully could add one vls launcher.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would say get 12 of these, 6 on each coast. I was on LÉ Róisínand its quite nice. 1500 tonnes.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%89_R%C3%B3is%C3%ADn_%28P51%29



I was a guest on her at Quebec City in 08.  Very nice little ship indeed, good sized crew, facilities and capability.  Would suit me just fine, she would.  Good pick.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I was a guest on her at Quebec City in 08.  Very nice little ship indeed, good sized crew, facilities and capability.  Would suit me just fine, she would.  Good pick.



So was I, the Irish party really hard ;D


----------



## dimsum

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would say get 12 of these, 6 on each coast. I was on LÉ Róisínand its quite nice. 1500 tonnes.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%89_R%C3%B3is%C3%ADn_%28P51%29



I was part of a Lakes Tour when her sister ship Le Niamh was doing her first (?) international tour in 2004.  I heard from various sources their port visit in Toronto was....interesting.


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I was part of a Lakes Tour when her sister ship Le Niamh was doing her first (?) international tour in 2004.  I heard from various sources their port visit in Toronto was....interesting.



So was I we drove from Kingston (namesake visit) and had a time on board.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So was I, the Irish party really hard ;D



Awesome chaps.  I was legless.  Would love a cross pol/exchange to them any time.


----------



## dimsum

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> So was I we drove from Kingston (namesake visit) and had a time on board.



So you can probably answer this:  Did or did not some HCol suggest that his daughter show the Irish lads a night on the town (to...um...put it diplomatically)?

 >


----------



## Stoker

Dimsum said:
			
		

> So you can probably answer this:  Did or did not some HCol suggest that his daughter show the Irish lads a night on the town (to...um...put it diplomatically)?
> 
> >



Wouldn't surprise me. Can't say for sure as I ended up with severe gyro failure after drinking Jamison's out of a pint glass after the beer ran out. These guys party hard.


----------



## jmt18325

Underway said:
			
		

> Can't do Cyclone on a hull that size without a massive loss in capability.



The helicopters would be for the smaller fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants and the AORs.  These ships would be used for patrol and things like operation caribbe.


----------



## dimsum

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Wouldn't surprise me. Can't say for sure as I ended up with severe gyro failure after drinking Jamison's out of a pint glass after the beer ran out. These guys party hard.



Dammit.  I had to visit the parents that night (and show them GLA the next day) but I've been hearing stories about the party since then.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I still remember blundering into the C&PO's and coming across a photograph of Her Honour, Mary Robinson, posted much as we would have HM.  I asked who she was only to exclaim we could only be so lucky to have a PM as good looking as her.  They, were not the least bit offended.


----------



## NavyShooter

So, 

The question is, what will we actually get?

The answer is, something that complies with the competitive bid process.

As much as I'd be delighted to see a mix of ships, and having seen the little corvettes that the Irish run, they're damn cute, but they don't fit into the NSPS, do they?

We'll get 15 (12?) large ships, somewhat similar to a Halifax Class, with probably similar capabilities.  We'll get 2(or 3 with the Resolve) Supply ships.  We'll get a 5(-7?) AOPS.  

We'll also see some Coast Guard ships.

To expect the makeup of the fleet to change at this point would be a surprise. 

Would a dozen little corvettes make a great addition to the fleet, absolutely.  Are they in the cards/budget/plan right now?  Nope.

Nothing wrong with dreaming though!

NS


----------



## dapaterson

The fundamental problem is that the NSPS is an economic development strategy, not a naval strategy.


----------



## Stoker

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The fundamental problem is that the NSPS is an economic development strategy, not a naval strategy.



You nailed it. In a perfect world the funds would be made available to the RCN, we design what we need and get it built as cheaply and efficiently as possible either domestic or offshore. Sadly that's not the case.


----------



## Kirkhill

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> You nailed it. In a perfect world the funds would be made available to the RCN, we design what we need and get it built as cheaply and efficiently as possible either domestic or offshore. Sadly that's not the case.



And I think it is safe to say that there is not a navy in the world for whom that is the case.

Everybody gets what they get and then makes it work.

With respect to the lack of a Corvette programme in the NSPS - that is a reason why I continue to believe the Multi-Tiered Single Class concept is still likely to be the best bet for preserving capacity within the budget.

The Danes, of course, have two tiers in their single class (Command and Support is one,  AAW is the other).  The Brits are moving their Type 26 back to the three tier model (C1, C2 and C3 - although C3 may end up being a new Corvette type design).

I don't think you are going to be able to get 4 Tier 1 AAWs and and 12 Tier 2 CPFs all manned with 200 plus regular sailors and all equipped with brand new weapons.  Not with Canadian pricing practices. 

I do think that you could build 16 hulls, carve them up into three tiers with different levels of weaponry, cargo and passengers, and man them with reduced crews that could be beefed up with third watches, specialists (like weapons and boarding parties or even soldiers) for extended deployments.  And I am pretty sure that you could motivate sea-going soldiers to learn how to keep their ship afloat if it were damaged.


----------



## Journeyman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The fundamental problem is that the NSPS is an economic development strategy, not a naval strategy.


Much like the _Canada First Defence Strategy_  was nothing more than a Christmas wish list, rather than even a feeble attempt at "strategy."  It was justifiably shelved before the ink was dry. 



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> In a perfect world the funds would be made available to the RCN, we design what we need and get it built....


What are the odds that the process would devolve to leadership preferences zig-zagging through posting cycles?  In the fighter-dominated RCAF, ask a Sea King person how enthused they are to see the world revolving around CF-18 replacement.


----------



## dapaterson

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Much like the _Canada First Defence Strategy_  was nothing more than a Christmas wish list, rather than even a feeble attempt at "strategy."  It was justifiably shelved before the ink was dry.



Don't worry.  Under the new government, the wish list will not be tied to any specific religious holiday, but will be equally ignored when fiscal reality hits.



> What are the odds that the process would devolve to leadership preferences zig-zagging through posting cycles?  In the fighter-dominated RCAF, ask a Sea King person how enthused they are to see the world revolving around CF-18 replacement.



The challenge of building a consensus and a shared vision that survives the posting cycle is, in theory, what Leadership is all about.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Of course, were the powers that be decide to go back to the drawing boards once more for a better bang for the buck solution (Corvette, MTSC, vicious Sea Bass with lasers on their heads...) the amount of treasure that has been expended so far would have been wasted and having seen how slowly the mills of the gods in Ottawa grind plus appeasing PWGSC (the real enemy), I am sure the second coming will come first.  I know now why men(and women) go mad here.

Yes, it could happen.  It has before, EH101 anyone?  Will it?  Goodness knows.


----------



## STONEY

I think i would rather have 6 new subs in the works than 24 new corvettes . More bank for the buck. Remember there are subs and everything else is a target. 

Toodles


----------



## Stoker

STONEY said:
			
		

> I think i would rather have 6 new subs in the works than 24 new corvettes . More bank for the buck. Remember there are subs and everything else is a target.
> 
> Toodles



Honestly the utility for subs are great for a country, but they are a notorious black hole for money which the RCN just doesn't have. Just look at what was spent on the Victoria Class so far and apply it to the surface fleet, we would be well off. I would pick a corvette or patrol ship built overseas over the capability of a sub any day in peacetime.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Honestly the utility for subs are great for a country, but they are a notorious black hole for money which the RCN just doesn't have. Just look at what was spent on the Victoria Class so far and apply it to the surface fleet, we would be well off. I would pick a corvette or patrol ship built overseas over the capability of a sub any day in peacetime.



So, do we exist for peace or war?

Subs are actually incredibly efficient war fighting devices. They soak up a terrible amount of resources just defending against them.

But, as you astutely note, does the CF exist for peace or war?


----------



## jollyjacktar

As the Romans succinctly put it, "those who desire peace, prepare for war".  Bearing that in mind, the CAF exist for and how the GoC wants us to be, it's not really up to us, is it?

Subs are great, but until I went to FMF I did not have a real idea of how much of a money pit they can be.  I honestly can't say if their cost out weigh their utility or if the reverse is true.  That is above my comprehension, pay grade and need to know.


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So, do we exist for peace or war?
> 
> ....



Yes?

You exist for peace AND war.

Some of you operate peacefully in an environment that may turn war-like at any moment..... but hasn't for the number of days/months/years/decades.   Some of you operate in peaceful environments with no risk.  Some of you are despatched to areas of high risk or to active theatres.

While it seems reasonable to have all platforms equipped for all risks in all environments the net effect is 1x Zumwalt (or 1x Rainbow and 1x Niobe) is available to patrol coasts and act overseas 24/7.

The alternative is a larger number of platforms with fewer capabilities and higher risk.   But Risk Management is all about everything - whether it is safe for the Coast Guard to operate, or the RCMP in higher risk areas or the CAF in the highest risk environment.


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So, do we exist for peace or war?
> 
> Subs are actually incredibly efficient war fighting devices. They soak up a terrible amount of resources just defending against them.
> 
> But, as you astutely note, does the CF exist for peace or war?



I agree their great for a country that has a decent defence budget. Honestly you have no idea the money spent with the sub certification program. The money saved would pay for top of the line shiny helo's for you that's for sure and money left over for the RCN. In the big scheme of things we would be better off without them, my opinion as a skimmer of course.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I agree their great for a country that has a decent defence budget. Honestly you have no idea the money spent with the sub certification program. The money saved would pay for top of the line shiny helo's for you that's for sure and money left over for the RCN. In the big scheme of things we would be better off without them, my opinion as a skimmer of course.



But in the skimmer world, we have another way of ridding ourselves of submarines  ;D


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But in the skimmer world, we have another way of ridding ourselves of submarines  ;D



That's right dust off Sackville and buy some depth charges.


----------



## suffolkowner

With respect to submarines do people think that a new platform would be cheaper to run for example the U216/U218?


----------



## suffolkowner

a piece on the costs of the submarine service

http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol10num3/vol10num3art8.pdf


----------



## tabernac

_Emphasis_ added.


			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Subs are great, but until I went to FMF I did not have a real idea of how much of a money pit they can be.  I honestly can't say if their cost outweigh their utility or if the reverse is true.  That is above my comprehension, pay grade and need to know.





			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Subs are actually incredibly efficient war fighting devices. They soak up a terrible amount of resources just defending against them.



I think SKT addressed JJT's cost/benefit concerns soundly. 
Within the task group construct, in a multi threat warfare scenario, multiple ships get dispatched to hunt one sub. That single sub-surface asset has just taken multiple surface ships away from the high value unit, leaving the burden of maintaining the screen on fewer ships, thereby leaving the HVU more vulnerable. Happy day for the sub, who will just go deep - not a happy day for the "priceless" HVU, or the screening ship's whose mission is to protect her.




			
				STONEY said:
			
		

> I think i would rather have 6 new subs in the works than 24 new corvettes . More bank for the buck. Remember where there are subs - *everything else is a target*.


Absolutely subs have more bank for their buck. And it seems so few people, even those within the naval community, understand this concept.



			
				Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Honestly the utility for subs are great for a country, but they are a notorious black hole for money which the RCN just doesn't have. Just look at what was spent on the Victoria Class so far and apply it to the surface fleet, we would be well off. I would pick a corvette or patrol ship built overseas over the capability of a sub any day in peacetime.



Robbing Peter to pay Paul makes for a poor defence policy. Certainly when you're talking about completely removing our ability to fight or operate underwater, in exchange for a token presence on the surface. I'll keep my sub-surface golden-egg-laying-goose, thanks.

In peacetime we pay large sums to maintain this capability. In wartime, we reap the dividends. Even in peacetime we can reap the dividends - our subs have deployed on Op Caribbe, and have contributed to stopping illegal narcotics.

We don't plan for peace, we plan for war. That's at the very core of what we (CAF) do. We would just prefer it that it all remains peaceful.

/sub-tangent


----------



## GK .Dundas

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But in the skimmer world, we have another way of ridding ourselves of submarines  ;D


OK that takes care of our submarines .But how do we deal with an opponent's subs.For some odd  reason I doubt they 'll let us screw  with their budgets .But then again I have been wrong before. :


----------



## Stoker

cheeky_monkey said:
			
		

> _Emphasis_ added.
> In peacetime we pay large sums to maintain this capability. In wartime, we reap the dividends. Even in peacetime we can reap the dividends - our subs have deployed on Op Caribbe, and have contributed to stopping illegal narcotics.
> 
> We don't plan for peace, we plan for war. That's at the very core of what we (CAF) do. We would just prefer it that it all remains peaceful.



I really don't think six subs, with two in refit at all times is in my opinion a good way to spend limited defence dollars. Did you see the article, something like 90% of what it costs to operate our surface fleet to what it costs for six subs. How much operational time for our money? not much. It took over 10 years for Victoria to fire a torpedo.  Do people realize the dog and pony show that follows the Victoria Class to maintain them when they hit port$$  I do realize its a capability, but not a capability that we need right now given the state of the fleet in my opinion. As for the Op Caribbe, yes they did disrupt drugs but so did a 60 million MCDV.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Agreed.  I believe it's Cornerbrook that has actually spent more time on the lift (years) than she's ever spent in the water.  I fail to see the overall benefit of having the resource bleed as we've experienced.  CM, you fail to convince me otherwise as to their utility.  There are many platforms we'd all love to see on the inventory, Amphibs, Carriers, Subs, etc etc but it's a case of want vs need.  We need to be smarter than we have been in the past as we cannot continue to spend like drunken sailors.


----------



## Stoker

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Agreed.  I believe it's Cornerbrook that has actually spent more time on the lift (years) than she's ever spent in the water.  I fail to see the overall benefit of having the resource bleed as we've experienced.  CM, you fail to convince me otherwise as to their utility.  There are many platforms we'd all love to see on the inventory, Amphibs, Carriers, Subs, etc etc but it's a case of want vs need.  We need to be smarter than we have been in the past as we cannot continue to spend like drunken sailors.



I totally agree divest ourselves of the subs, build up the surface fleet, and get new subs then. Farm out our personnel to the Brits and Australians to maintain skills.


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I totally agree divest ourselves of the subs, build up the surface fleet, and get new subs then. Farm out our personnel to the Brits and Australians to maintain skills.



Once the subs are gone we will never get them back.  it will be a lost capability like the Bonnie.  It's hard enough to convince the gov't to retain the capability as it currently stands.  And an inability to know what happens under our waters is the dumbest thing you can think of from a strategic perspective.  Submarines are arguably Canada's only operational strategic weapons system and are critical for a maritime nation on an island continent.  

What the navy really needs is a budgetary increase, and less crabbing about cutting capability.  There's a reason every other nation in the world is increasing their subs, and its because the strategic impact for the cost is much better than surface fleets.  How are we in Canada the only ones who seem to think that this is the opposite?


----------



## PuckChaser

Underway said:
			
		

> What the navy*CAF *really needs is a budgetary increase, and less crabbing about cutting capability.



FTFY.

The RCN is not alone in budgetary struggles. The Army just parked 50% of its B Fleet because we can't afford to run them.


----------



## Journeyman

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The Army just parked 50% of its B Fleet  trucks .....



/translation  

[it _is_  a Navy thread after all; if we're going to be guests, we should be considerate of Army-speak.    ]


----------



## YZT580

Perhaps the high cost of running the subs is more reflective of the old adage "Buyer beware" when buying something used.  If we had invested, sorry, if is a stupid argument because we didn't.  The same can be said regarding the foolishness of closing the st. Johns yard.  All studies have indicated that we require an underwater presence.  In addition, subs are the only reliable means of patrolling our northern flank.  Nuclear ones at that which is a really bad word.  So either we pay the price or we lower the flag.  The more we delay the more it will cost us.  The replacement project for the Sea Kings comes to mind when I say that.  What is needed more than anything is leadership that is willing to spell out our basic requirements regardless of the fact that it will be bad news.  Since Trudeau has said that he wishes to instate total freedom of speech I wait impatiently for the naval/air force leader who will take him at his word and tell Canada the exact state of our current inventory.


----------



## suffolkowner

What I gathered from the naval review article was that our fleet of 4 subs were costing 95% of the entire surface fleet. While comparatively the cost should be 30% per unit which should equal just over 1 Halifax class frigate. I'd take that any day of the week.  24x that costing would seem to be an issue that is difficult to justify so either
1. the 30% number is inaccurate
2. the Victoria class is inordinately expensive to run (or maybe just one of them)
3. or the RCN submarine management skills have atrophied over time


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Was that just operational costs, or the ops and upgrade costs rolled into one?


----------



## Stoker

The subs are incredibly expensive to operate and maintain that's a matter of public knowledge. They sat in the water for years rotting away while the government at the time dithered. They were expensive to reactivate not to mention all the problems they had with them, IE the tragic fire and the grounding. There is also the certification program they go through to ensure they are operational. Spare parts are very expensive. When  the RCN bought them they had the choice of something like five warehouses of parts, the RCN only had so much money and at the time picked what they though they needed. The rest of the parts went to BAE, when they need parts for them we pay through the nose, not to mention many parts to be re-certified has to be sent to the UK.
Again I want to be clear, while the subs are a necessary strategic asset like others have alluded to I worry about having a robust surface fleet including the proper support to look after our domestic and international commitments. IF the budget for the RCN is increased then by all means have subs but not at expense of what little we have now.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CSC: _FrontLine Defence_ takes on Irving:



> Editor's Corner
> Govt Tackles Procurement Challenge
> BY CHRIS MACLEAN
> ...
> Canada’s experience/expertise in warship design, combat system development or integration dissipated decades ago. Undeniable logic dictates that a project of this complexity should be undertaken by an experienced warship integrator (that includes WD, plus CSI, plus Platform System Integrator) to avoid disaster in the form of delays and cost...
> 
> Canada has taken a shipbuilder with limited experience with the complexities of modern warships, and placed it in a position of authority to determine which companies it prefers to work with. This is completely backward to the normal build process of any large and complex project. It’s like putting the construction foreman in charge of choosing which cyber security engineers he/she would prefer to work with when building the new CSIS facility.
> 
> Will the Liberal government push back from the bullying tactics that have been displayed, and reconsider if the best option for Canada wouldn’t be to change to the most capable design procurement strategy? It’s not too late to turn this ship around...
> http://defence.frontline.online/article/2015/6/3703



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tabernac

YTZ and Underway have hit the nail on the head.

Subs are a capability that is required for our own northern surveillance. The north is slowly, but very surely opening up. We need a multi-pronged, multi-dimensional approach to maritime security. Subs are a key component of that.

The proliferation of 'inexpensive" diesel subs around the world - specifically into the hands of non-NATO/FVEYs countries - is on the rise. To meet this threat, we need the capability.
For as long as Canada borders the oceans, we need to be able to operate under, on, and in the sky above. We need to do this not only in the interest of our own security, but with our vested interest operating as a piece within the global maritime security construct.

To argue that it's purely a matter of dollars and cents is myopic. At the very least we must retain the sub capability such that it can be expanded in times of budgetary feast, and put into a maintenance posture (not cut entirely) in times of famine.

More than just hulls, people, dollars, and capability, what we need is a definitive naval strategy within the larger Canadian defence strategy. We certainly don't have that.
And we need senior leadership who are willing to address the elephant in the room head on.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

One submarine pretty much cost Argentina the entire Falklands War.  The British Navy was able to operate with impunity following the attack on Belgrano.

Getting rid of the submarine program would be a very shortsighted decision.


----------



## Stoker

Subs have deployed north twice to the Arctic that's it. We are building a system of underwater surveillance in the Northwest passage to detect subs and ships. That being said I doubt we will get rid of our subs despite the hopes of many of us who sail out the harbour while watching subs sit alongside taking up 80% of what it takes the fleet to operate however anything is possible with our new government. These subs that we have cannot be laid up to save money, they have to be continuously maintained at operational levels or we'll have a repeat of when we got the things. With all the new ships coming I hope there will extra funds to support the fleet as at current levels we won't be able to do it.  I would say within a year we will have a new white paper and we'll see what the future the military and RCN is, no doubt lots of peacekeeping, unicorns and rainbows.


----------



## Kirkhill

Impunity indeed.



> Saturday 1st May
> 
> HMS Alacrity - slightly damaged by bomb near misses
> 
> HMS Arrow - slightly damaged by cannon fire
> 
> HMS Glamorgan - slightly damaged by bomb near misses, all off Stanley by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.
> 
> Tuesday 4th May
> 
> HMS SHEFFIELD - mortally damaged south east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and sank in tow on Monday 10th May.
> 
> Wednesday 12th May
> 
> HMS Glasgow - moderately damaged off Stanley by unexploded bomb (1) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Bomb passed through hull but damage took some days to repair and she shortly returned to UK.
> 
> Friday 21st May
> 
> HMS Antrim - seriously damaged in Falkland Sound outside San Carlos Water by unexploded bomb (2) dropped by Daggers of FAA Grupo 6. UXB removed but damage took some days to repair.
> 
> HMS Broadsword - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6.
> 
> HMS Argonaut - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by rockets and cannon fire from Aermacchi MB.339A of CANA 1 Esc, and then seriously damaged by two unexploded bombs (3/4) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 5. Removing the UXB's and carrying out repairs took a number of days and although declared operational, she soon sailed for the UK.
> 
> HMS Brilliant - slightly damaged outside San Carlos Water by cannon fire from Daggers of Grupo 6. (Different attack from "Broadsword")
> 
> HMS ARDENT - badly damaged in Grantham Sound by bombs - hits, UXB's (5+) and near misses - dropped by Daggers of Grupo 6, then mortally damaged by bombs from A-4Q Skyhawks of CANA 3 Esc off North West Island. Sank the following evening.
> 
> Sunday 23rd May
> 
> HMS ANTELOPE - damaged in San Carlos Water by two unexploded bombs (6/7) dropped by A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5. One of the bombs exploded that evening while being defused and she caught fire and sank next day.
> 
> Monday 24th May
> 
> RFA Sir Galahad - damaged by unexploded bomb (8) and out of action for some days,
> 
> RFA Sir Lancelot - damaged by unexploded bomb (9) and not fully operational for almost three weeks,
> 
> RFA Sir Bedivere - slightly damaged by glancing bomb, all in San Carlos Water probably by A-4C Skyhawks of FAA Grupo 4.
> 
> Tuesday 25th May
> 
> HMS Broadsword - damaged north of Pebble Island by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5 bouncing up through her stern and out again to land in the sea.
> 
> HMS COVENTRY - sunk north of Pebble Island in same attack by three bombs.
> 
> ATLANTIC CONVEYOR - mortally damaged north east of Falklands by Exocet missile fired by Super Etendard of CANA 2 Esc. Burnt out and later sank in tow.
> 
> Saturday 29th May
> 
> British Wye - hit north of South Georgia by bomb dropped by C-130 Hercules of FAA Grupo 1 which bounced into the sea without exploding
> 
> Tuesday 8th June
> 
> HMS Plymouth - damaged in Falkland Sound off San Carlos Water by four unexploded bombs (10-13) from Daggers of FAA Grupo 6.
> 
> RFA SIR GALAHAD - mortally damaged off Fitzroy by bombs from A-4B Skyhawks of Grupo 5 and burnt out. Later in June towed out to sea and sunk as a war grave.
> 
> RFA Sir Tristram - badly damaged off Fitzroy in same attack and abandoned, but later returned to UK and repaired.
> 
> LCU F4, HMS Fearless - sunk in Choiseul Sound by bomb from A-4B Skyhawk of Grupo 5.
> 
> Saturday 12th June
> 
> HMS Glamorgan - damaged off Stanley by land-based Exocet missile.



http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Falklands-British_ships_lost.htm


----------



## Stoker

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> One submarine pretty much cost Argentina the entire Falklands War.  The British Navy was able to operate with impunity following the attack on Belgrano.
> 
> Getting rid of the submarine program would be a very shortsighted decision.



Sure but we need to be able to actually fire a torpedo in anger, it took over 10 years for the Victoria Class to be able to. It took a lot of skill to torpedo a WW2 era cruiser filled with cadets.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Impunity indeed.
> 
> http://www.naval-history.net/F62-Falklands-British_ships_lost.htm



I'll elaborate.  The sinking of the the Belgrano forced the Argentinian Navy in to port, along with its aircraft carrier, Veinticino de Mayo. The Argentinian Navy spent the rest of the war in port which cost the Junta massive political points and also forced them to launch their air attacks from the mainland, at the very limit of their operational range.

The Brits lost a few ships but the war was, at the strategic level, pretty much won at this point.  One submarine used 3 torpedoes to sink a battle cruiser in 20 min and killed 323 Argentinian sailors (half their casualties in the entire conflict).  It also caused an entire Navy to run back home with their tails between their legs.  A perfect example of why the Submarine program should go nowhere anytime soon.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Sure but we need to be able to actually fire a torpedo in anger, it took over 10 years for the Victoria Class to be able to. It took a lot of skill to torpedo a WW2 era cruiser filled with cadets.



It's a tool in the toolbox and we need them all.  The program was managed in a piss poor fashion from the start, just like many of our other programs.  Last time I looked, many of our surface ships were in piss poor working order as well.

The entire defence portfolio needs to be carefully examined and rationalized.  Getting rid of submarines just because you "think" it would improve the short term fortunes of your surface fleet is a very stupid way of doing business.

It's how the Army now has no Anti-Armour, Air Defence, Mortars, Pioneers, B-Fleet, Bridge Laying a Equipment, etc...


----------



## Stoker

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It's a tool in the toolbox and we need them all.  The program was managed in a piss poor fashion from the start, just like many of our other programs.  Last time I looked, many of our surface ships were in piss poor working order as well.
> 
> Of course it is I don't dispute that, but when your tool doesn't work you either get rid of it or get something new. Part of the reason the surface fleet is in piss poor shape as you said is because of the costs supporting the subs. Imagine if all that money saved was put into the assets that actually sail.
> 
> The entire defence portfolio needs to be carefully examined and rationalized.  Getting rid of submarines just because you "think" it would improve the short term fortunes of your surface fleet is a very stupid way of doing business.
> 
> Your opinion but the increased money to the surface fleet would improve moral immeasurably and provide us with badly needed personnel.
> 
> It's how the Army now has no Anti-Armour, Air Defence, Mortars, Pioneers, B-Fleet, Bridge Laying a Equipment, etc...
> 
> No commenting about what the army does or doesn't do, not in my arcs of fire


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile back at Irving, via a friend:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD8EtvWW8nw

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I would say within a year we will have a new white paper and we'll see what the future the military and RCN is...



It will be blank.  Well maybe Gov't of Canada letterhead....


----------



## Good2Golf

SSNs...just like the '84 White Paper!


----------



## jollyjacktar

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It's a tool in the toolbox and we need them all.  The program was managed in a piss poor fashion from the start, just like many of our other programs.  Last time I looked, many of our surface ships were in piss poor working order as well.
> 
> The entire defence portfolio needs to be carefully examined and rationalized.  Getting rid of submarines just because you "think" it would improve the short term fortunes of your surface fleet is a very stupid way of doing business.
> 
> It's how the Army now has no Anti-Armour, Air Defence, Mortars, Pioneers, B-Fleet, Bridge Laying a Equipment, etc...



And just what sort of deterrent does a vessel that spends more time in the air than in the water project?  Hard to fear the towing company that always seems to have a truck or two in for repairs.  You might be able to call yourself a towing company, but really, are you in name only?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Once they get rid of the subs, they also cut back the budget, so that money won't come to the fleet, next they start thinking we only need a constabulary navy and then they start looking at the Halifax class. Careful about wishing away resources.


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Once they get rid of the subs, they also cut back the budget, so that money won't come to the fleet, next they start thinking we only need a constabulary navy and then they start looking at the Halifax class. Careful about wishing away resources.



Sigh, its not like they'll admit that the subs were a boondoggle from the get go after all that money was spent so I doubt if they'll be gone. I would say more likely if there is another major accident or the discovery of unknown corrosion or something like that they'll be fast tracked to the scrap heap. The way things are going we're one step away from a constabulary navy now anyways.


----------



## PuckChaser

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Sigh, its not like they'll admit that the subs were a boondoggle from the get go



Not for the next 4 years, anyways: Liberals are the ones that bought them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

CS, I am in agreement that the handling of the purchase was a dog's breakfast and cost us way to much in the long run. Sadly any lessons learned will be swept under the rug and carefully forgotten. My belief is we need both surface and sub fleet and we could actually afford them if our procurement system wasn't so borked. As it is now, we should be looking at the replacement of the Victoria class and tagging onto another nations purchase that most closely matches our need and have our boats built last. if that was the Aussie contract, I would estimate that would timeline would be around 10 years from now.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> CS, I am in agreement that the handling of the purchase was a dog's breakfast and cost us way to much in the long run. Sadly any lessons learned will be swept under the rug and carefully forgotten. My belief is we need both surface and sub fleet and we could actually afford them if our procurement system wasn't so borked. As it is now, we should be looking at the replacement of the Victoria class and tagging onto another nations purchase that most closely matches our need and have our boats built last. if that was the Aussie contract, I would estimate that would timeline would be around 10 years from now.



Speaking of Aussie contract....jump on their procurement and make it cheaper for everyone.  Just a few (read massive number) mods for our torps and FCS.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:
			
		

> Speaking of Aussie contract....jump on their procurement and make it cheaper for everyone.  Just a few (read massive number) mods for our torps and FCS.



Would the requirements mesh well though (e.g. Aussies generally in warm-ish waters, us in cold-ish waters, etc.) ?


----------



## MilEME09

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Subs are great, but until I went to FMF I did not have a real idea of how much of a money pit they can be.  I honestly can't say if their cost out weigh their utility or if the reverse is true.  That is above my comprehension, pay grade and need to know.



Well to give you a rough idea, I've read that in the late 80's under Mulroney, the RCN gave up a third wave of halifax's to get 4-6 nuclear subs, and well in the end we got neither. Even back then though the gov and navy saw the need for nuclear power in the arctic.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well to give you a rough idea, I've read that in the late 80's under Mulroney, the RCN gave up a third wave of halifax's to get 4-6 nuclear subs, and well in the end we got neither. Even back then though the gov and navy saw the need for nuclear power in the arctic.



I'll counter that if it was such a hotshit idea, it would have happened.


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:
			
		

> Speaking of Aussie contract....jump on their procurement and make it cheaper for everyone.  Just a few (read massive number) mods for our torps and FCS.



Probably cheaper to shitcan our torps and FCS, and use the same systems.  Sustainment for the C130Js and C17s is remarkably simplified since we didn't Canadianize the hell out of them, but maintain a common platform with our allies.


----------



## Good2Golf

Is Vegas taking wagers yet?  I wouldn't be surprised, based in part on the factors recently exposéd in FrontLine magazine (that Irving isn't the 'Tier 1' ship-builder many people think) if Canada goes Aegis with some Flight-IV Arleigh Burkes license-built by Irving.  That would solve the interoperability issue and we could continue playing significant roles in Allied (read U.S.) naval task forces...

#wouldthatbesuchabadidea

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'll counter that if it was such a hotshit idea, it would have happened.



It came very close to happening, the problem from my reading is that they did not have well laid backup plan if the pitch did not work, and things unraveled quickly. Go look at the history of procurement in this country and we have a long history of going for the best and then jumping off the cliff at the moment of signing mainly due to politicians worried about getting re-elected, which is the driving force behind all our major defense procurement decisions. If someone convinced them that we needed rainbow unicorns for going into battle and it would means jobs and vote, they would go for it.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oh I know it came close to fruition, but it didn't in the end.  Just like it came close to fruition for getting into the Amphibs game about 10 years ago.  Close only really counts in horseshoes, hand grenades and sex.


----------



## GR66

What is the reason for the high operation costs for our subs.  Is it simply that modern subs are simply more expensive to operate than surface ships, because the Victoria Class are old and have an unsupported supply chain, because of the "Canadianization" done to them, or a combination of the above?


----------



## jollyjacktar

GR66 said:
			
		

> What is the reason for the high operation costs for our subs.  Is it simply that modern subs are simply more expensive to operate than surface ships, because the Victoria Class are old and have an unsupported supply chain, because of the "Canadianization" done to them, or a combination of the above?



Three kills, one torpedo.


----------



## GR66

So...if an eventual replacement of the Victoria's was a tag-on order to an in production foreign design with very minimal "Canadianization" (i.e. weapons, sensors, fire control unchanged...maybe just key electrical standards, etc.) would the capability likely be affordable along side a credible surface fleet, or are subs simply too expensive to operate without a major increase in the CF budget?


----------



## suffolkowner

GR66 said:
			
		

> So...if an eventual replacement of the Victoria's was a tag-on order to an in production foreign design with very minimal "Canadianization" (i.e. weapons, sensors, fire control unchanged...maybe just key electrical standards, etc.) would the capability likely be affordable along side a credible surface fleet, or are subs simply too expensive to operate without a major increase in the CF budget?



the Canadian Naval Review article suggested that operating costs for modern subs should be 30% of say a Halifax class ship but I didn't see any supporting documentation


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A good tag on would obviously be the Australian's Collin's class replacement.

The Australians currently use the Mk 48 as fish, as do we, and employ American Fire control system (the Raytheon CCS Mk2, which is a derivative of the AN/BYG-1 of the US _Los Angeles_ class) as do we (even though ours is a modified  LockMart Librascope). By getting a sub built for these systems from the start, instead of a retrofit, the cost would be acceptable.

The Australian replacements are expected to be in the 1.2 to 1.4 b. US$, which is favourably comparable to a GP frigate. After that, the ops/life-cycle cost is about the same as a frigate, even though they carry a smaller crew. In my book however, a submarine - even a classic one - is a greater defence asset than a GP frigate, especially where applying pressure by threatening is concerned (same difference as a queen vs a bishop - and I mean in chess).

For instance, IMHO, Canada would have a stronger Naval posture if it operated 12 GP frigates and 8 SSKs than 12 GP Frigates, 3 AAD/command destroyers and no submarines. Yet building either fleet would likely cost about the same.

In any event, and even though all of the above is a very interesting topic, have we not strayed far from the thread's original purpose?


----------



## Stoker

The Canada class SSN's came close with the RCN even sending personnel on nuclear engineering coursing but opposition from our own country and surprisingly the United Sates killed the deal.


----------



## MilEME09

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> The Canada class SSN's came close with the RCN even sending personnel on nuclear engineering coursing but opposition from our own country and surprisingly the United Sates killed the deal.



any yet due to politics we didn't get the third flight of halifaxs back, though i bet if we did, the liverals of the 90's would of cancelled it


----------



## GR66

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In any event, and even though all of the above is a very interesting topic, have we not strayed far from the thread's original purpose?



We are and we aren't off topic in a way.  The CSC budget does not exist in a vacuum and as has been noted, the more we spend on them the less we have to spend on other areas (including SSKs).

The program itself isn't going anywhere but is there the possibility of modification?  What if the AAD version were to be dropped (at least to start) and we simply produced 12-15 GP Frigates to replace the Halifax Class?  

Simplify the design by not having to accommodate two versions and the weapons/sensors will be cheaper as well.  Once those ships are built we can re-examine our next priorities which may be a small number of AAD ships to augment our GP frigates (either look then at a modified CSC design now that our ship yards have re-learned their skills in building the GP ships, or purchase off-shore), a new non-conventional design using high-energy weapons or rail guns which may be coming into service by then, or SSKs, or Amphibs, or, or... (or a mix of the above).


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> the Canadian Naval Review article suggested that operating costs for modern subs should be 30% of say a Halifax class ship but I didn't see any supporting documentation



*Halifax Class - Complement 225*

Seawolf Class - Complement 140
Astute Class - Complement 98
Soryu Class - Complement 65
Collins Class - Complement 58
*Victoria Class - Complement 48*
Gotland Class - Complement 24 to 32

Take the crew of one Halifax (or Iroquois) and man 4 Victorias or 8 Gotlands or even 2 Astutes.

For that matter take the crew of one Halifax and man one Huitfeldt and two Victorias  

Or take the crew of one Halifax and man one Seawolf and a pair of AOPS. 

Generally speaking labour (and its support and training) is a major part of the operations bill.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Ship size used to improve stability for AD guns, what components are the deciding factors in hull designs for AAD vs ASW, vs GP?


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's a thought -

Task Group 2001

HMCS Preserver / HMCS Iroquois / HMCS Halifax / HMCS Winnipeg

Manned by 1020 crew all ranks including Air Dets.

Offensive capabilities

7x CH-124 
16x Harpoons
28x Mk 46 Torpedoes (Ready to Launch)

AAW capabilities

29x Standards
32x ESSM (I know - anachronism - bear with me)

Troop Lift Capability 

Limited to air dets.




Alternate Task Group 2021

HMCS Chateauguay / HMCS Iver Huitfeldt / HMCS Collins / HMCS Collins / HMCS Absalon / HMCS Holland / HMCS Holland

Manned by 556 all ranks (excluding Air Dets) - 45% reduction in manning costs

Offensive capabilities

7x CH-124 - 0 change in capacity
54x Harpoons  - 238% increase in capacity
22x Mk 46 Torpedoes - 21% loss of capacity
22x Mk 48 Torpedoes - New Capability

AAW capabilities

32x Standards - 10% increase in capacity
60x ESSM - 88% increase in capacity

Troop Lift Capability

308 full time berths
330 overload berths

Preserver's steam turbines and the gas turbines in Iroquois, Halifax and Winnipeg replaced by a common, modular diesel plant across all hulls, a common Integrated Platform Management System and a common Combat Management System.

And the Collins is not the Collins but the Collins Replacement.


----------



## Underway

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Would the requirements mesh well though (e.g. Aussies generally in warm-ish waters, us in cold-ish waters, etc.) ?



The subs they are looking at buying are Japanese, French and German.  And water below 100m is generally 2 degrees anyway.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I believe range both in fuel and crew stamina is the major factor for dealing with the Pacific, which eliminates a lot of the current subs out there.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Technical question ...

Is it the case that a major surface combatant needs to displace, say, 5,000 tons because that's about as small as a ship can be and still conduct air operations (maritime helicopter) on the high seas?

Does that means that a, say, <2,000 ton corvette cannot do that under the sorts of cirumstances we see as being "operational?"






Damen 1800 OPV displaces 1890 tons, speed of 20 kts, crew of <50 and range/endurance of 5,000nm/30 days


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Edward,

I cannot see something that small doing anything other than just surviving in the North Atlantic or North Pacific in the winter.

That boat deck aft looks very low to the waterline. In any kind of seas, I foresee one losing boats from that location in rapid succession.

There does not appear to be a haul down system for the flight deck, which pretty much limits you to flat calm seas to launch and recover a helicopter.

I am not sure what the lower limit is for a warship that can do helo ops in bad weather. We used to do it with 3800 ton St Laurents, that were never designed from the beginning to have a helicopter. 

This particular OPV looks more suited for near shore work- particularly in the Carribean.


----------



## Kirkhill

Comments pulled from lack of coffee......


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

SKT:

The Sallyrands were 2,800 tons. Even Annapolis' were only 3,200 tons and designed specifically as DDH's. 

The real issue, in any event, is not displacement. With a stabilized ship (and stabilizers are now much improved) and Bear trap, you can probably operate medium helicopters (Sea king/Cyclone) up to sea state 6, maybe sea state 7 (pushing the envelope here) from a roughly 2,300 tons vessel and up.

The real issue is why are we fixating on hull size? If we were to review the cost of building warships, we would note that the more general split would likely look like this: Combat systems (electronics), including software development and integration: about 50% of the cost; weapons and weapons handling equipment: about 25%; Hull and machinery: about 25%.

The real reason why OPV's are so much cheaper is that they carry very little in terms of weapons and have little in terms of integrated combat systems. Thus, you are down to the cost of hull and machinery, mostly. But at that point, building a small OPV (under 2000 tons) or a larger one (like the Holland's at 3,700 tons), doesn't make much difference in price so, if you are going to operate far from your coast (and in particular in the North Atlantic or North-West Pacific), you may as well go for the larger hull. There is just no real big savings to be had by building small OPV's as opposed to  large one, other than some people's fixation on size (or on always carrying soldiers onboard, right Chris   ).


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Oh! To answer your question, Edward, I would say that the major driving forces on the size of major surface combatant being about 5,000 tons has more to do with the fact that nowadays, we lob missiles at one another, especially anti-air missiles, and you need that volume to carry enough of them and the larger sized ones in particular, also, the accompanying radar systems (AEGIS or APAR) have become very large and top heavy, so again, you need the hull size to have a stable platform. The fact that such increased size make helicopter operations in higher sea states less dangerous is just an added bonus.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ....There is just no real big savings to be had by building small OPV's as opposed to  large one, other than some people's fixation on size (or on always carrying soldiers onboard, right Chris   ).



Stop trying to pick a fight OGBD.  [Xp

I happen to agree with you across the board.  And I like big cheap hulls precisely because there is more room for muddy boots, (or to accommodate Churchill's Naval Traditions).  

That being said - on the Software side of things - why can't the FELEX system be ported holus bolus to the AOPS and the CSC and maybe an OPV?  Or at least used as the basis of a CMS/IPMS system that can be ported.  Again, just as my buddies the Danes decided with their fleet.



> From technical specifications to functional demands.
> • Use of Flex concept in all ships design since the millennium.
> • Use of DNV, NAVAL standards.
> • Reuse design elements between different ship classes.
> • Use of civilian standards whenever possible especially with
> IT.
> • Redundant passive fiber network for multi purposes.
> • Same Combat Management System in all lager units.
> • Standard Racks for all weapon, sensor, communication and
> IT systems in all lager units.
> • Same Integrated Platform Management System in Frigates
> and Flexible Support Ships.



http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/International/Documents/U.S.-Denmark%20Defense%20Industry%20Seminar/Danish%20frigate%20program%20visit%20USN%20May%202014.pdf

And this one.

http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf

Why do we keep paying to re-invent wheels?


And further to your last - if you are going to be stuck with all that top hamper you might find some self-loading ballast useful.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Many a career is based solely around ways to reinvent the wheel while trying to appear to do something new.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks, SKT and OGBD. I'm still mightily concerned about costs (and, therefore, quantities) and I remain attracted to the notion that we are better off with 3_n_/5 major surface combatants (the 5,000 ton _heavies_ ~ I know it's not a good term, but I'm a simple soldier) and _n_/2 OPVs (or corvettes, as I prefer) which might even, in the not too distant future, embark a RPV rather than a big, manned maritime helicopter, instead of _n_ CSCs and maybe a Kingston class replacement sometime in the future ... perhaps. It _seems to me_ that the _n_ CSCs the Navy needs is more than the _n_ the Government of Canada can afford and it also appears that corvettes, doubtless for the reasons OGBD explained, can be had for, say, 25% of the cost of the _heavies_ (or even less).

I know we need capable major surface combatants ... but not for FishPats and not for Op CARIBBE and not for a lot of other tasks.


----------



## AlexanderM

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Stop trying to pick a fight OGBD.  [Xp
> 
> I happen to agree with you across the board.  And I like big cheap hulls precisely because there is more room for muddy boots, (or to accommodate Churchill's Naval Traditions).
> 
> That being said - on the Software side of things - why can't the FELEX system be ported holus bolus to the AOPS and the CSC and maybe an OPV?  Or at least used as the basis of a CMS/IPMS system that can be ported.  Again, just as my buddies the Danes decided with their fleet.
> 
> http://www.ndia.org/Divisions/Divisions/International/Documents/U.S.-Denmark%20Defense%20Industry%20Seminar/Danish%20frigate%20program%20visit%20USN%20May%202014.pdf
> 
> And this one.
> 
> http://www.aspistrategist.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/OMT-Dansh-Frigate-Programme-April-2014.pdf
> 
> Why do we keep paying to re-invent wheels?
> 
> 
> And further to your last - if you are going to be stuck with all that top hamper you might find some self-loading ballast useful.


I doubt it would be that difficult to put 1-2 mk41 launchers on something like the Holland, even if one has to lengthen the hull by 20ft and at the same time increase the fuel load for the helo, increasing capability. Most of the ships these days are designed to carry the mission modules, so it wouldn't take much tweaking to add a 2-3 spots for the systems. None of this should be that difficult, given the Holland is a good sized platform.


----------



## Kirkhill

Further to Modularity, Flexibility and Cost Control.....



> What the U.S. Navy Could Learn from Danish Frigate Design
> 
> By: Megan Eckstein
> March 5, 2015 5:47 PM
> 
> 
> As the U.S. Navy’s requirements and engineering communities look at upcoming ship classes and attempt to build in flexibility, they first need to decide what it means to be a “flexible ship” and how much to prioritize that flexibility, one admiral said.
> 
> During a panel at the American Society of Naval Engineers’ ASNE Day 2015, Rear Adm. Bryant Fuller, chief engineer for Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA), said it is important to decide what flexibility means to each program early on, and how much of it is needed – is there a core capability that ship class revolves around, or should it strive for ultimate flexibility, like the Danish Navy’s StanFlex system and its Iver Huitfeldt-class frigate?
> 
> Several panelists compared American ships to the Danish frigates, including panel moderator retired Vice Adm. Paul Sullivan. He said he had the chance to see the ships up close last fall and was impressed.
> 
> The Danish navy took its Absalon-class support ship hull design and reconfigured it to include a 76mm gun. Both the support ship and the frigate subscribe to the Danish navy’s StanFlex modular mission payload system, which Sullivan said allowed the navy to put legacy weapons systems on the Iver Huitfeldt-class instead of having to develop new systems right away, like the Navy did with the Littoral Combat Ship.
> 
> “*The StanFlex buzz was you could put the new gun in and 24 hours later you’re ready to go to sea*,” he added.
> 
> *This ultra-flexible system may not sound like it would be relevant to some American ship classes, such as cruisers and destroyers, but Capt. Thomas Halvorson, deputy director of the Navy’s surface warfare directorate for Ballistic Missile Defense, Aegis and Destroyers, said there were still lessons to be drawn for future surface combatants.
> 
> Halvorson said the Aegis Baseline 9 upgrade effort had been a great accomplishment for the Navy’s cruiser fleet, but it was also a work-intensive accomplishment. A more flexible ship design could allow the Navy to upgrade the computers on a future surface combatant more routinely, rather than having to wait for a massive midlife upgrade.
> 
> “One of the other ideas I heard [the Danes] talk about, Adm. Sullivan, was they can change out the computer program completely in 90 days,” Halvorson said. “We all have a little bit of a part to play in the two-year upgrade that involves ripping out pieces massive pieces of ship infrastructure to change out every server in the room. We need to get closer to that Dane mentality.”*
> 
> Also during the panel, Program Executive Officer for Ships Rear Adm. David Gale explained the importance of building in enough flexibility from the beginning of a program. With the Mobile Landing Platform design being used as the basis of the Afloat Forward Staging Base design, the latter ship only has as much flexibility in it as the former – which in this case is a lot of flexibility. Gale praised the AFSB team for achieving “80 percent of the requirement for 50 percent of the cost by just going to MLP and adding an aviation capability to the ship.”
> 
> In fact, the ship design has so much flexibility and extra margins built into it that Gale said, “in aviation and in [special operations] warfare areas, we’re already writing change documents to improve these ships.”



http://news.usni.org/2015/03/05/what-the-u-s-navy-could-learn-from-danish-frigate-design


----------



## quadrapiper

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...for FishPats and not for Op CARIBBE and not for a lot of other tasks.


The first one has definite benefits; is the other something that we should really be running our ships up and down the coasts to support? Or is CARIBBE more of a training opportunity than anything?


----------



## Kirkhill

And one more for good measure:

This goes to the discussion of US vs Euro Costs (or Japanese Costs)



> Zuko wrote:
> Just saying US ships cost 3x as much as comparable Dutch ships is a simplistic and inaccurate thing to say.  Without detailed information which usually isn't easy to determine by public sources it is very difficult to compare costs of ships because you never know if you are comparing apples to apples.  There are tons of variables in how the numbers are calculated and what is "included" in a cost that is given to a ship.  You also seldom know if you are comparing the same years dollars to the same years dollars.  That's the case even when comparing ships within the US Navy, and even more so when comparing to other countries.  I would also differ with the idea that the ships are comparable.
> 
> I'm not saying the US naval shipbuilding program doesn't have inefficiencies, it obviously does.  But the slides and the arguments made by the Damon rep are misleading and inaccurate.
> 
> 1) Hein van Ameijden made it clear in his speech that while his data may not be absolutely correct and/or directly comparable, he does, however stand behind his main conclusions that the US Navy is paying far too much for its vessels.
> 
> 2) Given his pedigree (see his biography here), it is safe to assume Hein van Ameijden to have a solid business insight and his conclusions to be based on much more than mere *public sources*.
> 
> 3) Because of your excessive focus on costs (probably), you may not have noticed that *yard hours were provided for both the DDG-51s and the LCFs in the slide posted earlier :
> 
> DDG-51 : 4.4 million manhours
> 
> LCF : 1.5 million manhours*
> 
> 4) The manhours mentioned above are very consistent wit those published in a 1995 NSWC *comparative study of US & Japan shipbuilding :
> 
> Design manhours :
> 
> DDG-51 : 6.0 million
> 
> DDG-173 : 1.2 million
> 
> Construction manhours :
> 
> DDG-51 : 5.0 million
> 
> DDG-173 : 2.0 million  *
> 
> 5) And finally, a 2004 NATO study found the shipyard *recurring cost accounting methods used by the Netherlands on the one hand and the USCG on the other hand to be very consistent each other for SWBS groups 100 to 700, i.e. :
> 
> SWBS 100 : Structure
> SWBS 200 : Propulsion
> SWBS 300 : Electrical
> SWBS 400 : Electronics
> SWBS 500 : Auxiliaries
> SWBS 600 : Outfitting
> SWBS 700 : Armament*
> 
> Unsurprisingly, *the shipyard administrative costs (SWBS Group 900) were found to be considerably higher in the US shipbuilding*, reflecting, among other things, the infuence of commercial practices in the Dutch shipbuilding industry, as opposed to US shipyards which primarily produce naval or coast guard vessels.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think that, to a certain extent, we have strayed from what should be in the CSC RFQ to what type of Navy we should have. Talks of submarines and smaller vessels, be they corvettes or OPV's, is talk of what does the Navy has to accomplish (the missions), and then what is the best way to go about it (the mix - or lack thereof - of ship's types).

For instance, Chief Stoker spoke earlier of Roisin class vessels of the Irish Naval service (my choice would be their most current Samuel Becket class), which incidentally is Canadian designed. Those are nice gun boats and for things like the Fishpats and Op Caribe mentioned by ERC, they would be perfect vessels. But IMHO, they would need to replace the MCDV's, not the Frigates. But this doesn't mean that a mix of high end combatant and "Holland style" OPV's would not be appropriate as a replacement of the DDG and FFH's. However, this is in the realm of what type of overall Navy do we need and want.

And to my mind, only a proper, reasoned, analytical study, leading to hearings in Parliament and finally, the production of proper white paper on National Defence (Good lord! I am starting to sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby) can answer that question and give proper direction to the Navy in such matter.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> And to my mind, only a proper, reasoned, analytical study, leading to hearings in Parliament and finally, the production of proper white paper on National Defence (Good lord! I am starting to sound like Sir Humphrey Appleby) can answer that question and give proper direction to the Navy in such matter.



Well done Humphrey!  I think we could all agree with that - and getting all parties (political) to come to the table and support the conclusions so that they survived changes of government.  It can't be impossible - others do it.

I also have to believe that a "modular" navy with a high-low range of vessels that can be upgraded easily to higher level combatants would allow the "peace-hawks" cover to support vessels that the "war-hawks" could upgrade when their turn at bat came.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Many a career is based solely around ways to reinvent the wheel while trying to appear to do something new.



I am of the strong belief that they need to eliminate "Leading Change" from the PER system for this exact reason   .  That one line has lead to so much grief over the years...


----------



## Karel Doorman

Well as said here before(topic),"Holland"Class is so big because we wanted to be able to go to the cairbs. in comfort(seafaring+capable in bad wether)as important in the North-Sea actually.
Don't know about the oceans surrounding Canada but think they want that aswell(plus the space on board)
As for price(you akes me to look up a few things(KM-Dutch Navy)all i could find is this:

-the total cost for the series(4)is 529.6 million euros(stated on the site of "marineschepen.nl/navyships.nl)
-As for how they're equippedthink you'll know this allready but ok)

Naamsein 	Naam 	In dienst    number(nato) -name-in active duty
P840 	Holland 	6-7-2012
P841 	Zeeland 	23-8-2013
P842 	Friesland 	22-1-2013
P843 	Groningen 	29-11-2013
Afmetingen 	107,9 x 16,8 x 4,55      measurements(length-width-immersion)   
 Max. waterverplaatsing 	3710 ton   (displacement)
Max. snelheid 	21,5 knopen               (max.speed)
Bemanning 	52 + 38 opstappers (heliktoptercrew, boardingteam, medisch team) of 100 evacues  (crew 52+38 extra,helcoptercrew,boardingteam,medicalteam)or 100 evacs.
Voortstuwing 	2x 5400 kW MAN dieselmotoren(propulsion)
2x 400 kW elektromotoren
Wapensystemen 	1 Oto Melara 76mm kanon (weaponsystems)
1 automatisch 30 mm Marlin WS kanon
2 Hitrole automatische machinegeweren 12,7 mm
2 watermonitoren 
Sensoren 	SMILE luchtwaarschuwingsradar
SEASTAR oppervlaktewaarschuwingsradar
GateKeeper infrarood/ electro-optisch waarschuwingssysteem
Mijnendetectie-sonar (mine-detection sonar)


Hope this helps(providing there's budget for these "baby's" ;D

gr,walter


----------



## Kirkhill

This is helping Walter.


----------



## Kirkhill

What I am reading from Walter's (Karel Doorman) posts is, disregarding year of build:

Holland OPV - 205 MCAD each
7 Provincien LCF - 815 MCAD each 
Karel Doorman JSS - 631 MCAD each.

Or - a large OPV  is about 1/4 the cost of  AAW frigate, and given uses about 1/4 the manpower to crew (~50 vs ~200)
And a JSS is about the same cost as a frigate.

The Danes are sticking with the build price of their Absalons and Huitfeldts at about 300 MUSD (400 MCAD NOW!) with the AAW suite adding about another 100 MUSD to each of the Huitfeldts.

Which brings up the subject of the floating exchange rate and the merits of a homegrown shipbuilding industry.

The hulls built in Canada, with Canadian labour, from Canadian steel, with Canadian software are not subject to the vagaries of the floating exchange rate (though they are subject to inflation but that is a lesser matter).

New engines from Germany.  New radars from the Netherlands or the US.  New missiles.  New guns.  Those are all subject to exchange fluctuation.  

Therefore another argument for the Danish solution.  Build the hull locally.  Minimize the foreign content as far as possible.  Reuse existing systems where possible.

Buy new systems for plug in when the exchange rate, the budget and the political climates are aligned.

All of which makes a nonsense of the budget models based on Dollars / Tonne Displacement for new build in American style yards.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What I am reading from Walter's (Karel Doorman) posts is, disregarding year of build:
> 
> Holland OPV - 205 MCAD each
> 7 Provincien LCF - 815 MCAD each
> Karel Doorman JSS - 631 MCAD each.
> 
> Or - a large OPV  is about 1/4 the cost of  AAW frigate, and given uses about 1/4 the manpower to crew (~50 vs ~200)
> And a JSS is about the same cost as a frigate.
> 
> The Danes are sticking with the build price of their Absalons and Huitfeldts at about 300 MUSD (400 MCAD NOW!) with the AAW suite adding about another 100 MUSD to each of the Huitfeldts.
> 
> Which brings up the subject of the floating exchange rate and the merits of a homegrown shipbuilding industry.
> 
> The hulls built in Canada, with Canadian labour, from Canadian steel, with Canadian software are not subject to the vagaries of the floating exchange rate (though they are subject to inflation but that is a lesser matter).
> 
> New engines from Germany.  New radars from the Netherlands or the US.  New missiles.  New guns.  Those are all subject to exchange fluctuation.
> 
> Therefore another argument for the Danish solution.  Build the hull locally.  Minimize the foreign content as far as possible.  Reuse existing systems where possible.
> 
> Buy new systems for plug in when the exchange rate, the budget and the political climates are aligned.
> 
> All of which makes a nonsense of the budget models based on Dollars / Tonne Displacement for new build in American style yards.



Could be a viable option for Canada,but to be fair(from what i heard on dutch forums)the price quote of the Absoloms is a bit...............well under priced,full option(sensors,waepons and all it would be closer the "zevens"/JSS prices but will look it up for you.
And ,a big and the Abs are not Frigates perse,if you get my drift.(more a support/frgate combo of som sorts,but i like them.

http://www.lieuwedevries.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Karel-Doorman-refuels-ZrMs-Tromp.jpg

A pic in action "ZrMs Tromp" and "me"  [ our JSS Karel Doorman

gr,walter


----------



## Kirkhill

Point taken on the Absaloms versus the Huitfeldts.

But the point I was trying to make was about commonality and modularity and taking advantage of those to accommodate the available budget.  A point that I don't believe is lost on Damen....

Karel Doorman/Johan de Witt/Rotterdam/Enforcers

OPVs 950/1400/1800/2400/2600 - Hollands

Crossovers Combatant/Fast Combatant/Amphibious - Security/Fast Security/Logistics

Sigmas 10514/10513/9813/9113/8313/7513 (length x beam in metres).

Not every ship has to be identical to take advantage of economies of scale and commonality by using modules.

http://www.damen.com/en/markets/defence-and-security


----------



## Karel Doorman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Point taken on the Absaloms versus the Huitfeldts.
> 
> But the point I was trying to make was about commonality and modularity and taking advantage of those to accommodate the available budget.  A point that I don't believe is lost on Damen....
> 
> Karel Doorman/Johan de Witt/Rotterdam/Enforcers
> 
> OPVs 950/1400/1800/2400/2600 - Hollands
> 
> Crossovers Combatant/Fast Combatant/Amphibious - Security/Fast Security/Logistics
> 
> Sigmas 10514/10513/9813/9113/8313/7513 (length x beam in metres).
> 
> Not every ship has to be identical to take advantage of economies of scale and commonality by using modules.
> 
> http://www.damen.com/en/markets/defence-and-security



Damen is great in,as you say,adjusting/evolving an existing design-see R'dam to Johann(Joh. is an enlarged evolved R'dam),as is offcourse the Karel(but then in the JSS role) same family.
Same goes for Holland to 2600 (and rest)axe bow,so perhaps is Damen the right yard to turn to for Canada(building in time and on budget,flexible,etc)
As for replacement for the M-class,the jury is still out on that.There are there who'll like to see the Crossover(and then especially for the ASW role)but the Fremm ASW version is also an option wich is i think the most capable(asw role)now availeble,maybe even an evolved Type-26. (own adaptation for the KM)

Another possibility would be if Canada was interested(since Germany go their own way,ASW role)to work together again(if these ships are needed offcourse for the Canadian Navy)

Glad you saw my point about the costs Absolom-Iver(wich is offcourse more like F124/sevens,f-100,etc)

gr,walter


----------



## Navy_Pete

One complication with buying existing designs is that by the time the ship is built the design themselves are years old.  Not a show stopper, but there are annual updates to the various codes on the safety side that best practice is to try and integrate.  Also, a lot of the electronics have short life spans, so best to pick a capability range and pick equipment near the end.  A lot is standardized in terms of cabling, power, etc so not 100% plug and play but doable.

Also, we have different regulations for things ammo magazines and other items, so there is a bunch of work to compare what standards the design was done vice what we have in the RFQ plus updates over time, and some of that may require modifying different systems to meet our safety standards.

None of this is rocket science but it's not as easy as looking at the tonnage and load out and ordering 12 of them.


----------



## AlexanderM

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> One complication with buying existing designs is that by the time the ship is built the design themselves are years old.  Not a show stopper, but there are annual updates to the various codes on the safety side that best practice is to try and integrate.  Also, a lot of the electronics have short life spans, so best to pick a capability range and pick equipment near the end.  A lot is standardized in terms of cabling, power, etc so not 100% plug and play but doable.
> 
> Also, we have different regulations for things ammo magazines and other items, so there is a bunch of work to compare what standards the design was done vice what we have in the RFQ plus updates over time, and some of that may require modifying different systems to meet our safety standards.
> 
> None of this is rocket science but it's not as easy as looking at the tonnage and load out and ordering 12 of them.


The ability to upgrade the ships needs to be a top priority, this is why I like the Ivers so much, as the missile bay is all about flexibility. The APAR and Smart-L can be upgraded when needed, the missile launchers can be changed when needed. There is room in the missile bay for mission modules. The ships are a platform that can be upgraded.


----------



## Karel Doorman

My view on eventual cooperation between Canada and (the northern)European navies.

-I deliberately say northen because the simple fact is all are in the North and face similar seastate conditions first (colder,possible ice ,etc)JSS for example is "ice strengthend" and in future the northern searoutes will open up further due to "global warming" and we all need to be able to protect those shipping lanes.
-Canada has always been more European "minded" compared to (offcourse)USA.
-I also think that the Canadian Navy is more closely matched(not the same though) to (for example)Dutch Navy in how they do things.(we also need to be able to go for long distances,Caribs,Indonesia,etc)
-Therefore i think they are ideally placed to do a lot together(designing is one of them)as has happened in the past(JSS,APAR,etc)
-Both have "huge" budgets  [Xp ,not really hey.

So in short i see a lot off possibilities between them hopefully the Governments see this too and act accordingly(and go the distance),for now and in coming years we need :M-Class replacement(specifically ASW capability),new Walruses,MCM ships and maybe even replacement for the Rotterdam, so in short a lot.

I see a lot of potential for working together.

gr,walter

AS for the designs now available and then building them to be not a "show stopper" or newest "kid" on the block,well is that allways important?
Will allways be the case,designing for let's say 10 yrs then building for 5 ,you end up with an "15" year old design.As said more important is it that there are poss. to upgrade all systems(design is big enough for that)


----------



## AlexanderM

There are some great pictures of the missile bay here, I would ditch the Harpoons and go with an anti-ship missile that can be fired out of the MK 41 launchers which would create additional space in the bay. It would then be possible to increase to either 48 or 64 cells on the MK41's and still have space left for the mission modules. And there would still be the additional ESSM launchers either side of the MK41's. In the future it would then be possible to rearrange the missile bay as systems evolve.

http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2014/11/sleek-modern-and-built-on-a-budget-denmarks-latest-frigate/


----------



## jollyjacktar

An interesting look inside of a FREMM, the Normandie.

https://youtu.be/PxSsHeiioG0


----------



## Underway

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> There are some great pictures of the missile bay here, I would ditch the Harpoons and go with an anti-ship missile that can be fired out of the MK 41 launchers which would create additional space in the bay.



And what missile would be that?  There are currently no missiles that fit into a Mk 41 launcher that are dedicated to anti ship since they took the TASM out of service in the 90's.  Raytheon is working on a Block IV version of the Tomahawk but that's still on the drawing board.  The Mk41 for a Tomahawk is the longest version available (strike version), vice the tactical or self defence version.  However if you want SM-3 or SM-6 you need the strike version as well for launch.  So any of the AAW destroyers/frigates should probably have the the strike Mk41's.  As for the GP frigates the self defence version should be enough as all you need to do is be able to launch ESSM's (unless you want some ASROC's).  Which of course saves weight and space....

Lockmart is also working on a missile (AGM-158C) to attack moving surface and land targets that launches from a strike Mk41.  

All this to say the Harpoon is great and if its an add on the GP version of the CSC project its not that big of a deal.


----------



## Kirkhill

And, it, and its launchers are already in the inventory and can be reused.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And, it, and its launchers are already in the inventory and can be reused.



Ah, not that again!  The launchers are 25 years old and aside from the steel box, need everything replaced with the new electronics!  And there is no guarantee the steel isn't fatigued at all the hard points!  And that would only give you a few sets, so you'd have some 30+ year old second hand launchers and still need to buy more, so there is really no cost savings, once you include overhaul and storage.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Ah, not that again!  The launchers are 25 years old and aside from the steel box, need everything replaced with the new electronics!  And there is no guarantee the steel isn't fatigued at all the hard points!  And that would only give you a few sets, so you'd have some 30+ year old second hand launchers and still need to buy more, so there is really no cost savings, once you include overhaul and storage.




Ooops.  Sore point is it?   Apparently you have heard that one before.  OK, I will retract reusing the launchers (which basically appears to be a bit of scaffolding and a bucket (???) ) but stand by the assertion that the missiles are already in the system and thus do not have to be re-justified.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes, Chris, it is a sore point.

A lot of people don't seem to understand what naval missiles systems are.

The actual "steel box" of the launcher are not the big expensive part, so when you go from one ship class to the next, reusing this "steel box" brings little saving, if any, especially if  you have to inspect it and repair it for metal fatigue.

The second part, more expensive, of the launcher is the electronics and, as Navy_Pete justly pointed out, replacing it altogether or updating the programming and micro-chip capacity (an overhaul, in other words) of the existing one is par for the course in terms of cost, so you may as well buy the new electronics altogether and be up to date in terms of micro-chips that you can then continually update with new software as it comes out during the lifetime of the new ships.

But your reasoning on the missiles themselves is the part that is the furthest from the possible.

Missiles are basically rocket-ships. In the case of naval missiles, they  are of the solid booster type (same as the side boosters on the space shuttle). As soon as they are produced and put in their launchers, they begin to age, the "powder" immediately begins to chemically change, the various seals and stress point of the missile begin to work themselves loose, any seal that depends on plastics or rubbers begin to decay, etc.

Basically, the older the missile, the more likely it is to deteriorate to the point that it will fail one way or another at launch time. And they do have a specific lifetime (expiry date, so to speak) on them. Now other than putting the ship in danger from an enemy, the actual failure of missile is unlikely to threaten the life of the seaman onboard the launching vessel, but if you get to the point where most of your missiles don't fire or misfire or self destruct on the way to the target, they are not of much use to you. Remember what happened to the Challenger just because one of the "o" ring froze?

So after a certain amount of time, missiles loaded in a launch system no longer offer a sufficient guarantee that they will actually work out. Either you carry out a complete overhaul at the production plant er you buy new ones. That time where you should do that is certainly somewhere close to the lifetime of the warship they are loaded on, So, when a new class of ship is brought in service, we just buy new missiles and dispose of the old ones.

BTW, your favourite Navy knows that. Contrary to what you may think, it does not use their modular approach as a cost saving measure. They use it because they simply do not have the financial capability of buying themselves full service frigates right off the bat. For instance, right now, of the three Iver Huitfeld in service (which is the totality of the class), only the first one is now fully kited out for AAW. The other two have their launchers (mechanical boxes portion) in place, but neither missiles nor the electronics, nor their combat system software to carry out any AAW duties. They will have all that in place and be fully operational on that aspect only in four years from now, at which point, the actual cost of each frigate will have risen to $900M USD each.  The Danish approach is basically one that lets a country with a GDP smaller than that of the Province of Quebec buy top end frigates by spreading the cost of getting them to full capacity over a much longer period of 12 years instead of three or four.


----------



## AlexanderM

Underway said:
			
		

> And what missile would be that?  There are currently no missiles that fit into a Mk 41 launcher that are dedicated to anti ship since they took the TASM out of service in the 90's.  Raytheon is working on a Block IV version of the Tomahawk but that's still on the drawing board.  The Mk41 for a Tomahawk is the longest version available (strike version), vice the tactical or self defence version.  However if you want SM-3 or SM-6 you need the strike version as well for launch.  So any of the AAW destroyers/frigates should probably have the the strike Mk41's.  As for the GP frigates the self defence version should be enough as all you need to do is be able to launch ESSM's (unless you want some ASROC's).  Which of course saves weight and space....
> 
> Lockmart is also working on a missile (AGM-158C) to attack moving surface and land targets that launches from a strike Mk41.
> 
> All this to say the Harpoon is great and if its an add on the GP version of the CSC project its not that big of a deal.


As it will be years before we have ships in the water it isn't really an issue of what is available now, there are some in development, such as,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-158C_LRASM

The Naval Strike Missile (Joint Strike Missile) will also be able to launch from the MK41.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naval_Strike_Missile
and
http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html


----------



## NavyShooter

Ok, 

I'll jump in on this one.

The missiles in our canisters get sent ashore, shipped to the US Depots, and back to us after major refurbishments.

There are locations in Canada (I had a tour on my QL6B course) where DND personnel do take the missiles out of the canisters, inspect, test, replace, and re-pack them.  I sailed with one of the former FC techs that now does that for a living.

The older the missile, the more likely it is to fail the routine checks, and the components are replaced/life-cycled on a specific schedule from what I recall.

So, the old RIM-7P's that we stripped off the ships when we upgraded to the RIM-162 ESSM got sent back to the US, they were stripped of useable parts, and what could be re-used, was.  *NOTE* this was pre-FELEX, I was on STJ when we refitted her for the ESSM in 2004.  The transition to the ESSM was not concurrent with the HCM project.  

The RIM-162's have a test/inspection cycle, as do the Harpoons.  Every missile comes with a log book (as does each torpedo, and HOTTORP).  (Separate from Ammo Data Cards.)

I know that which I speak of here....I was a Magazine Custodian until this past June on one of the Frigates.

So, the lifespan of the missiles is controlled, and monitored.  That's honestly not a big deal. 

NS




			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> But your reasoning on the missiles themselves is the part that is the furthest from the possible.
> 
> Missiles are basically rocket-ships. In the case of naval missiles, they  are of the solid booster type (same as the side boosters on the space shuttle). As soon as they are produced and put in their launchers, they begin to age, the "powder" immediately begins to chemically change, the various seals and stress point of the missile begin to work themselves loose, any seal that depends on plastics or rubbers begin to decay, etc.
> 
> Basically, the older the missile, the more likely it is to deteriorate to the point that it will fail one way or another at launch time. And they do have a specific lifetime (expiry date, so to speak) on them. Now other than putting the ship in danger from an enemy, the actual failure of missile is unlikely to threaten the life of the seaman onboard the launching vessel, but if you get to the point where most of your missiles don't fire or misfire or self destruct on the way to the target, they are not of much use to you. Remember what happened to the Challenger just because one of the "o" ring froze?
> 
> So after a certain amount of time, missiles loaded in a launch system no longer offer a sufficient guarantee that they will actually work out. Either you carry out a complete overhaul at the production plant er you buy new ones. That time where you should do that is certainly somewhere close to the lifetime of the warship they are loaded on, So, when a new class of ship is brought in service, we just buy new missiles and dispose of the old ones.
> 
> BTW, your favourite Navy knows that. Contrary to what you may think, it does not use their modular approach as a cost saving measure. They use it because they simply do not have the financial capability of buying themselves full service frigates right off the bat. For instance, right now, of the three Iver Huitfeld in service (which is the totality of the class), only the first one is now fully kited out for AAW. The other two have their launchers (mechanical boxes portion) in place, but neither missiles nor the electronics, nor their combat system software to carry out any AAW duties. They will have all that in place and be fully operational on that aspect only in four years from now, at which point, the actual cost of each frigate will have risen to $900M USD each.  The Danish approach is basically one that lets a country with a GDP smaller than that of the Province of Quebec buy top end frigates by spreading the cost of getting them to full capacity over a much longer period of 12 years instead of three or four.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks NS:   I was hoping you weren't sailing with 30 year old missiles in rusting out launchers.  

I think one of the things that apparently I am not getting across is that I would like to be able to separate the ship, the platform, from its "cargo" (cargo of death?).

It may not make sense in a fighter, which is basically an engine with a bunch of stuff wrapped around it.  But in the naval world I have difficulty understanding the need for such a finely balanced design that moving a tonne weight from here to there, or even off loading 10 tonnes, is going to materially affect the performance of the vessel.  Most vessels, outside of the Navy I grant you, are built to accommodate variable and shifting loads.  Either through pumping ballast or through active stabilization, or both.

That is why I keep coming back to the Danes OGBD.  They, in my view, have sacrificed 5 knots or so for a stable platform that is flexible and can be variously configured.  And, though it is not my butt on the line, I don't see how 5 or eve 15 knots is going to make a difference against guided projectiles manouevering against the ship at 500 km/h and up.  It would seem to me a larger cargo of decoys and 20mm ammunition would be my best friend under those circumstances.


----------



## Half Full

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> They, in my view, have sacrificed 5 knots or so for a stable platform that is flexible and can be variously configured.  And, though it is not my butt on the line, I don't see how 5 or eve 15 knots is going to make a difference against guided projectiles manouevering against the ship at 500 km/h and up.  It would seem to me a larger cargo of decoys and 20mm ammunition would be my best friend under those circumstances.



Speed, although important in Anti-Ship Missile Defence(ASMD) in order to displace the ship from the decoys/chaff, it is absolutely critical is Torpedo Counter Measures (TCM) manoeuvres.  A missile is a damage control problem...a torpedo is a survival problem.


----------



## AlexanderM

Half Full said:
			
		

> Speed, although important in Anti-Ship Missile Defence(ASMD) in order to displace the ship from the decoys/chaff, it is absolutely critical is Torpedo Counter Measures (TCM) manoeuvres.  A missile is a damage control problem...a torpedo is a survival problem.


So it's possible to evade a modern torpedo?? I'm aware of decoys but wasn't sure how effective they are. I've always been surprised that more hasn't been done to develop torpedo defensive systems.


----------



## Half Full

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> So it's possible to evade a modern torpedo?? I'm aware of decoys but wasn't sure how effective they are. I've always been surprised that more hasn't been done to develop torpedo defensive systems.



With the proper combination of decoys, manoeuvre and speed...most definitely.


----------



## AlexanderM

Half Full said:
			
		

> With the proper combination of decoys, manoeuvre and speed...most definitely.


The Iver Huitfeldt class has a top speed of around 30 knots which isn't bad, as they really are Destroyers and NATO will almost certainly classify them as Destroyers, as it has for the other similar designs.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Half Full said:
			
		

> With the proper combination of decoys, manoeuvre and speed...most definitely.



And, if testing works out as well as the costs going way down, it will soon be possible to engage a guided torpedo with...an anti-torpedo-torpedo.

http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/navy/2014sstd_tws_cat.pdf


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> And, if testing works out as well as the costs going way down, it will soon be possible to engage a guided torpedo with...an anti-torpedo-torpedo.
> 
> http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY2014/pdf/navy/2014sstd_tws_cat.pdf



Or like this Sea Spider ATT from Atlas Elektronik  

https://www.atlas-elektronik.com/what-we-do/naval-weapons/seaspider/


----------



## AlexanderM

Good to see anti-torpedo systems are becoming available. 

My concept would be a sea mortar system, once you have a track on the torpedo, it would be fired in the air, then penetrate the water and detonate in front of or directly above the torpedo. Just a thought.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The Iver Huitfeldt class has a top speed of around 30 knots which isn't bad, as they really are Destroyers and NATO will almost certainly classify them as Destroyers, as it has for the other similar designs.



Is that the hull speed or a result of propulsion system design?


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> Is that the hull speed or a result of propulsion system design?


I would think it's propulsion, but I'm not sure.

This article suggests the top speed is based on the propulsion system, I can't imagine a hull speed of 30 knots.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ivar-huitfeldt-class/


----------



## Kirkhill

From Wiki - but I verify these numbers from reviewing a number of other sources.

Class & type:	Absalon-class support ship
Displacement:	6,300 tonnes
Length:	137.6 m (451 ft 5 in)
Beam:	19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
Draft:	6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
Propulsion:	
2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines;
two shafts
22,300 bhp (16.6 MW)
Speed:	24 knots (44 km/h)
Range:	9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)


Type:	(Iver Huitfeldt) Air defence frigate
Displacement:	6,645 tonnes (full load)
Length:	138.7 m (455 ft)
Beam:	19.75 m (64.8 ft)
Draft:	5.3 m (17 ft)
Propulsion:	Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each.
Speed:	30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
Range:	+9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)

The hull form is supposedly the same for both ships.  The difference is the Absalon only has two (2) diesels generating 16.4 total MW while the Huitfeldt has four (4) of the identical diesels generating 32.8 MW combined.  The doubled power increases the speed by 6 knots, from 24 to 30.  Interesting the difference in draft - apparently the Huitfeldt sits a metre higher in the water at the same displacement?

For comparison sake here is the Dutch Zeven Provincien

Class & type:	De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate
Displacement:	6,050 tonnes (full load)
Length:	144.24 m (473.2 ft)
Beam:	18.8 m (62 ft)
Draft:	5.18 m (17.0 ft)
Propulsion:	
Combined diesel and gas
2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each
Speed:	30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)

A little longer water line, a little skinnier in the beam and with a 4.2 + 4.2 + 18.5 = 26.9 Edit: 4.2+ 4.2+ 18.5+ 18.5 = 45.4 MW of power, a little bit less lot more power to the props than the Huitfeldts.

Edited per Walter's correction.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Says "over 28kts" which could be 30 or more. Depending on the hull, getting more might mean a substantial increase in BHP, with a cost against sea-keeping and low speed handling and fuel consumption. There is rarely a free ride in ship design.  

As Chris shows that last bit extra comes at a bigger cost


----------



## AlexanderM

Is there a problem with having a top speed of 30 knots?


----------



## Karel Doorman

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> From Wiki - but I verify these numbers from reviewing a number of other sources.
> 
> Class & type:	Absalon-class support ship
> Displacement:	6,300 tonnes
> Length:	137.6 m (451 ft 5 in)
> Beam:	19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
> Draft:	6.3 m (20 ft 8 in)
> Propulsion:
> 2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines;
> two shafts
> 22,300 bhp (16.6 MW)
> Speed:	24 knots (44 km/h)
> Range:	9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)
> 
> 
> Type:	(Iver Huitfeldt) Air defence frigate
> Displacement:	6,645 tonnes (full load)
> Length:	138.7 m (455 ft)
> Beam:	19.75 m (64.8 ft)
> Draft:	5.3 m (17 ft)
> Propulsion:	Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each.
> Speed:	30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
> Range:	+9,000 nautical miles (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)
> 
> The hull form is supposedly the same for both ships.  The difference is the Absalon only has two (2) diesels generating 16.4 total MW while the Huitfeldt has four (4) of the identical diesels generating 32.8 MW combined.  The doubled power increases the speed by 6 knots, from 24 to 30.  Interesting the difference in draft - apparently the Huitfeldt sits a metre higher in the water at the same displacement?
> 
> For comparison sake here is the Dutch Zeven Provincien
> 
> Class & type:	De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate
> Displacement:	6,050 tonnes (full load)
> Length:	144.24 m (473.2 ft)
> Beam:	18.8 m (62 ft)
> Draft:	5.18 m (17.0 ft)
> Propulsion:
> Combined diesel and gas
> 2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
> 2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each
> Speed:	30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
> 
> A little longer water line, a little skinnier in the beam and with a 4.2 + 4.2 + 18.5 = 26.9 MW of power, a little bit less power to the props than the Huitfeldts.



Chris one thing thought about the RR Speys:


Combined diesel and gas
2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each(each one)
4 × Wärtsilä-Deutz D620 V12 diesel-generators, 1,680 kW (2,250 hp) each

2 × propeller shafts, 5-bladed controllable pitch propellers

So it's actually ;18.5+18.5+4.2+4.2=45.4 MW

gr,walter,

ps,it's the plan to replace the two "Speys" with the newer Rolls-Royce WR-21 ,even more power( allready taken in account when building these ships,but engines where not there yet)


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the correction Walter.  Mea maxima culpa.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I like the mix of turbines and diesels. You can cruise on just the 2 diesels, but if you are likely to need the turbine, then you need to have it up and running and running turbine sucks a lot of fuel even if it's not doing anything. The advantage of the 4 diesels is you can swap the pairs so you can service one set while underway and spread out the hours and the overhauls. Turbines generally weigh less than comparable power diesels and would have a faster response time if running. Anyone here have experience with the time difference between bringing up a modern ship diesel and modern marine turbine up to usable power from cold?

Most of my turbine knowledge comes from our very ancient Gnome Turbine of the SRN6


----------



## Karel Doorman

All icould find is some common knowledge:

Rated power: 25.2 MW
Specific fuel consumption: ~190 g/kWh
Main module wet weight: 45974 kg
Twin-spool design + free rotating power Turbine
Six-stage LP compressor
Intercooler
Six-stage HP compressor
Exhaust heat recuperator
Nine radial combustors
Single-stage HP turbine: 8,100 rpm (135 Hz)
Single-stage LP turbine 6,200 rpm (103.33 Hz)
Five-stage free power turbine 3,600 rpm (60 Hz)

So for "the Sevens" it would then be :

25.2+25.2+4.2+4.2=58.8,

Don't know what this would mean for topspeed but they're(WR-21)are also much more efficient(fuel)

gr,walter


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Glad you saw my point about the costs Absolom-Iver(wich is offcourse more like F124/sevens,f-100,etc)
> 
> gr,walter



Its _Absalo*n*_...and while both the Absalon and Huitfeldt classes are substantially more expensive than officially qouted , they are nowhere near the pricetag of a Sachsen or LCF class.  

The Absalon cost just shy of ~300M million US dollars in 2007, including sensors,MU90 torpedoes, the 5" mk45 and 2 35mm millenium guns, but sans Harpoon and ESSM missiles which were already in inventory. The cost of 16 Harpoon and 36 ESSM is roughly $70M. A fully kitted out Absalon would probably cost 400-450M in todays dollars. 
The Iver Huitfeldt is naturally somewhat pricier but is still more than $200M cheaper than De Zeven Provinciën.


----------



## AlexanderM

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Its _Absalo*n*_...and while both the Absalon and Huitfeldt classes are substantially more expensive than officially qouted , they are nowhere near the pricetag of a Sachsen or LCF class.
> 
> The Absalon cost just shy of ~300M million US dollars in 2007, including sensors,MU90 torpedoes, the 5" mk45 and 2 35mm millenium guns, but sans Harpoon and ESSM missiles which were already in inventory. The cost of 16 Harpoon and 36 ESSM is roughly $70M. A fully kitted out Absalon would probably cost 400-450M in todays dollars.
> The Iver Huitfeldt is naturally somewhat pricier but is still more than $200M cheaper than De Zeven Provinciën.


Hey Mike, any idea what the hull speed is on the Huitfeldt?  Also, the MK41 launchers, do you know what size they are, Defense, Tactical or Strike version? I imagine any of the three could be used.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Contrary to what you may think, it does not use their modular approach as a cost saving measure.



The rationale behind the Standard Flex concept and its continued usage is well documented AND available online, so i will refrain from posting a wall of text reciting its history. What i can say is that your conclusion is wrong ( StanFlex was and still is ,very much a cost saving measure....among other things. Its also much more than just containerized weapons and equipment) 




> they simply do not have the financial capability of buying themselves full service frigates right off the bat.



We have plenty financial capability, but not the will to spend it on Defence. Not unlike Canada i suppose ;-) ...
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with StanFlex however. 




> For instance, right now, of the three Iver Huitfeld in service (which is the totality of the class), only the first one is now fully kited out for AAW.



Actually none of them are yet. We wont get long range Standards (SM-2 or 6) til next year at the earliest. The mk56 ESSM launchers are operational aboard all 3 frigates however so they have basic AAW capability at least.



> The other two have their launchers (mechanical boxes portion) in place, but neither missiles nor the electronics, nor their combat system software to carry out any AAW duties.



That is incorrect ! ..electronics and combat systems software is in place, but integration of SM-2/6 into the mk41 will likely take place sometime in 2017. 



> They will have all that in place and be fully operational on that aspect only in four years from now,



Pardon my french , but bollocks ! Where do you get your info from ?  Regardless i would suggest you get some better sources . 

The 4 year plan is not about AAW but the upcoming BMD upgrade which is scheduled for completion in the 2019-20 timeframe. 



> the actual cost of each frigate will have risen to $900M USD each.



BS!...you would have to cram the mk41s full of SM-3s to get near 900 million USD. 

As delivered from the shipyard(OSS) the huitfeldts was $165M USD each in 2010 dollars. That cost is indisputable. 
The AAW suite from Thales Netherlands came in at ~$110M USD in same year dollars.  Also indisputable
The Atlas Sonar,Star Safire mk III FLIR, surface and navigational radars,ESM system,link&communications systems,the combat system and the MK41 launchers etc makes up the remainder of the price quoted officially at ~$325-330M USD (2010)
What isnt included is :
2x76mm Oto Melara SR 
1x35 mm Millenium CIWS
2xMk56  VLS with 24 ESSM
2xMk141 Harpoon launchers with 16 Harpoon block II missiles.
SM-2 missiles. 
2xCEROS 200 Fire control directors
Most of the outfitting and integration of these sensors,weapons and military electronics was carried out by RDN technical personel or civilian subcontractors. As such that work was not accounted for in the acquisitions project but with funds taken from another budget (the navy's operating budget) 

All that adds up to another 200-250 million USD on top of the official purchase price. 
But even with the $100M USD BMD upgrade (radar and CMS) you are well short of the $900 million you claim. 



> a country with a GDP smaller than that of the Province of Quebec



Riiight.....But no 
Quebec GDP   : ~360 billion CAD 
Denmark GDP : ~420 billion CAD
And Quebec has a population almost 50% larger than Denmarks (8,2 vs 5,6 million)



> by spreading the cost of getting them to full capacity over a much longer period of 12 years instead of three or four.


Its actually more like 6 years ....and name me 1 navy (other than the US) that goes from commission to FOC in 3 years ?


----------



## GR66

This probably isn't the ideal topic to post this question in, but it is somewhat related to these discussions on desired CSC capabilities...

How much of the increased cost of modern multi-role Frigate/Destroyer designs is based on increased defensive capabilities (air search radars, AAW missiles, point missile defense, signature reduction technologies, etc.)?  It seems (from an uneducated outsider anyway) that the offensive capabilities of the latest designs are not significantly different than the ships from 1-2 generations ago but the AAW systems and capabilities have increased significantly.

I happened across an article the other day in the Canadian Naval Review by Ken Hansen (Canadian Naval Review Broadsides Forum, "What can be done to salvage the Canadian Surface Combatant program?", posted 07-Jan-2016...I have not included a link because it references an article by "he whom may not be named").  The article references an older (updated 1999) book by Wayne P. Hughes Jr. "Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, 2nd Ed." which Hansen summarizes as:



> The survivability of medium-sized warships against modern weapon systems is questionable. Modern anti-ship missiles, and especially torpedoes, are one-shot kill weapons if they hit their intended target. Wayne Hughes, Jr., in his seminal book Fleet Tactics and Coastal Combat, provides conclusive evidence that modern weaponry has produced what he calls a “fundamental point,” the implications of which are poorly understood:  “modern missiles have brought into question and sometimes overturned the principle of massing forces.” In his section on “Missile Equations” (pp. 268-84), analysis of 222 anti-ship missiles fired in hostilities produced the following probability of achieving a hit per shot:
> .913 – against defenseless ships;
> .684 – against defendable warships that failed to react; and
> .264 – against defendable warships that did attempt to defend themselves.
> With a one-shot kill capability and a minimum ‘leaker’ rate of more than 25%, the idea that larger and more expensive ships are more survivable than smaller ships should definitely be challenged. Hughes shows that a warship must be over 10,000 tonnes in displacement before it merits more than one missile hit to put it out of action (the rate is one additional hit per 10,000 tonnes of displacement). Even more challenging anti-ship systems are in the offing and it is unlikely self-defence systems will keep pace. Building very expensive warships that will be vulnerable in combat may not be an effective use of resources and, at the very least, will impose severe restrictions on operators. In a high threat environment, it is likely that only submarines will be able to operate there and be considered ‘survivable’.



Does this older analysis of the effectiveness of AAW systems vs. missile threats still hold true in a modern context?  Are we building ever more expensive ships which may be mission-killed by (on average) four relatively cheap missiles, or are current AAW systems more effective against current anti-ship missiles?


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Hey Mike, any idea what the hull speed is on the Huitfeldt?



Yes, its 28 knots, or put another way , the requirement was for a sustained speed of 27,6 knots  at 90% MCR in sea state 3 (IIRC). Just like with the Absalons that are a knot or 2 faster than their design speed(+25 vs23-24kts) , the Huitfeldts have turned out to exceed requirements, achieving +31knots on trial runs. At end of life displacement (~7000t) 26-27 knots is probably max speed. 
Contrary to popular belief, the IH's are actually quite different from their older siblings below the waterline despite the apparent similarity. One of the reasons why they achieve a respectable speed despite the relatively modest propulsion power. In pure acceleration however, they cant quite match their gasturbine powered peers. One of the trade-offs in going to an all diesel setup. Gives them unparalleled range though.



  





> Also, the MK41 launchers, do you know what size they are, Defense, Tactical or Strike version? I imagine any of the three could be used.



They are Strike length.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for all of that MKP -

On a different tack, are you picking up any sense of why our Canadian pricing may be at such variance compared to the OSS/OMT pricing?

The price you quoted for the vessel seems to me to be reasonable for what I believe the civilian world would know as "a bare bones charter" vessel - before all the tools of the trade and cargo is brought aboard.

Stanflex, in my understanding, separates the cost of the hull from the cost of the tools and cargo to a large extent.  Essentially it makes tools and cargo an "institutional" cost which the "institution", the navy, provides to the vessel as required, and can remove from the vessel to storage.

Cheers.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

GR66 said:
			
		

> Does this older analysis of the effectiveness of AAW systems vs. missile threats still hold true in a modern context?



I think it is somewhat overstating the lethality of anti-ship missiles. There are really 2 kinds of ASCM's , the conventional subsonic ones like Harpoon, Exocet, RBS-15, C-802 , NSM etc , and the truck size supersonic seaskimming type like the sunburn/moskit and Brahmos. 

The first category missiles are highly maneuverable ( and in NSM's case also stealthy) but slow and relatively small carrying warheads ranging from 125-220kg in size. 

Supersonic missiles like the Brahmos  are much larger (though not in warhead size) but also much less maneuverable. So you get shorter time to react and respond, but since these missiles have a more predictable flight path, they are also easier to shoot down. If they hit though i think even an Arleigh Burke would be toast. 

Even corvette sized vessels of about 1200 tonnes have survived hits by harpoon class weapons, and in the 4000-9000 tonne range of warships there are numerous examples of vessels surviving hits from similar missiles. Whether a ship remains operational/combat effective is of course dependant upon where the missile impacts. 

And while anti ship missiles have evolved greatly since the falklands war , i think you could well argue that the radars,optronics/IRST and ESM/ECM systems protecting modern warships have evolved even more so.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

> author=Chris Pook
> On a different tack, are you picking up any sense of why our Canadian pricing may be at such variance compared to the OSS/OMT pricing?



Are you thinking of the AOPS or more in general terms ?



> Stanflex, in my understanding, separates the cost of the hull from the cost of the tools and cargo to a large extent.  Essentially it makes tools and cargo an "institutional" cost which the "institution", the navy, provides to the vessel as required, and can remove from the vessel to storage.



Sounds spot on to me. In the real world of course it is a litlle less black and white and we dont always adhere completely to the StanFlex philosophy, but that is another matter.


----------



## GR66

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> I think it is somewhat overstating the lethality of anti-ship missiles. There are really 2 kinds of ASCM's , the conventional subsonic ones like Harpoon, Exocet, RBS-15, C-802 , NSM etc , and the truck size supersonic seaskimming type like the sunburn/moskit and Brahmos.
> 
> The first category missiles are highly maneuverable ( and in NSM's case also stealthy) but slow and relatively small carrying warheads ranging from 125-220kg in size.
> 
> Supersonic missiles like the Brahmos  are much larger (though not in warhead size) but also much less maneuverable. So you get shorter time to react and respond, but since these missiles have a more predictable flight path, they are also easier to shoot down. If they hit though i think even an Arleigh Burke would be toast.
> 
> Even corvette sized vessels of about 1200 tonnes have survived hits by harpoon class weapons, and in the 4000-9000 tonne range of warships there are numerous examples of vessels surviving hits from similar missiles. Whether a ship remains operational/combat effective is of course dependant upon where the missile impacts.
> 
> And while anti ship missiles have evolved greatly since the falklands war , i think you could well argue that the radars,optronics/IRST and ESM/ECM systems protecting modern warships have evolved even more so.



Thanks for the informative reply.  I suspected that the figures in the article could at the very least be "debatable".


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> From Wiki - but I verify these numbers from reviewing a number of other sources.
> 
> Class & type:	Absalon-class support ship
> Displacement:	 *6639* tonnes
> Length:	137.6 m (451 ft 5 in)
> Beam:	19.5 m (64 ft 0 in)
> Draft:	6.3 m (20 ft 8 in) *Under hull mounted sonar , draft under hull baseline 5,3 m*
> Propulsion:
> 2 × MTU 8000 M70 diesel engines;
> two shafts
> 22,300 bhp (16.4 MW)
> Speed:	*25* knots (44 km/h)
> Range:	9,000 nmi (17,000 km) at 15 kn (28 km/h)
> 
> 
> Type:	(Iver Huitfeldt) Air defence frigate
> Displacement:	6,645 tonnes (full load)
> Length:	138.7 m (455 ft)
> Beam:	19.75 m (64.8 ft)
> Draft:	5.3 m (17 ft)- *6,3m under HMS*
> Propulsion:	Four MTU 8000 20V M70 diesel engines, 8,2 MW each.
> Speed:	30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
> Range:	*9,300 *nautical miles (17,000 km; 10,000 mi) at 18 knots (33 km/h; 21 mph)
> 
> *The hull form is supposedly the same for both ships. Look outwardly similar but isnt.*   The doubled power increases the speed by *5 knots, from 25 to 30.
> *
> For comparison sake here is the Dutch Zeven Provincien
> 
> Class & type:	De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate
> Displacement:	6,050 tonnes (full load)
> Length:	144.24 m (473.2 ft)
> Beam:	18.8 m (62 ft)
> Draft:	5.18 m (17.0 ft)
> Propulsion:
> Combined diesel and gas
> 2 × Wärtsilä 16 V26 diesel engines, 4.2 MW (5,600 hp) each
> 2 × Rolls Royce Spey SM 1C gas turbines, 18.5 MW (24,800 hp) each
> Speed:	30 knots (56 km/h; 35 mph)
> 
> A little longer water line, a little skinnier in the beam and with a 4.2 + 4.2 + 18.5 = 26.9 Edit: 4.2+ 4.2+ 18.5+ 18.5 = 45.4 MW of power, a little bit less lot more power to the props than the Huitfeldts.
> 
> Edited per Walter's correction.



I have just made some minor corrections , written in bold


----------



## GR66

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> I think it is somewhat overstating the lethality of anti-ship missiles. There are really 2 kinds of ASCM's , the conventional subsonic ones like Harpoon, Exocet, RBS-15, C-802 , NSM etc , and the truck size supersonic seaskimming type like the sunburn/moskit and Brahmos.
> 
> The first category missiles are highly maneuverable ( and in NSM's case also stealthy) but slow and relatively small carrying warheads ranging from 125-220kg in size.
> 
> Supersonic missiles like the Brahmos  are much larger (though not in warhead size) but also much less maneuverable. So you get shorter time to react and respond, but since these missiles have a more predictable flight path, they are also easier to shoot down. If they hit though i think even an Arleigh Burke would be toast.
> 
> Even corvette sized vessels of about 1200 tonnes have survived hits by harpoon class weapons, and in the 4000-9000 tonne range of warships there are numerous examples of vessels surviving hits from similar missiles. Whether a ship remains operational/combat effective is of course dependant upon where the missile impacts.
> 
> And while anti ship missiles have evolved greatly since the falklands war , i think you could well argue that the radars,optronics/IRST and ESM/ECM systems protecting modern warships have evolved even more so.



Related question.  I imagine survivability numbers (like quoted in the original article) are greatly affected by whether the targetted ship is prepared for the attack and I presume has its radars activated to a) detect the incoming missiles in the first place, and b) to direct the AAW weapons and counter-measures launched to defend the ship.

Is there not a bit of a catch-22 in this?  If you don't have your radars active you may not detect the incoming attack in time to be able to effectively counter it which greatly decreases your survivability.  If however, your radars are active you are giving away your position to the enemy and letting them know where to attack...which again presumably decreases your survivability (vs. not being detected in the first place).

In light of advances in things like the sensor fusion in the F-35 where a group of aircraft will share a combined sensor picture of the battlespace, has there been any discussions in the naval world about possibly separating the sensors from the most expensive asset which is the warship and instead putting them on cheaper platforms (manned aircraft, UAV's, cheap drone ships, etc.?) and having those sensor platforms communicate with the warships?  Would that allow you to use smaller (and cheaper?), harder to detect warships as stealthy (or at least stealthier) weapon platforms in conjuction with more numerous (and more easily replaced) sensor platforms?


----------



## Kirkhill

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Are you thinking of the AOPS or more in general terms ?



In general terms, although the AOPS immediately springs to mind.



			
				MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Sounds spot on to me. In the real world of course it is a litlle less black and white and we dont always adhere completely to the StanFlex philosophy, but that is another matter.



Thanks and understood

And I appreciate the modifications to the data comparison.


----------



## Lumber

GR66 said:
			
		

> Related question.  I imagine survivability numbers (like quoted in the original article) are greatly affected by whether the targetted ship is prepared for the attack and I presume has its radars activated to a) detect the incoming missiles in the first place, and b) to direct the AAW weapons and counter-measures launched to defend the ship.



This is one of the fundamentals of Above Water Warfare. Balancing the risk of being detected against the need to have you radars on to detect incoming missiles. There is no straight answer to this. It is all situation dependent. I can give you scenarios if you wish, but there are a ton of different possibilities. 



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> In light of advances in things like the sensor fusion in the F-35 where a group of aircraft will share a combined sensor picture of the battlespace, has there been any discussions in the naval world about possibly separating the sensors from the most expensive asset which is the warship and instead putting them on cheaper platforms (manned aircraft, UAV's, cheap drone ships, etc.?) and having those sensor platforms communicate with the warships?  Would that allow you to use smaller (and cheaper?), harder to detect warships as stealthy (or at least stealthier) weapon platforms in conjuction with more numerous (and more easily replaced) sensor platforms?



This is already standard naval tactics. You have radar pickets deployed away from the force or Long Range Patrol Aircraft (LRPAs) providing radar coverage to a huge area. They pass this information along to the ship's in the force over what is called "Link", which allows everyone radar and tactical picture to look exactly the same.

Using a small/cheaper "off-board" radar vessel is a possibility, but I don't think such a concept yet exists. There a large list of problems with such an idea. If its  a really small craft such as a remote vehicle, who's going to carry it? How fast is it going to be? How are you going to launch and recover it? Up to what sea-state are you going to operate it in? When do you launch it? The biggest issue would be that small vessel like that has a very small radar horizon because it's so low to the water. If you are talking about a small vessel, such as a corvette or even smaller (literally carrying nothing but radars and radios), then you still have some of the issues like speed and endurance (can it keep up with the fleet?), survivability.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

GR66 said:
			
		

> Is there not a bit of a catch-22 in this?  If you don't have your radars active you may not detect the incoming attack in time to be able to effectively counter it which greatly decreases your survivability.  If however, your radars are active you are giving away your position to the enemy and letting them know where to attack...which again presumably decreases your survivability (vs. not being detected in the first place).



Well thats what your passive ESM systems are for, "listening"for any  emissions from say a missiles targeting radar. On a lot of modern warships you also have Infrared surveillance systems scanning for thermal signatures , like the hot exhaust plume of a missile . In some cases though, say in confined littoral waters close to the coastline, these warning systems will not alert you in time . So you have to go active and use your radars, giving away your presence and position. But trying to hide a +6000 tonne +130 meter warship in that environment is damn near impossible anyway in this day and age so you are not really losing a lot by going active anyways. The most important thing is being alert and ready for action in the first place. You can have your weapons systems ready, your CIWS, and decoy systems on and in automatic mode, all hands at battle stations AND your radar turned on WITHOUT emitting but ready to. 



> In light of advances in things like the sensor fusion in the F-35 where a group of aircraft will share a combined sensor picture of the battlespace, has there been any discussions in the naval world about possibly separating the sensors from the most expensive asset which is the warship and instead putting them on cheaper platforms (manned aircraft, UAV's, cheap drone ships, etc.?)



Absolutely, UAV's on ships is happening as we speak and is going to become an integral part of future naval warfare, just like a warships organic helicopter capability is used as an ISR asset, qua their very capable sensors. 



> and having those sensor platforms communicate with the warships?



Already happening ....in grand scale this is what the US CEC( Cooperative Engagement Capability) system is all about. It gathers information from multiple sensors on land, sea,air and space and creates an overall picture of the battle space (sensor fusion) , allowing you to separate sensor and shooter.



> Would that allow you to use smaller (and cheaper?), harder to detect warships as stealthy (or at least stealthier) weapon platforms in conjuction with more numerous (and more easily replaced) sensor platforms?



The problems with smaller combatants is the inherent limitations they bring with them, like short range and endurance, lesser habitability and survivability 

As a niche weapon used as a supplement to larger warships or for smaller states operating only in the littorals they make sense , but they can never be a substitute for the modern large surface combatant


----------



## GR66

Excellent education.  Thank you both.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The missile conversation is interesting and informative, it should be in another thread though.

I have a question about the CSC program. What steel is being cut, where, and when will it materialize into a useful object? I see lots of paper and RFQ and re-thinking of capabilities, costs, use scenarios etc. But no ships being built, while in half a decade those that still float will be quite close to being older than their XO's. And they still may be flying Sea Kings. Why are the Admirals not pushing this issue as hard as they can, and as publicly as allowable both pre- and post career retirement?


----------



## Edward Campbell

There's a gloomy report, which I find distressingly believable, on the "predicted failure [in the] introduction of the Canadian Surface Combatant" here.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> In general terms, although the AOPS immediately springs to mind.



With my limited insight into Canadian industry and shipbuilding practices i can only guess as to disparity in cost. Most obvious would be the difference between a civilian yard accustomed to the build-to cost model and utilizing cheap eastern european/baltic labour in subsidiarys or subcontractors, in contrast with the Halifax based Irving Shipbuilding with its , shall we say , somewhat lesser commercial experience and success(though its hard to argue the fact that OSS no longer exists and Irving is still around) . 
Still to survive as long as it did building large container ships and tankers ,in increasing competition with dirt cheap Asian yards, required the Lindø Yard (OSS) to become ever more efficient and develop new cheaper and faster shipbuilding procedures and practices. They were also among the front runners in automation and use of robots in the shipbuilding industry, and by the time they closed, ironically the Odense yard was probably one of the most advanced and efficient in the world. Against heavily subsidized South Korean and Chinese yards, however it was not enough. They could still build far cheaper vessels AND in numbers OSS could not match. 

Another difference might be in the detail of the design specifications. For the Absalon/Huitfeldt classes specifications on the hull/platform design itself was actually very general in nature only listing  requirements and then letting the experienced yard decide how to best comply with those requirements. Compared with say Norwegian practice where they(as in the Navy/ project office) specify every single detail of every single nut and bolt and the standard it has to comply with, resulting not only in a much longer and more costly design process but also a much more expensive and troubled build. 
As most navies in the anglosphere, as far as i can tell, have design practices much along the lines of the Norwegians, i would imagine Canada does as well. 
And the Harry DeWolf is based on the Svalbard afterall. 

In the RDN we also often make do with cheaper 90% solutions where best in class performance is not perceived to be vital, for instance in choosing CODAD instead of the more expensive CODAG or CODLAG propulsion.

Emphasis on COTS/MOTS components also help to keep costs down. 

And finally , as we have already established , our ships are not always as cheap as they seem, because of hidden costs and a bit of  "creative accounting" ;-)


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There's a gloomy report, which I find distressingly believable, on the "predicted failure [in the] introduction of the Canadian Surface Combatant" here.



Is the program costs quoted in Canadian or US dollars ?.....30 Million CAD is "only" 20M USD . So 15 CSC would mean ~1,3 billion USD each, expensive to be sure but not totally ludicrous if you are talking about something like a modern "mini-Burke" DDG.  

As to the AOPS, i thought the DeWolf class was going to be bigger and build to a higher spec than the Svalbard?( which is built to purely commercial standards)


----------



## Kirkhill

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> With my limited insight into Canadian industry and shipbuilding practices i can only guess as to disparity in cost. Most obvious would be the difference between a civilian yard accustomed to the build-to cost model and utilizing cheap eastern european/baltic labour in subsidiarys or subcontractors, in contrast with the Halifax based Irving Shipbuilding with its , shall we say , somewhat lesser commercial experience and success(though its hard to argue the fact that OSS no longer exists and Irving is still around) .
> Still to survive as long as it did building large container ships and tankers ,in increasing competition with dirt cheap Asian yards, required the Lindø Yard (OSS) to become ever more efficient and develop new cheaper and faster shipbuilding procedures and practices. They were also among the front runners in automation and use of robots in the shipbuilding industry, and by the time they closed, ironically the Odense yard was probably one of the most advanced and efficient in the world. Against heavily subsidized South Korean and Chinese yards, however it was not enough. They could still build far cheaper vessels AND in numbers OSS could not match.
> 
> Another difference might be in the detail of the design specifications. For the Absalon/Huitfeldt classes specifications on the hull/platform design itself was actually very general in nature only listing  requirements and then letting the experienced yard decide how to best comply with those requirements. Compared with say Norwegian practice where they(as in the Navy/ project office) specify every single detail of every single nut and bolt and the standard it has to comply with, resulting not only in a much longer and more costly design process but also a much more expensive and troubled build.
> As most navies in the anglosphere, as far as i can tell, have design practices much along the lines of the Norwegians, i would imagine Canada does as well.
> And the Harry DeWolf is based on the Svalbard afterall.
> 
> In the RDN we also often make do with cheaper 90% solutions where best in class performance is not perceived to be vital, for instance in choosing CODAD instead of the more expensive CODAG or CODLAG propulsion.
> 
> Emphasis on COTS/MOTS components also help to keep costs down.
> 
> And finally , as we have already established , our ships are not always as cheap as they seem, because of hidden costs and a bit of  "creative accounting" ;-)



While your ships may not always be as cheap as they seem they still seem to be as cheap as they come - and apparently function.  

On the Irving efficiency front I will tread lightly while pointing out that they have limited current experience in the manufacture of large vessels and the yard is essentially a new one.  A steep learning curve perhaps?

Your point about detailed specs vs general specs I personally find very interesting.  Having worked with Danish and Swedish engineers in a very different design field I find the "general" approach to be very familiar.  Having also worked with Canadian engineers as well I find them detail oriented to a fault.  They show an abundance, and often an over-abundance of caution.    

It is my personal opinion that the zeal shown for detail does not show material benefits.  Again this is only my personal opinion based on some years of observation, it drives timelines to the right, drives budgets higher and does little to guarantee that the end product will be any better than the "general spec" product.

Personally I prefer a 90% solution in my hand that I can trim and craft to achieve my desired endstate, than a 100% solution sometime in the never-never.  But that is just me.

To be fair to the "detail oriented" engineers though the "generalist" approach demands three things:  educated vendors,educated clients and trust.  And in an environment where ships are built once a decade or so I presume it is very hard to find any of those things in Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill

Re the gloomy report - I think the cynical response is - "plan for the worst, hope for the best".  Until a firm CSC plan and schedule is finalized it probably is wise to maintain plans in being based on the Halifax.   

The one thing that continues to bother me is the lack of a Stanflex type plan for all these additional capabilities that the Halifaxes/CSC/AOPSs might share if they were in service at the same time.

With respect the AOPS/Svalbard:  It is my understanding that the AOPS, as designed on the West Coast by Aker/BMT/STX, originally followed Civilian guidelines.  It is also my understanding that when the design was handed off to the East Coast there was considerable discussion about Navalizing the specifications. The final design is apparently civilian.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Re the gloomy report - I think the cynical response is - "plan for the worst, hope for the best".  Until a firm CSC plan and schedule is finalized it probably is wise to maintain plans in being based on the Halifax.


My money is on the following: 
-the CSC project will be killed off as legacy Harper era tomfoolery (which it turned out to be anyway).
-a study will be commenced to determine if we even need a surface fleet with anything more than very light armament, and restrict the vessel to Canadian littoral waters for "surveillance";
- the MCDV's will fill the above role for the next 5 (hundred) years;
-the Halifax fleet will be declared not currently required, a few will be placed in some sort of extended ready reserve, the rest we will be shaving with;
- the subs are literally going to disappear under the surface;
- the JSS/AOR Berlin class will not be built and penalties will be paid; 
-The AOPS will be built, then half the fleet laid up and the other half tied up.

The Cyclones and Auroras will be our main maritime assets for patrolling the coasts and if necessary, dropping the odd practice torpedo.

Time will tell, but I have a feeling absolutely NOTHING will be built other than the AOPS.


----------



## Edward Campbell

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> My money is on the following:
> -the CSC project will be killed off as legacy Harper era tomfoolery (which it turned out to be anyway).
> -a study will be commenced to determine if we even need a surface fleet with anything more than very light armament, and restrict the vessel to Canadian littoral waters for "surveillance";
> - the MCDV's will fill the above role for the next 5 (hundred) years;
> ...
> 
> The Cyclones and Auroras will be our main maritime assets for patrolling the coasts and if necessary, dropping the odd practice torpedo.
> 
> Time will tell, but I have a feeling absolutely NOTHING will be built other than the AOPS.




I hear ya' .... but:

     1. There are a couple of important ministers from Atlantic Canada who will remind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that they, Atlantic Canadians, gave him a majority; and

                   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





   
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	



                    (Important ministers from Atlantic Canada:
                    both infinitely better qualified to be PM, but ...)

     2. There is still a right wing in the Liberal Party, the so-called Manley Liberals, and it does care about foreign and defence policies. I'm sure PMJT is aware of the fact that his father, PMPT, faced a mini cabinet revolt in 1969/70,
         over foreign policy, and that his own ministers approached German Defence Minister, later Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to have a chat with PMPT about socialist policy vs practical politics.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Ok,
> 
> I'll jump in on this one.
> 
> The missiles in our canisters get sent ashore, shipped to the US Depots, and back to us after major refurbishments.
> 
> There are locations in Canada (I had a tour on my QL6B course) where DND personnel do take the missiles out of the canisters, inspect, test, replace, and re-pack them.  I sailed with one of the former FC techs that now does that for a living.
> 
> The older the missile, the more likely it is to fail the routine checks, and the components are replaced/life-cycled on a specific schedule from what I recall.
> 
> So, the old RIM-7P's that we stripped off the ships when we upgraded to the RIM-162 ESSM got sent back to the US, they were stripped of useable parts, and what could be re-used, was.  *NOTE* this was pre-FELEX, I was on STJ when we refitted her for the ESSM in 2004.  The transition to the ESSM was not concurrent with the HCM project.
> 
> The RIM-162's have a test/inspection cycle, as do the Harpoons.  Every missile comes with a log book (as does each torpedo, and HOTTORP).  (Separate from Ammo Data Cards.)
> 
> I know that which I speak of here....I was a Magazine Custodian until this past June on one of the Frigates.
> 
> So, the lifespan of the missiles is controlled, and monitored.  That's honestly not a big deal.
> 
> NS



NS, I certainly did not mean for people to think that the missiles were put in the launchers at acquisition and never touched until they "expired". Obviously there is maintenance that is done on an ongoing basis. But such maintenance cannot touch some of the elements, such as the actual solid fuel and all of its casing. The electronics, the sensors the programming, the ignition subsystems can and obviously are maintained. As you indicate yourself, however, the older the missile, the more often they fail their testing, and at some point they get sent back to the manufacturer for disposal and new ones are bought.

My point was exactly that this point where the majority of the missiles need replacement roughly corresponds to the expected service time of frigates and destroyers of 25 to 30 years. Thus, you cannot introduce the next class of warships in service expecting to be able to re-use the older class' missiles for the next 25-30 years again. Unless the older class of ship's missiles were recent replacements, you have to buy new ones anyway.

This is different than the more mechanical/electrical/hydraulic weapons systems, such as guns and torpedoes, which, if maintained properly and repaired when necessary, can go on almost in perpetuity (like the 40mm Boffins that are about to be removed from the MCDV after more than 70 years of service, though no one said they were not just going to be crated until "next use"  [ ). So for instance, if it was decided that the main gun on the CSC was to be the Bofors 57mm, we could re-use the ones on the HAL's.

That was my point on missiles. I used it to counter the perception some people have that the Danish Stanflex concept is saving money because they are re-using the same missiles. They are not: They are re-using the launchers. As for the missiles themselves, in the Stanflex concept, they get acquired and replaced on an ongoing basis as they get to the end of heir life, so all you have done, is make them a separate item from the ship (and therefore probably accounted for somewhere else) and spread their acquisition cost over longer budgetary time frame than if you just purchased a new ship all inclusive of its brand new armament. As for re-using the launchers, well, someone else here chimed in on the fact that it may not be such a big savings after all considering the metal fatigue and other aging factors on the launchers that need fixing and maintenance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think some of the points below need adressing.

First of all, and this is not meant as a disrespectful comment against MKP, but simply as a warning to some in these fora who seem to take his (her?) point of view as fully knowledgeable of the Danish Navy, MKP is actually and by his (her?) own admission a lance-corporal in a Danish Army tank regiment. He (she) may well have valid information and knowledge, but the source is unstated.

My comments are in yellow in his (her) post below.



			
				MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> The rationale behind the Standard Flex concept and its continued usage is well documented AND available online, so i will refrain from posting a wall of text reciting its history. What i can say is that your conclusion is wrong ( StanFlex was and still is ,very much a cost saving measure....among other things. Its also much more than just containerized weapons and equipment)
> 
> I will not refrain. The Stanflex concept came about in the early 1980's because the Danish Navy could not afford to replace its 22 attack crafts, mine hunters and coastal patrol vessels that were becoming obsolete on a one-for-one basis. So they came up with the "single class" hull Flyvefisken class and the Stanflex concept. The modules covered mine warfare, basic ASW, main gun and missiles modules for AAW (Sea-Sparrows in Mk 56) or Harpoon ASuW. The ship could be configured for one form or warfare or the other but no more than one at a time. Overall, it was a budget constraint that imposed the solution on the Danish Navy, but it still ended up with less ships and as a result, as a lesser simultaneous capability to carry missions.
> 
> Does it save money with the Iver Huitfeldt? Re-using any weapons system usually saves money. However, you could re-use guns, for instance, wether they are in Stanflex containers or mounted on board the usual way (We did resell the Otto Melara 5 inch guns of the IRO's and they have been re-used by the acquirer). The same goes for the missile launchers, but as per my recent past post above, the missiles themselves have to be changed from time to time no matter what. So it saved money, but only to the extent that re-using weapons system already in your inventory does, and not necessarily because it is Stanflex.
> 
> IMHO, Stanflex was, and is, a Danish solution to a Danish situation, and more power to them if it provides them with their defence needs in a way that satisfies them, but it may not be the solution for all. Stan flex has been discussed at length - incensed then discredited, then incensed again, by all sort of people since it came out in the 1980's. However, since that time, just in the "western" world, Australia, Canada, the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, France, the UK, Spain, Japan, South Korea and, yes, Denmark's neighbour Norway have all developed and introduced new frigates and destroyers into service. Not a single one of them adopted a Stanflex concept. Perhaps there is a reason. My personal view is that, maybe Stanflex doesn't save you money as much as it lets you spread out the outlay of money.
> 
> We have plenty financial capability, but not the will to spend it on Defence. Not unlike Canada i suppose ;-) ...
> All of which has absolutely nothing to do with StanFlex however.
> 
> For the reasons I indicated above, Stanflex was developed specifically because Denmark did not have the financial capability to replace its fleet of smaller vessels. With the Iver Huitfeldt, it does not even give them flexibility, since (other than mid-life refits) there is no intent on changing the weapons suite as they go, except for maintenance. Once the guns and launchers are in place, they will remain and constitute the weapons suite of the ship - period)
> 
> Actually none of them are yet. We wont get long range Standards (SM-2 or 6) til next year at the earliest. The mk56 ESSM launchers are operational aboard all 3 frigates however so they have basic AAW capability at least.
> 
> I thought Iver herself was full up, but OK, I'm probably wrong on this one. However, about six months ago, Niels Juel came over to exercise with the US Navy. She carried her Harpoon launchers and her Mk 56 launchers, had her Mk41 launcher installed but they were all empty of missiles.
> 
> That is incorrect ! ..electronics and combat systems software is in place, but integration of SM-2/6 into the mk41 will likely take place sometime in 2017.
> 
> That is exactly my point: When you integrate the SM-2 and SM-6, upgrading and reprogramming of the combat system for AAW must occur, then lots of testing before operational. You may do that internally within your Navy since it happens step by step and after commissioning, but in ours and most others, all combat suites (weapons and combat systems are built, installed and integrated from the start and by the contractor. Thus, you hide your cost in you annual Navy budget, but the value, which other navies have to pay in their shipbuilding budget, must count against the actual cost of the ship. I note here that you yourself mention in one of your post that your country does some creative accounting and cost hiding.
> 
> Pardon my french , but bollocks ! Where do you get your info from ?  Regardless i would suggest you get some better sources .
> 
> The 4 year plan is not about AAW but the upcoming BMD upgrade which is scheduled for completion in the 2019-20 timeframe.
> 
> BS!...you would have to cram the mk41s full of SM-3s to get near 900 million USD.
> 
> Let me use your own numbers below: You say 330MUS$ in 2010, plus 100MUS$ for the BMD update I take as current $, then you put the non included weapons systems, including missiles at about 250MUS$. I can tell you you are off on that last one (but note that you only buy SM-2's when your Navy will have SM-2 and SM-6). Using current most recent price for missiles and a mix of 12 SM-6 to 20 SM-2's in the Mk-41, the missiles alone [all - harpoons, at 1.2M$; ESSm at 1.4M$ -for 48 which is the real final capability -; SM-2 if you stick to block IIIA at 1M$ and SM-6 at 4.5M$ - all these prices are based on the latest sales of those missiles]  (no integration work and none of the guns and other items you mention) will set you back 162M$US. But even then, I will accept your 250M$ figure.
> 
> Now, assuming this last 250M$ and the 100M$ BMD as today values, but correcting the 330M$ to bring it in 2015 dollars (using RAND corporation accepted inflation rate for naval systems of 11%/year) it becomes 540M$. Add the $350 already in current dollars and you get $890 Millions: Thus my about 900 millions. And note that I did not try to include your hidden costs within the Navy general budget by doing work yourself that is in fact contractor work in our own countries.
> 
> As delivered from the shipyard(OSS) the huitfeldts was $165M USD each in 2010 dollars. That cost is indisputable.
> The AAW suite from Thales Netherlands came in at ~$110M USD in same year dollars.  Also indisputable
> The Atlas Sonar,Star Safire mk III FLIR, surface and navigational radars,ESM system,link&communications systems,the combat system and the MK41 launchers etc makes up the remainder of the price quoted officially at ~$325-330M USD (2010)
> What isnt included is :
> 2x76mm Oto Melara SR
> 1x35 mm Millenium CIWS
> 2xMk56  VLS with 24 ESSM
> 2xMk141 Harpoon launchers with 16 Harpoon block II missiles.
> SM-2 missiles.
> 2xCEROS 200 Fire control directors
> Most of the outfitting and integration of these sensors,weapons and military electronics was carried out by RDN technical personel or civilian subcontractors. As such that work was not accounted for in the acquisitions project but with funds taken from another budget (the navy's operating budget)
> 
> All that adds up to another 200-250 million USD on top of the official purchase price.
> But even with the $100M USD BMD upgrade (radar and CMS) you are well short of the $900 million you claim.
> 
> Riiight.....But no
> Quebec GDP   : ~360 billion CAD
> Denmark GDP : ~420 billion CAD
> And Quebec has a population almost 50% larger than Denmarks (8,2 vs 5,6 million)
> 
> Here is my sources: The World Bank (data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD).
> 
> I am using their figures for 2013 (last available) in US$. Denmark = 342bUS$. I then use their figure for Canada and apportion Quebec's GDP by referring to Statscan figures for provincial/territorial GDPs for that same year, which gives us 344bUS$ for that same year.
> 
> Its actually more like 6 years ....and name me 1 navy (other than the US) that goes from commission to FOC in 3 years ?
> 
> Actually, from commission to FOC in about 1 years: France, UK, Canada, Spain, Italy, just to name those I know of in the last 15 years.


----------



## Underway

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I hear ya' .... but:
> 
> 1. There are a couple of important ministers from Atlantic Canada who will remind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that they, Atlantic Canadians, gave him a majority; and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Important ministers from Atlantic Canada:
> both infinitely better qualified to be PM, but ...)
> 
> 2. There is still a right wing in the Liberal Party, the so-called Manley Liberals, and it does care about foreign and defence policies. I'm sure PMJT is aware of the fact that his father, PMPT, faced a mini cabinet revolt in 1969/70,
> over foreign policy, and that his own ministers approached German Defence Minister, later Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to have a chat with PMPT about socialist policy vs practical politics.



The CSC will go through hell or high water, and it will always be called an overbudget over time failure no matter how well it is run.  There is no accounting for defence tech inflation. It's quite frankly insane how expensive equipment is increasing year over year.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just look at the figure for inflation in naval systems I quote above, Underway. The RAND Corporation pins it at 11% a year.

That means that the price of system (which includes a whole ship) doubles every seven years. Which also means it quadruples in 14 years. Fourteen years is not an unusual number of years for a naval construction project to go from start of the development phase to completion of the first ship in class.

And I agree: It's crazy.


----------



## quadrapiper

Anything to be said for decoupling the (relatively) unchanging stuff - hulls, hotel services, engines, etc. - from the constantly evolving, when it comes to procurement?

Contract the yards to produce x hulls at size y with wells and reinforcements for equipment z, on a properly long-term basis? Not an in-service "flex" system like the Danes, but something that will keep the heavy-metal side of things active independent of what, exactly, we can afford to bolt on to the relatively cheap part? Would require some canny decision making regarding _types_ of systems (Aegis-esque panels? Tall mast with rotating radar? Both? - etc.).

Barring a complete drawing-in of the RCN, "we" will have long-range blue water vessels with helo(es), shorter-haul coastal defence (MCM, etc.) vessels without hangars, and armed ice-capable or ice-breaking vessels (and subs, but can't imagine those being designed as anything but a single system) to make up the fighting fleet. 

Would, if we're going to be running around after drug smugglers and what-not, a "constabulary duties" vessel be worth looking at?


----------



## Kirkhill

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> Barring a complete drawing-in of the RCN, "we" will have long-range blue water vessels with helo(es), shorter-haul coastal defence (MCM, etc.) vessels without hangars, and armed ice-capable or ice-breaking vessels (and subs, but can't imagine those being designed as anything but a single system) to make up the fighting fleet.
> 
> ...



In the Canadian context I don't see the purpose in a vessel without a helicopter capability.  Ships don't move fast.  We will never have enough of them to be everywhere.  And it is farther from Halifax to Tuktoyuktuk by sea than it is from Halifax to London.

On the other hand ships make great operating bases for helicopters and permit the government to get all sorts of resources by way of those helicopters to the 70% of the land mass that doesn't have access by roads and to 100% of the 7.1 million square kilometers that is Canada'a ocean estate - equivalent to the inaccessible land mass.

And for that matter they should have room for a couple of long range high speed interceptors like the CB-90.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Building a half-priced ship that can do almost nothing(cough*LCS cough*), is worse than building a more expensive one that is quite flexible. Now if you can save a few dollars and build more hulls that we can man and still have 80% of the high priced ship, then we can talk. However when the government says you can only have x number hulls or you can X number of PY's to man ships, then you better maximize that ability.


----------



## quadrapiper

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> In the Canadian context I don't see the purpose in a vessel without a helicopter capability.  Ships don't move fast.  We will never have enough of them to be everywhere.  And it is farther from Halifax to Tuktoyuktuk by sea than it is from Halifax to London.
> 
> On the other hand ships make great operating bases for helicopters and permit the government to get all sorts of resources by way of those helicopters to the 70% of the land mass that doesn't have access by roads and to 100% of the 7.1 million square kilometers that is Canada'a ocean estate - equivalent to the inaccessible land mass.
> 
> And for that matter they should have room for a couple of long range high speed interceptors like the CB-90.


Good point - had seen comments that suggested properly basing a helicopter off a ship was something of a dividing line for tonnage. I seem to recall seeing "folding" hangars (possibly as a test) - worthwhile for smaller vessels, to keep the helicopter-related real estate down?


----------



## quadrapiper

Colin P said:
			
		

> Building a half-priced ship that can do almost nothing(cough*LCS cough*), is worse than building a more expensive one that is quite flexible. Now if you can save a few dollars and build more hulls that we can man and still have 80% of the high priced ship, then we can talk. However when the government says you can only have x number hulls or you can X number of PY's to man ships, then you better maximize that ability.


Was that in response to my comment about "constabulary" vessels? Had an idea that a robust, simple class with no special fittings (Z-drives, etc.) might make more sense than putting miles on something more complex and specialized.

Might also provide a platform suitable for a "training and..." approach - the PCTs will wear out eventually.

Really, I'll be happy if the RCN gets a one-for-one replacement for the frigates, and a PY/training/recruiting arrangement that ensures everything not in the ditch is properly manned.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

More to Chris Pook comment


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

> More to Chris Pook comment



Clarify?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

My wording is bad, it was to support your comments that spending a whack of money on a hull that can't do much is a waste.


----------



## Kirkhill

Phew.  [


----------



## Kirkhill

> Irving Shipbuilding’s $26-billion warship procurement deal under review, senior source says
> John Ivison | February 11, 2016 5:57 PM ET





> *Irving co-chief executive James D. Irving is understood to have met Dominic LeBlanc, the government’s Atlantic Canada regional minister,* and Navdeep Bains, the economic development minister, in Moncton Thursday to discuss the situation. “There is a degree of nervousness” on the Irving side, said one industry source.



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/irving-shipbuilding-26-billion-warship-procurement-deal-under-review-source-says



> Liberal house leader Dominic LeBlanc subject to ethics ‘screen’ involving powerful Irving family
> Glen McGregor, Ottawa Citizen | February 11, 2016 5:29 PM ET





> *Federal ethics commissioner Mary Dawson has told Liberal house leader Dominic LeBlanc he must avoid participating in any decisions involving the powerful Irving family of New Brunswick. *
> 
> *LeBlanc, a key political lieutenant to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, cited his friendship with James D. “Jim” Irving as a potential conflict-of-interest in an undertaking filed with Dawson last month.*
> 
> His chief of staff, Vince MacNeil, must “screen” him from any dealings with Irving’s company, J.D. Irving Ltd., and its affiliates and subsidiaries.
> 
> This will “ensure that I will abstain from any participation in any discussions or decision-making processes and any communication with government officials in relation to any matter or issue forming part of the subject matter of the conflict of interest screen,” LeBlanc promised in the written declaration.
> 
> LeBlanc refers to Irving as “my friend,” though he is believed to be closer to Irving’s son, Jamie, who runs the family’s chain of newspapers.
> 
> Irving is the president and chief executive officer of J.D. Irving Limited, part of the Irving family conglomerate that has interests in numerous industrial sectors, including shipbuilding.
> 
> Through Irving Shipbuilding, the company is also the beneficiary of substantial government contracts to build new vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy at its shipyard in Halifax.
> 
> The Irvings are involved in the proposed Energy East pipeline, which would bring oil from Western Canada to New Brunswick for refining. though this part of the family enterprise is separate and operates independently from the company controlled by Jim Irving. The government has promised a new approvals process to consider whether green-lighting the pipeline.
> 
> The ethics screen set up for LeBlanc covers “J.D. Irving Limited, its subsidiaries, affiliates, associates, divisions and or any legal form of business in which he or his companies may have a private interest.”



http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberal-house-leader-dominic-leblanc-subject-to-ethics-screen-involving-powerful-irving-family


----------



## Underway

Some Industry Information on all of the NSPS pre-qualified bidders Combat system integrators.  This article is on the warship designers.  These articles are a little out of date, as the CSI and WD is now combined, leading to companies pairing up to bid together.  What I don't know is if Irving is still in charge of the selection process.  Without a SOR I'm concerned that we are just handing the new warship design/selection over to Irving and we will probably get what we get.  Or has that changed.

**note: placed this here because its not NSS specific but CSC specific**


----------



## jmt18325

Underway said:
			
		

> What I don't know is if Irving is still in charge of the selection process.



I'm almost certain nothing was changed in that regard.


----------



## jmt18325

I'm assuming that the change to an almost off the shelf foreign design now renders this competition null and void?  Or will they simply keep the warship designs they already prequalified?!


----------



## Trumpeter42

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I'm assuming that the change to an almost off the shelf foreign design now renders this competition null and void?  Or will they simply keep the warship designs they already prequalified?!



I suspect that the WD firm list will remain the same. One of the key criteria for the WD is the personnel requirement, which I read somewhere that they're looking for a ship with close to 100 complement... Half of the Halifax Class. It's not a coincidence that the hulls in the pre-qualified list are all in this ballpark. The WD firms in the list will either bid with their own CSI or partner to get it.


----------



## Underway

Trumpeter42 said:
			
		

> I suspect that the WD firm list will remain the same. One of the key criteria for the WD is the personnel requirement, which I read somewhere that they're looking for a ship with close to 100 complement... Half of the Halifax Class. It's not a coincidence that the hulls in the pre-qualified list are all in this ballpark. The WD firms in the list will either bid with their own CSI or partner to get it.



The WD and CSI have to be a team.  There will be no separate competition for each.  There will be one competition for both together.  Also an off-the-shelf modified design is official as of the announcement today, (well it was official before but its really official now...).

I also would not expect crew sizes to be as low as 100, more likely closer to 180.  With the doctrine, distances, environment etc... that Canada operates with we will probably have more crew than the Euro navies normally sail with.


----------



## The Bread Guy

This from the info-machine:


> The Honourable Judy M. Foote, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, and the Honourable John McKay, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, representing the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, today announced a streamlined and transparent procurement approach to deliver the Canadian Surface Combatant to the Royal Canadian Navy up to two years sooner than originally planned.
> 
> The refined procurement approach will allow Canada to competitively and transparently select an existing warship design to modify, rather than continuing with the previous approach of selecting a Warship Designer and a Combat Systems Integrator to custom design the Canadian Surface Combatant.
> 
> The government used input from industry and Steve Brunton, its shipbuilding expert advisor, to develop the streamlined procurement approach. Canada will continue to work closely with the industry and remains committed to generating middle-class jobs, economic benefits and industrial growth for the country through the National Shipbuilding Strategy ...


From the Backgrounder:


> The Government of Canada recently endorsed a streamlined procurement approach for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), simplifying the procurement process so construction can start sooner and can deliver ships up to two years faster.
> 
> This new approach stems from a review of the Royal Canadian Navy’s requirements that identified an opportunity to simplify procurement and design efforts, while maintaining all project objectives.
> 
> The review, conducted over summer and fall 2015, identified requirements that correspond more closely to existing warships. Rather than continuing with the previous approach, which consisted of selecting a Warship Designer and a Combat Systems Integrator to work together to custom design the CSC, the newly endorsed approach allows Canada to select and modify an existing warship design through a single competitive process.
> 
> A Request for Proposals to select a ship design will be released in summer 2016. While the opportunity for firms to pre-qualify will be reopened, the 12 firms that have already pre-qualified will not be required to reapply.
> 
> The government remains committed to leveraging economic benefits from shipbuilding by creating opportunities for Canadian content to be included in the vessels, while generating high-value investments in the marine and other sectors of Canada’s economy. The CSC procurement approach will create middle-class jobs for Canadians and opportunities for companies in Canada to showcase their world-class technologies and position themselves for further growth in global markets.
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Strategy’s long-term plan to renew the fleets of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard is a priority for the government. Canada has selected two centres of excellence, Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to build its large combat vessels and Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards in Vancouver, British Columbia, to build its large non-combat vessels.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Disingenuous of gov't--going to be foreign design for some time, just a question of how much foreign designs must be Canadianized (by the Combat Systems Integrator one assumes--the builders noted at the post weren't all going to come up with brand-new ship designs rather than refine existing ones!):



> RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatant Will be Foreign Design
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/



Seems as if the Combat Systems Integrator separate contract is simply being ditched; but does this mean that the winning ship designer (which apparently might even be a new one) then must choose from the pre-qualified CSI firms (and any others that may now qualify)?  

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

And how much say will Irving have in selecting the winning designs (ship, combat systems)?

Mar
Ottawa


----------



## PuckChaser

Hopefully none. They can shut up and build what we tell them to build, and be thankful for the money.


----------



## jmt18325

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Hopefully none. They can shut up and build what we tell them to build, and be thankful for the money.



They're still designated as the prime contractor, so, probably quite a bit.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Oh to be king ! 
 If it were up to me I would visit the nice people at Gibbs & Cox in NYC and ask what they would charge me to build their design that lost the RAN AWD competition. As I understand it it was the actual winner up until the politicians got involved.
It has every thing we need and want in a DDG . I suspect for that very reason it doesn't stand a chance .


----------



## PuckChaser

Liberals won't commit to 15 warships, and a cabinet minister even suggests we can make do with fewer. Remember 15 warships is a 1 for 1 replacement for destroyers and frigates. So much for all that Real Change...

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/frigate-replacement-program-foote-1.3632858


----------



## jollyjacktar

Anyone who really believes in real change from the new overlords is a bigger sucker than even PT Barnum could have dreamt of.


----------



## FSTO

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Anyone who really believes in real change from the new overlords is a bigger sucker than even PT Barnum could have dreamt of.



Yep. Nothing has changed. We as a military will continue to bumble along doing more with less. Our political masters are so clueless to the real amount of damage they are doing to us.


----------



## MilEME09

FSTO said:
			
		

> Yep. Nothing has changed. We as a military will continue to bumble along doing more with less. Our political masters are so clueless to the real amount of damage they are doing to us.



This will continue until someone, somewhere with half a clue about the military actually has the ability to do something and isn't just thinking how many of his friends can get contracts off the government for inflated rates.


----------



## Kirkhill

I see two legs of the triangle:  Faster and Cheaper.  So I suggest that does not mean Better.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The Evolved Arleigh Burke was a nice design, but not for our needs. 

I would suggest looking at the Canadian Military Journal • Vol. 16, No. 1, Winter 2015 "Off-the-Shelf or New Design? Considerations for the Canadian Surface Combatant Program" by David Rudd. 
- the article specifically calls out the Absalon-/Iver Huitfeldt ships as the only platforms _currently in existence_ that will meet the needs of the RCN under the current role set out for the navy and the apparent vision of the GoC in regards to the primary purposes of the military in general. 
- the suggestion is " 6 of these and 4 of that" in terms of capabilities.  

I would agree that should these ships be acquired at all (and that remains highly doubtful), the numbers will result in a much smaller fleet but if done correctly could potentially end up with more expeditionary and utility capability with about the same capacity to generate naval forces for one substantial deployment at a time (i.e. a tanker and 2 or 3 CSC).   In my view, although the MEKO F125 as currently being built for the German navy is an excellent combat vessel, it's downfall in the RCN/CSC competition is exactly that: the MEKO design (along with the FREMM designs) have no other purpose other than naval warfare, something that the current government is not enthusiastic about.  

Cheers


----------



## PuckChaser

FSTO said:
			
		

> Yep. Nothing has changed. We as a military will continue to bumble along doing more with less. Our political masters are so clueless to the real amount of damage they are doing to us.



Problem is, the majority of members in the CAF are too proud and professional to let anything fail due to the shoddy support we receive from all parties.


----------



## jmt18325

They pretty much have to buy new ships of some kind.  That they're trying to do it faster is a good sign.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Well, if the GoC really wanted a ship to defend _just Canada_, and chuck every other expeditionary mission over the side, they could go with just two of these ships, one for each coast. They probably wouldn't even have to leave the harbour, and for 26 Billion CAD, we could probably buy them.

HII Shows Off New BMD Ship Concept at Sea-Air-Space (Updated with video!): http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2013/04/hii-shows-off-new-bmd-ship-concept-at-sea-air-space/ 

"Using the basic LPD 17 hull designed for the U.S. Navy’s San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships — all of which are built by HII — the BMD ship incorporates an Aegis-type phased array radar atop the superstructure. The aft deck, devoid of much of the topside structure of the LPD 17, _is ringed by 18 16-cell vertical launch system launchers, for a total of 288 missile cells_. Like the existing Mark 41 and Mark 57 VLS launchers in the fleet, the ship’s VLS would presumably be able to launch a variety of weapons, including SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 Standard missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and other weapons."

https://youtu.be/VxJIizedUsU



It could accommodate up to 288 Mk41 VLS missile tubes _and a radar with 1000 times the sensitivity of the SPY-1D ra_dar of the Burke destroyers.:  http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-plans-huge-ballistic-missile-defense-ship-14920


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Well, if the GoC really wanted a ship to defend _just Canada_, and chuck every other expeditionary mission over the side, they could go with just two of these ships, one for each coast. They probably wouldn't even have to leave the harbour, and for 26 Billion CAD, we could probably buy them.
> 
> ...



We could call them "HMCS Rainbow" and "HMCS Niobe".  Think of the happy Conservatives.  Think of the happy Liberals.  >


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Despite the great history connections with the RCN, the sailors of the modern HMCS Rainbow will curse you into the grave for that name...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Especially if the march past was "In the Navy" by the Village People.


----------



## Kirkhill

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Unicorn_(I72)

Better?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FYI, Chris: We already have an HMCS UNICORN. It's the Saskatoon Naval Reserve Division.


----------



## Kirkhill

Doh!


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is tomorrow a decision day on some element of the program?


----------



## MMSS

Colin P said:
			
		

> Despite the great history connections with the RCN, the sailors of the modern HMCS Rainbow will curse you into the grave for that name...



The sailors of the future HMCS _Queenston _ and HMCS _Chateauguay _ are already facepalming.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Could be worse ... the name considered for the third of class is HMCS CRYSLER'S FARM. 

I kid you not: A ship named after a farm ... so appropriate.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Despite the great history connections with the RCN, the sailors of the modern HMCS Rainbow will curse you into the grave for that name...



If a new HMCS "DOUBLE" RAINBOW is a modern 7000 tonne AAW destroyer, with solid combat capabilities, open architecture and room to grow then I would happily sail on her.  Though I would prefer HMCS BIFROST if we're going with rainbow type names.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Could be worse ... the name considered for the third of class is HMCS CRYSLER'S FARM.
> I kid you not: A ship named after a farm ... so appropriate.



A ship named after a battle, which was named for the farm  ...     They should have named it STONEY CREEK or LUNDY'S LANE which were far more important battles IMHO, and also sound way better.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I know it's named after the battle near the farm, but you will be driving these ship's all over the planet: How many time will the crew have to explain why their ship's name refers to a farm? 

At least the other two,  Queenston and Chateauguay, sound like town names - which they are - and which is a naming convention found in many navies, so it is not surprising to people to see that on a ship.

So, yes, Stoney Creek would have been better for the third one.


----------



## YZT580

What's wrong with, the Nancy?  Great story of triumph over adversity and the original is still with us (sort of)


----------



## Cloud Cover

Since these are supply ships, why not "Loblaws" and "Metro"?


----------



## dimsum

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Since these are supply ships, why not "Loblaws" and "Metro"?



Or "Real Canadian Superstore" on the Esq-based one and "Real Atlantic Superstore" for the Hfx-based one   :nod:


----------



## Underway

Well this came out of left field a bit:  http://www.rheinmetall.ca/en/rheinmetall_canada/publicrelations_1/news_1/2016_05_25_cansec_mf_star_elta.php


And some analysis on the CASR site:  http://www.casr.ca/doc-news-canadian-surface-combatant-elta.htm

Of note CASR completely screws up the difference between AESA and PESA radar.  The AN/SPY-1 is a PESA radar.  The new AN/SPY-3 is AESA IIRC.

I wonder if this is aimed at the gov't selection or the eventual winner.  We still don't really know how exactly the ship will be designed but all indications are that the bidder shows up with a complete combat systems package for us to chose from.

Overall it really depends on the overall missile/radar/combat package together.  If you go the SM2, ESSM route you need a fire control radar of some type.  That can be from a AN/SPG-62 type system  or a STIR like the US or Canada respectively.  Other option is an APAR type system with interrupted wave illumination like the Dutch, Germans, Danish.  If you go the Aster route (with PAAMS or something similar) system fire control radar is not required so you just need volume search radars.  Also you need to decide how many enemy aircraft you want to engage at a time and how you want that engagement to be organized, which would change the system combination you are using.

It's not an easy decision and I'm not sure if there is any domestic doctrine that would help the navy decide one way or the other.


----------



## MarkOttawa

One has heard the Pentagon, esp. NORTHCOM, would like the CSCs to have a missile defence capability:



> ...
> SM-3 Cooperative Development Program is the joint U.S.-Japan development of a 21-inch diameter variant of the SM-3 missile, designated SM-3 Block IIA, to defeat longer range ballistic missiles. Deployment begins in 2018.
> 
> Future Capabilities
> 
> Engagement of longer range ballistic missiles.
> http://www.mda.mil/system/aegis_bmd.html



Compatible with the air defence role for CSCs?

Mark Collins


----------



## AlexanderM

I'd like to know the range of the Aegis systems to compare with the 2000km Ballistic Missile detection range of the Smart-L.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/smart-l-ewc

http://www.janes.com/article/58958/smart-l-ewc-radar-produces-first-air-picture

They now have developed a data-link that allows the Smart-L/APAR system to work with the SM3.

http://defense-update.com/20130311_integrating-european-radars-with-aegissm-3-missile-defenses.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

RN Type 26 likely competitor for CSC design--note Russian subs at end:



> Crucial fleet of global-combat frigates is indefinitely delayed
> Type 26 navy frigates do not have go-ahead, MoD says amid budget pressures, technical problems and jobs fears
> 
> A new fleet of frigates, described as “global combat ships” designed to play crucial roles, has been delayed indefinitely, the Ministry of Defence has said in testy exchanges with MPs over huge financial and technical problems facing the navy’s surface vessels.
> 
> Delays in building the Type 26 frigates – a project promised by David Cameron before the 2014 Scottish independence referendum – is threatening shipbuilding jobs on the Clyde in Scotland.
> 
> The project’s problems come on top of serious mechanical failures in the navy’s new fleet of Type 45 destroyers. Key tasks of the navy’s frigates and destroyers include protecting two new large aircraft carriers now being assembled in Rosyth as well as Trident nuclear weapons submarines approaching and leaving their base on the Clyde.
> Destroyers will break down if sent to Middle East, admits Royal Navy
> Read more
> 
> “I can’t give you a time or a date,” Tony Douglas, the MoD’s top official responsible for military equipment, said on Wednesday after he was asked by MPs on the Commons defence committee when the frigate design would be approved. “It could be next year.” Harriet Baldwin, a new junior defence minister, told the MPs: “We do not know yet.”..
> 
> The number of planned new frigates has already been cut from 13 to eight, though the MoD has the option to build five smaller and cheaper general-purpose vessels. One of the problems is how to make the frigates as quiet as possible to make it harder for them to be detected by Russian submarines…”
> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jul/20/navy-fleet-global-combat-frigates-type-26-indefinitely-delayed-mod-mps-clyde-shipbuilding



Those Russian subs should be a major worry for the RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatants too:



> USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

I get the sense that part of the evolving Brexit strategy involves taking the 350 MUKP per week that was going to the EU for allocation and investing a significant portion of it in increased Defence capabilities.

The rest will go directly to farmers to continue their EU subsidies, to the NHS and to Education.

The recent vote on Trident Renewal I see as an interesting gambit going into the Brexit negotiations.  It was not strictly necessary as it required no new money to be immediately voted.  It had an interesting advantage, from the Tory point of view, of discomfiting Labour.  But I think the real purpose going into the EU negotiations was to remind the Euros that the UK has nukes, and a PM with a trigger and a willingness to use them, and they do not.    The French being an entity unto themselves.

Kind of like walking into a room, putting your gun on the table and then offering to start negotiations.  A point probably not lost on the Poles or the Americans.


----------



## jmt18325

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> RN Type 26 likely competitor for CSC design--note Russian subs at end:
> 
> Those Russian subs should be a major worry for the RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatants too:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I think that it has to be operational to be a candidate.  This seems to remove it.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

RE the Type 26 : 
http://www.parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/3d64c74a-c94e-4864-9d3d-446e57500a29

In written form : 
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/defence-committee/naval-procurement-type-26-and-type-45/oral/35261.html

Excerpt from above :


> The design, as I indicated before, factually, is approximately 60% complete at the moment. There is a programme, obviously, to close out. There is a big part of that in the compartmentalisation of the ship’s internal structure and the manner in which many of the communications systems are completed and integrated



The T26 is not going to be hitting water anytime soon.....2025 at the earliest is my guess.


----------



## jmt18325

I'm not sure if I'd place money on OMT, Navantia, or DCNS (my personal favourite).


----------



## Cloud Cover

Fincanteri will be looking for work for its yards, not ours. 

I would like to see a variant of the F125 built by TK (apparently a 7200 tonne frigate!!! )  with a little more punch such as at least 2 and preferably 4 MK 57 VLS tucked in wherever they might fit best.  Keep the OM 127mm and buy the Vulcano rounds, and that would be one mighty tough ship.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oh, oh-IP glitch--trust in Irving?



> Backroom battle underway over new frigate design data
> Geek wars: Ottawa faces revolt among ship designers over intellectual property demand
> 
> A key behind-the-scenes battle, which could affect the future of the Trudeau government's multi-billion dollar frigate replacement program for decades, has been fought this week in the back rooms of Ottawa.
> 
> It relates to an overarching demand by National Defence and Public Services for ship designers to hand over virtually all their intellectual property data for the complex combat systems that would be installed on the warships.
> 
> A copy of the draft request for proposals, obtained by CBC News, shows the federal government is asking companies competing to design Canada's next generation of warships for all their foreground and background data.
> 
> The government will be the owner of the information — including critical software coding — but will license it to Irving Shipbuilding, the prime contractor on the project...
> 
> A series of closed-door meetings took place this week involving federal officials and Irving representatives. Another series of meetings will take place in Halifax on Aug. 15-16 with ship designers who want to bid on the Canadian Surface Combatant program, which is expected to cost $30 billion or more.
> 
> Among the companies in line to provide an off-the-shelf design include British-based BAE Systems Inc.; DCNS, the French warship-maker; and U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin.
> High stakes for taxpayers
> 
> The intellectual property issue is "huge," according to several government and industry sources who spoke to CBC News on background because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
> 
> The data is crucial not only for ship construction, but for the lucrative long-term maintenance contracts that will follow.
> 
> If the government doesn't get the negotiation just right, it could cost taxpayers untold hundreds of millions of dollars down the road in licencing fees, and even restrict the military's ability to update and use its own equipment...
> 
> The_ fear among bidders is not necessarily what Irving might do with data as much as who among the shipyard's partners and consultants —  including the U.S. naval warship architecture firm Gibbs & Cox — will have access to the licenced information_ [emphasis added].
> 
> In a statement, Irving Shipbuilding said it was committed to safeguarding the data.
> 
> "For the CSC program, discussions with Canada have only contemplated that any long-term IP rights will flow to Canada, with Irving Shipbuilding having a right to use CSC IP to the extent required to satisfy its CSC design and build contracts," said spokesman Sean Lewis.
> 
> "There has been nothing discussed that would put Irving Shipbuilding at an unfair advantage or unique position during the operational life of the ships."..
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-data-1.3697942



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

IP issues?

Colt - Diemaco?  Or am I mis-remembering something?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Hmm. Do we own all the IP for the Cyclone?


----------



## NavyShooter

We have had our own software support section for many years.  Think back to Paramax days.

Having the ability to upgrade/modify our own software has been a critical piece in keeping the old CCS on the Frigates (Pre-HCM Ops Room stuff) running and working with newer systems.

If we didn't have that ability, we'd have had to go to the software company dozens of times over the years to help us incorporate various upgrades to our systems.  

Retaining that capability (in terms of the software support at least) is, in my opinion, a critical point.

Intellectual property rights for hull designs and forms is probably of much lesser importance, but IP Rights for points that are 'Canadianized' as part of the design process is probably a good idea.

Thinking back to the old Diemaco/Colt issues, our original C-7s were Colt Model 715's, and we paid a bunch of money for 'design' features that already existed but we were the first to integrate them into that model of rifle.

NS


----------



## Kirkhill

A critical component of software management is competent IT personnel - people that are intimately familiar with the electronics and the stuff it is supposed to control.

Who is better prepared to manage that - technicians responsible for a fleet of 10 or technicians responsible for a fleet of 1000?

Not saying that CAF personnel, or Paramax personnel aren't up to the task.  Just saying that Lockmart people will be doing more, more often - practice.


----------



## NavyShooter

It wasn't (and won't be) the technicians that are responsible, it's the Software support cell, which has a bunch of programmers and folks that have probably been very busy checking and verifying and 'beta testing' updates to the new system.

They were the same programmers that did it for years with the old CCS.

That said, we don't have the same version as anyone else in the world.  It's a Canadianized software variant that's specific to us.  So we have about 15 sets of this software to support, total, in the world.  Having a few of our own software engineers involved is not a bad thing.


----------



## Half Full

That "software support cell" was not CAF/DND personnel.  It was Lockheed Martin personnel who won the ISS contract.   We were entitled to so many version changes/year at a certain $ amount. When it came up for renewal, MDA bid as well...but lost.  The same will be true for CSC...that's why we need the IP...so that any company that meets the requirements can bid to provide the ongoing support, thus ensuring we get the best product for the best value for Canadian Taxpayers.


----------



## Kirkhill

Half Full said:
			
		

> ......that's why we need the IP...so that any company that meets the requirements can bid to provide the ongoing support, thus ensuring we get the best product *for the best value for Canadian Taxpayers*.



Disagree on that.

Once you have committed to a manufacturer you are committed to their solution.  If your concern is the rapid pace of change and the speed at which things become obsolete then you need to put that into your business model and plan to turn over your capital stock more frequently.

Don't plan on upgrading old kit.  Plan on buying new kit and selling old kit (if you can).


----------



## Good2Golf

Maybe ships are different?  ???

GoC never required provision of IP to Canada for C-17, C-130J or CH-147F.  Perhaps the In-Service Support Capability Framework (ISSCF) mandated a contracted ISS capability that ensured/ensures the provision of in-service support for these aircraft, without DND itself needing to do any specific engineering (hardware or software) work that would require IP?

Does the question as to how much would an FMF do for deep maintenance/repair, vice having the ISS contractor conduct the required services come into play here?

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Half Full

That would not be a very cost effective plan.  Why change your entire Command and Control System when all you need to do is upgrade the software? That's one of the advantages of high tech gear nowadays...we can improve the performance simply by upgrading its software.


----------



## Half Full

that should have read "Command and control system"...sorry.


----------



## Lumber

Half Full said:
			
		

> that should have read "Command and control system"...sorry.



You can edit posts after they've been posted....


----------



## AlexanderM

Half Full said:
			
		

> That would not be a very cost effective plan.  Why change your entire combat control system when all you need to do is upgrade the software? That's one of the advantages of high tech gear nowadays...we can improve the performance simply by upgrading its software.


Upgrades are definitely the way to go, suppliers are constantly working on upgrades, it's what keeps them current.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Good2golf, the better analogy would be with the weapons and sensor systems integration on fighter planes rather than the various avionics on transport planes. I believe that the control of IP for the combat system of the CF-18 replacement is in fact, an issue for that very reason. 

On the ship, all of the control of the weapons systems, such as they are and will be through the life of the ship, and all sensors and other information sources, are integrated into the Command and Control System software. That software almost constantly needs upgrading and maintenance (i.e. deleting past portions of code no longer required, or modified to increase processing speed, etc.)throughout the life of the system. And because such systems are open architecture nowadays, there will be numerous additions and deletions throughout the lifetime of the ship, as weapons or sensors are either replaced by a different one or are upgraded. All these require access to the full software and the authority to change it at our will, not that of the provider of the software.


----------



## Good2Golf

OGBD, thanks for that.  Interestingly, all of the transport (FW/RW) types I mentioned are operated within "joint user group" constructs, and so there are economies of scale amongst users and the OEM as well as solidarity amongst the user Nations that drives responsiveness from the OEM(s) to also comply with STANAGs and JUG agreements/policies/etc...  Even the CF-18 support world currently has a significant interaction with the Boeing and NAVAIR folks, in addition to the support with LM and L3 MAS, and Future Fighter Capability, whatever it will be, would likely have a relatively robust arrangement of in-service support for all aspects of the weapon system, h/w and s/w alike.

So then does the RCN intend to program the CSC C2 system on its own then upon "release-to-service"?  Does the USN, for example, program all its ships?  I thought LMCO was significantly involved with ongoing support of AEGIS and other such systems.  RCN securing IP and going it alone seems to be a direction opposite towards the trend for formalized ongoing/continuous ISS relationships between GoC and respective combat system OEMs.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill

I just want to jump in and state that when I was talking about replacing obsolescent kit rather than upgrading it I was talking about hardware and not software.

With respect to software - I am unaware of any software system that is sufficiently stable that it does not require a dedicated nursemaid.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't necessarily mean that Canada will be going it alone G2G, though we do have CSEs that are quite competent and capable, and MARS officers trained to program mission profiles into the systems.

What I am aiming at, to give an instance would be: Say we decide at some point, for reasons x, y or z, to change for the latest Exocet SSMs instead of Harpoons. Some upgrading of the system is required as a result. But LockMart, who has the in-service contract, is not trusted by MBDA because of  trade secrets and MBDA tells the RCN that they will do the integration work themselves. The last thing you want is LM telling Canada "Nay! Nay! I own the IP on the CCS and you are not touching it."

That's the type of thing I am looking at.


----------



## Good2Golf

Fair enough, OGBD, but then a change from Harpoon to Exocet would have to be worth the USN likely I inviting us to contribute to/lead numbered TFs, non? 

Yes it LMCO, but they did DOD's bidding to build AEGIS and I'm sure Uncle Sam would ensure LM played nice (if we chose not to turf AGM-84 for Sex-o-cet, that is... 

Cheers
G2G


----------



## NavyShooter

Half Full said:
			
		

> That "software support cell" was not CAF/DND personnel.  It was Lockheed Martin personnel who won the ISS contract.   We were entitled to so many version changes/year at a certain $ amount. When it came up for renewal, MDA bid as well...but lost.  The same will be true for CSC...that's why we need the IP...so that any company that meets the requirements can bid to provide the ongoing support, thus ensuring we get the best product for the best value for Canadian Taxpayers.



I will disagree with your point here.

I'm talking the old CCS, not CMS.

There were uniformed personnel working on the 4th floor of S-82, and there are DND employees working there.  Bill M comes to mind particularly. 

I do agree though that we need the IP, not so much because of the ability to change companies mid-stream, more to have some control over the software that is "Canadianized".

NS


----------



## Kirkhill

Sorry, but I am failing to understand.  As usual.

Under what circumstance would LockMart (or any other company) supply you the details of their software with the understanding that at some point in time you will let General Dynamics (or any company) see and manipulate their software?

Or are you saying that the CAF will retain that capability in-house?  

In the event of a General Dynamics missile self-launching from a CAF ship operating a LockMart Control System that has been locally integrated by CAF personnel who are you going to call?

I have had enough experience trying to determine whether integration means a dry-contact, rs-232, USB or the flavour of the month bus, let alone integrating the control software, to be leary of anybody suggesting that a group of bodies operating on a two year career progression are not going to run into problems.  Especially if they are only operating a small fleet with infrequent changes.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> In the event of a General Dynamics missile self-launching from a CAF ship operating a LockMart Control System that has been locally integrated by CAF personnel who are you going to call?



Well, Ghostbusters most likely.

I know that there is a fear out there that we are getting close to "terminators" for some robotics military systems, but I have yet to see a naval weapons system or command and control system get up, walk to the safes, retrieve the keys, insert them and turn the missile system on, all by itself.  ;D


----------



## Half Full

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I will disagree with your point here.
> 
> I'm talking the old CCS, not CMS.
> 
> There were uniformed personnel working on the 4th floor of S-82, and there are DND employees working there.  Bill M comes to mind particularly.



We used to have MARS- E who were software programmers...but we got rid of that sub-occupation years ago.  Any uniformed personnel who were working within S-82 since around 2000 were supporting the LM staff and doing very little if any coding.  As Tactics Staff we worked directly with the LM personnel who were resident in S-82 to update/upgrade the versions of the CCS.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Has the RFP for ship design been released yet? Per the last media release in June, it was supposed to be released this summer.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Should at least some CSCs have ballistic missile defence capability?  One suspects US NORTHCOM/NORAD (their side) would much like:

Report: South Korea Wants BMD Capability for Guided Missile Destroyers
https://news.usni.org/2016/08/15/report-south-korea-wants-bmd-capability-guided-missile-destroyers

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Should at least some CSCs have ballistic missile defence capability?  One suspects US NORTHCOM/NORAD (their side) would much like:
> 
> Report: South Korea Wants BMD Capability for Guided Missile Destroyers
> https://news.usni.org/2016/08/15/report-south-korea-wants-bmd-capability-guided-missile-destroyers
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


If we have the APAR/Smart-L combination, both of which are currently being updated or have been updated, then at any time we could add the SM3 or we could direct missiles fired from other ships that carry the SM3.

http://missilethreat.com/raytheon-proves-apar-communications-for-sm-3-missile-in-netherlands-test/

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/netherlands/defence/press-release/excellent-performance-hms-de-zeven-provincien-international-0


----------



## NavyShooter

Half Full said:
			
		

> We used to have MARS- E who were software programmers...but we got rid of that sub-occupation years ago.  Any uniformed personnel who were working within S-82 since around 2000 were supporting the LM staff and doing very little if any coding.  As Tactics Staff we worked directly with the LM personnel who were resident in S-82 to update/upgrade the versions of the CCS.



As someone who worked 3rd floor of S-82, maybe things on the 4th floor (and in the CSTC) worked differently from how I understood them to?

I was under the impression that the personnel in there were DND with the occasional CAF Lt(N) in there for seasoning with their salt-n-peppers.

NS


----------



## MarkOttawa

Irving certainly seems to have a lot of keys to the kingdom:



> Irving Halifax Has Lead Evaluating RCN Canadian Surface Combatant Design/Weapons Systems Bids
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/08/22/mark-collins-irving-halifax-has-lead-evaluating-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-designweapons-systems-bids/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Lumber

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Irving certainly seems to have a lot of keys to the kingdom:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



My first reaction, was "why the hell is a private company evaluating who can provide the best warship for the people of Canada," but after reading the article, I think we have the checks in place to have this done well... or "well enough"...


----------



## GR66

I have a couple of conceptual questions about the CSC design that perhaps some experienced RCN types could answer.

The CSC program calls for the design to replace the AAD/Command capability of the Iroquis-Class destroyers in addition to replacing the Halifax-Class patrol frigates.  My understanding is that there is to be as much commonality as possible between the two variants.  How much of a driver of the overall design is the AAD portion of the requirement?  

For example, out of necessity due to the nature of the specialized AAD equipment (radars, types of missile launchers, etc.), is the structural design of the ship significantly different than for a ship only requiring self-defence capabilities.  Greater beam and/or draft to offset a larger mast and more topside weight, etc.?

Secondly, is there a difference between the performance of a given missile being directed by an AAD warship vs. a non-AAD warship in self defence?  For example, is an ESSM (or SM-2, or RAM, etc.) fired and directed by a Halifax-Class frigate in self defence less likely to hit an incoming missile that and ESSM (or SM-2, or RAM, etc.)  fired and directed by an AAD warship in self defence?  Or is it more the number of incoming targets that an AAD warship can engage in addition to being able to defend other ships in addition to your own?

Thanks,


----------



## Lumber

GR66 said:
			
		

> I have a couple of conceptual questions about the CSC design that perhaps some experienced RCN types could answer.



I was working on a long response to each of your questions, but I quickly came to the conclusion that there are just too many variables, and I could list a lot of them out, but it's mostly speculation. However, most modern weapons and sensors have the same space and energy requirements relative to one another (rail gun excluded). A Mk41 VLS can fire SM-2s as well as it can fire ESSM, SMART-L  is as big as a S1850M, a SAMPSON takes up as much space as a EMPAR. However, an AD version might need more of these, and the more advanced version might need better cooling and more processors. As such, I would imagine that the AD version could be built longer than the GP version, incorporating an extra hull section somewhere in the middle to house the extra cooling units and/or processors.


----------



## GR66

Thanks...I'm sure that's enough detail for a novice like me.  Was curious about how the AAD requirement might limit the number of existing designs that might be options for the CSC.


----------



## MilEME09

GR66 said:
			
		

> Thanks...I'm sure that's enough detail for a novice like me.  Was curious about how the AAD requirement might limit the number of existing designs that might be options for the CSC.



Well that also depends, would it be completely off the shelf, or are we just taking a design and modifying it?


----------



## GR66

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well that also depends, would it be completely off the shelf, or are we just taking a design and modifying it?



My understanding was that the revised procurement process was calling for an existing, off-the-shelf design.  I read that as an existing hull form, with possible modifications to accommodate the systems suite offered but not things like lengthening hulls, new propulsion systems, etc. but I could be wrong on that.


----------



## GR66

Would re-using the radars from the Halifax-Class Frigates be an option for the GP versions of the CSC?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I doubt it- They are long gone to wherever old radars go to die. Besides, that version of the SPS 49 was getting pretty long in the tooth.


----------



## dimsum

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I doubt it- They are long gone to wherever old radars go to die.



Beside the CANEX in Naden?   >


----------



## jollyjacktar

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I doubt it- They are long gone to wherever old radars go to die. Besides, that version of the SPS 49 was getting pretty long in the tooth.



That radar didn't survive the HCM project and was replaced by newer, better gear.  Besides, the CPF's will still be using their "new" radars when the CSC finally gets into production and they'll want the latest and greatest that fit (budget/training/capability) for the CSC.


----------



## GR66

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That radar didn't survive the HCM project and was replaced by newer, better gear.  Besides, the CPF's will still be using their "new" radars when the CSC finally gets into production and they'll want the latest and greatest that fit (budget/training/capability) for the CSC.



If bidders are are expected to be submitting their proposals (in 2017?) for MOTS solutions are we likely to be offered systems much better than the SMART-S, Sea Giraffe, CEROS 200 systems currently installed on the Halifax-class for the GP versions of the CSC?  

If the new ships were to be one-for-one replacements of Halifax-class ships and the radars were to be re-used, could that leave a bidder proposing that more money to provide upgraded radars for the AAD versions?  

Is re-using a radar system from another ship even an option?  I can't say I've every read anything about it.  Do radar systems have a lifespan that would rule out their being used beyond a certain number of years?


----------



## Furniture

I believe part of the answer to your question lies in the fact that the proposals are for both the hull and the combat systems. Each of the bidding companies have partnered with or produce their own preferred systems, so to use the CEROS or SMART-S would require more "Canadianizing" which goes against the idea of the project. My understanding is that the "Canadianiazing" would be restricted to things  hotel services, fire fighting equipment, etc...

Sticking to what is out there already in service might just save enough money for us to get all 15 of the proposed ships.


----------



## jollyjacktar

GR66 said:
			
		

> If bidders are are expected to be submitting their proposals (in 2017?) for MOTS solutions are we likely to be offered systems much better than the SMART-S, Sea Giraffe, CEROS 200 systems currently installed on the Halifax-class for the GP versions of the CSC?
> 
> If the new ships were to be one-for-one replacements of Halifax-class ships and the radars were to be re-used, could that leave a bidder proposing that more money to provide upgraded radars for the AAD versions?
> 
> Is re-using a radar system from another ship even an option?  I can't say I've every read anything about it.  Do radar systems have a lifespan that would rule out their being used beyond a certain number of years?



I'm afraid I am not of the Ops world and that is not my swim lane, so I am not able to comment with any expertise beyond what I have already put out.  Sorry.


----------



## Lumber

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I am not of the Ops world and that is not my *swim lane*, so I am not able to comment with any expertise beyond what I have already put out.  Sorry.



You don't even know how apt your choice of words was, do you?


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber said:
			
		

> You don't even know how apt your choice of words was, do you?



Not a clue.  DC is more my bag, or what happens when the Ops Room guys have a bad day, in someone else's swim lane,  I presume.    :nod:


----------



## Lumber

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Not a clue.  DC is more my bag, or what happens when the Ops Room guys have a bad day, in someone else's swim lane,  I presume.    :nod:



The new Combat Management System (CMS 330) displays threats as well as weapons assignment plans in horizontal bars known as "Swim Lanes", hence your aptly, albeit ignorantly, chosen wording.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Lumber said:
			
		

> The new Combat Management System (CMS 330) displays threats as well as weapons assignment plans in horizontal bars known as "Swim Lanes", hence your aptly, albeit ignorantly, chosen wording.



I'm allll about the ignorance.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Lumber said:
			
		

> The new Combat Management System (CMS 330) displays threats as well as weapons assignment plans in horizontal bars known as "Swim Lanes", hence your aptly, albeit *ignorantly*, chosen wording.



From time to time a thesaurus comes in handy.


----------



## GK .Dundas

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> G2G
> 
> 
> G+C, (No clue)
> 
> [/quote Most likely Gibbs and Cox  designed the world fastest ocean liner , just about every America's cup winner and some loveliest warships to grace the World's oceans.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Slightly  ff topic: but ...

Some time ago I came across something that complained that "we" (which ever country it was) was building yet another _light cruiser_ sized _destroyer_ that was to be armed like a _frigate_. My assumption was, and remains, that the complainer was talking about conventional guns and was thinking of warships circa 1960:

          
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







                  HMCS Ontario a light cruiser that served in the RCN until 1958                HMCS Victoriaville, a Prestonian class frigate that served in the RCN until 1973
                                                                8,800 tons                                                                                                              2,300 tons

Now, when I was serving, back in the 1990s, I had a very useful, UNCLASS, graphic that showed a ship with several "domes" over it showing very approximate radar coverages ("ranged" by time) and weapon coverage, ranged by type: guns missiles, etc. It wasn't terribly accurate but I found it useful, especially when briefing non-military audiences, to explain why we needed what many said was so much (too much) radio spectrum to detect, identify, track and engage various types of targets at various ranges. I also had another graphic, from the USN, as I recall, that showed something similar but for a carrier task force and I used it to explain that we could and routinely did _integrate_ radar signals and fire control systems from several ships to get a complete picture and to engage the right targets with the right weapons at the right time.

Two questions:

     1. Do graphics like those, updated to take account of the 20 years that have passed since I retired, still exist? and, if they exist at all

     2. Can someone share them here, or are they "for official use only?"

I'm a bit concerned that some (many) people do not grasp the fact that modern warships need to be bigger to accommodate modern missile systems with all the paraphernalia that they have, and that putting bloody great radar antennæ on masts requires some "mass" beneath them just to keep the whole damned shebang upright.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

For those who know more than I do....

Will it not cost more to custom design-fabricate-test a 2nd variant of the CSC, rather than just upgrade the entire build to 1 variant?

This feels like a make work project for higher profit margins for the suppliers, rather than an astute use of funds.


Matthew.


----------



## GR66

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> For those who know more than I do....
> 
> Will it not cost more to custom design-fabricate-test a 2nd variant of the CSC, rather than just upgrade the entire build to 1 variant?
> 
> This feels like a make work project for higher profit margins for the suppliers, rather than an astute use of funds.
> 
> 
> Matthew.



My impression is that the intended difference between the two versions is likely to be more about sensors and specific weapons loadouts rather than significant structural and mechanical design differences.

For example, the Iver Huitfeldt Class is an AAD design with APAR/Smart-L radar and 4 x Mk41 VLS (32 x SM-2) and 2 x Mk56 VLS (24 x ESSM) for Air Defence.  A GP/ASW version could be acheived without much major re-design by adding a Towed-Array Sonar, downgrading the radars to something more suited for self-defence (maybe same Smart-S combo as on the Absalon Class?), and maybe reducing the total number of missiles carried (2 x Mk41 and 2 x Mk56 VLS for 16 SM-2 and 24 x ESSM).  

I remember reading somewhere that the AA components of the Iver Huitfeldt Class (presumably both weapons and sensors?) accounted for 31% of the total cost of the vessels.  So "downgrading" it to a GP/ASW version should result in reduced costs for that version.

Personally I'd like to see a bit more customization between the two versions.  A GP/ASW version of the Iver Huitfeldt would be a pretty good replacement for the Halifax-Class frigates.  This ship is basically an Absalon class with 4 instead of 2 diesel engines, one less deck (the "Flex" deck removed) and a modified superstructure having a single helicopter hanger and smaller flight deck.  I'd put the Absalon topside (including the Flex deck) on the 4-diesel Iver Huitfeldt hull using the sensors and weapons of the latter to give it the AAD capability.  Having two helicopters and the Flex deck (for UUVs and UAVs) would make it an excellent ASW taskforce command ship and the Flex deck would allow it to be very useful for all kinds of other non-combat missions.  But i guess we'll just have to wait and see what is offered by the various bidders.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just my  :2c:....

I think I'd rather accept (1) less ship and ensure the remainder are full-kitted for ASW and AAD, then have the extra ship with reduced spec's.

Should the SHTF (which is what we should be procuring for with frontline ships), I don't think a Russian sub would eye up a GP version and say "Well, that's not their ASW version, so we should probably just leave them alone as it wouldn't be fair if we torpedo'd them."  Alternatively a Russian Tu-160 isn't going to analyze radar signals and defer unloading AShM's because the target doesn't have the upgraded Air Defense Radar. 

The only other caveat is I hope we design based on probability that both UAV's and UUV's will become an ever-larger part of the ships' sensor suite, and build-in hangar, launch & electrical power capacity to accommodate.


M.


----------



## Kirkhill

So:

Proposing an alternate way of looking at naval life.

Instead of looking at sailors and hulls, how about looking at sensors and weapons first?

How many radar pickets does the government want, and in how many places, and for what duration?
How many sonar pickets?
How many sigint pickets?
How many OPs?

Next.

Having determined what sense capabilities are desired/required what does the Government propose to do with the information?

Send a strongly worded letter?
Make a large noise?
Bright light?
Send a Mountie?
Hog tie the miscreant?
Blow it out the water/sky?

How speedily and how often does it expect to do these things?  

What support is available to supply the capabilities by other means?  ie rapid delivery of missiles/torpedoes/mounties from shore and/or air?

Having defined these things then consider the number of hulls, and the size of the hulls, necessary to provide the capabilities.

Finally decide on how few sailors you put to sea at one time to manage those hulls.

And not all sailors have to be at sea, nor do all hulls have to have sailors.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The answer to your questions are easy. I put them in yellow in your post below:



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So:
> 
> Proposing an alternate way of looking at naval life.
> 
> Instead of looking at sailors and hulls, how about looking at sensors and weapons first?
> That's usually how it's done - hence the determined need for two types of CSC's an AAD/Command version and a GP version.
> 
> How many radar pickets does the government want, and in how many places, and for what duration?
> None: That is not how Navies work.
> How many sonar pickets?
> None: That is not how Navies work.
> How many sigint pickets?
> None: That is not how Navies work.
> How many OPs?
> None: That is not how Navies work.
> Next.



I think I am wasting my time some times in here, trying to explain to Army guys that we don't work and fight along the Army way or approach. We do not guard lines or borders. We operate fully in the great common that is the sea, with a primary purpose of protecting Canadian interest thereon.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You will never get a straight answer from a government about what they want to do, not to mention want and need are different. I just saw a lecture where the Maggie demanded that the First Sea Lord send the Ark Royal to the Falklands immediately, she had to be reminded that they had scrapped it already.


----------



## GR66

Are you suggesting a larger number of cheaper, more specialized platforms to perform each role?  

For the price of a single multi-purpose frigate could you instead have a couple of maritime surveillance aircraft and an AEW aircraft supported by a bomb truck or two carrying a bunch of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, a "lilly pad" ship with a towed-array sonar and a pair of ASW helos and UUVs, a flex-deck corvette or multi-mission vessel with a helo or two and a couple of RHIBS for some embarked troops, etc.?

Maybe by separating individual sensor/weapons/effects you can cover more area than a single warship and you may have better overall survivablity as the loss of any one platform doesn't hurt you as much as the loss of one warship would.

However, does the cost of supporting such a wide variety of different platforms actually end up costing you more (especially in terms of overhead) than a single warship having all these capabilities?  And are these individual platforms on their own (and even in concert) going to be able to provide you with better results than the all-in-one ship?


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The answer to your questions are easy. I put them in yellow in your post below:
> 
> I think I am wasting my time some times in here, trying to explain to Army guys that we don't work and fight along the Army way or approach. We do not guard lines or borders. We operate fully in the great common that is the sea, with a primary purpose of protecting Canadian interest thereon.



I got it.  You cruise around aimlessly on the briny until you bump into something.  Upon hearing the bump you then rush to plug the hole and then try to figure out what to shoot at.  

That about it?   [


----------



## Kirkhill

GR66 said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting a larger number of cheaper, more specialized platforms to perform each role?
> 
> For the price of a single multi-purpose frigate could you instead have a couple of maritime surveillance aircraft and an AEW aircraft supported by a bomb truck or two carrying a bunch of air-to-air and air-to-surface missiles, a "lilly pad" ship with a towed-array sonar and a pair of ASW helos and UUVs, a flex-deck corvette or multi-mission vessel with a helo or two and a couple of RHIBS for some embarked troops, etc.?
> 
> Maybe by separating individual sensor/weapons/effects you can cover more area than a single warship and you may have better overall survivablity as the loss of any one platform doesn't hurt you as much as the loss of one warship would.
> 
> However, does the cost of supporting such a wide variety of different platforms actually end up costing you more (especially in terms of overhead) than a single warship having all these capabilities?  And are these individual platforms on their own (and even in concert) going to be able to provide you with better results than the all-in-one ship?



Short form: Yep.  That is the approach.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I got it.  You cruise around aimlessly on the briny until you bump into something.  Upon hearing the bump you then rush to plug the hole and then try to figure out what to shoot at.
> 
> That about it?   [



Annnnd we have a winner here.   ;D


----------



## Colin Parkinson

hey it's a proven method


----------



## quadrapiper

Colin P said:
			
		

> hey it's a proven method


Need to come up with something like the ice-resistance/breaking scale for subs for the RFQ. "Must be able to ram five (5) Kilo-class without significan dockyard time?"


----------



## GR66

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Short form: Yep.  That is the approach.



I understand the thought process behind this approach, but I think that the logic likely falls apart where the budget meets the area of operations.  I'm not sure how much of a cost savings (if any) you will actually get by splitting up the various sensors and weapons into separate platforms once you factor in the operating costs of purchasing and maintaining a bunch of different systems.  

Let's be extremely generous and assume that you could have double the number of each sensor type by splitting them up on to cheaper, single-purpose platforms.  It may sound like a huge capability increase (double the capability) but in real terms when you're talking about trying to cover an area the size say of the North Atlantic is it really a meaningful increase when we're talking about something like 20 vs 10 sensors in that area?  What about responding to any threats that you do locate?  What are the chances that you'll have the right type of weapon platform nearby to respond to what you detect?  If you plan on positioning weapons and sensors together in teams to avoid that problem aren't you really defeating the purpose of splitting the platforms in the first place?

If we were looking at a situation where we could afford dozens and dozens of UUVs, UAVs, Aerostats, "lilly pad" ships, missile-carriers, cheap ISR aircraft, arsenal ships and planes, etc. then I think what you are proposing could possibly work.  But if we can only afford a handful of each type of platform due to our budget limitations I think you risk not being able to respond to threats as effectively as with a smaller number of more robust platforms.

That doesn't mean that there aren't novel approaches (including smaller/cheaper elements to supplement the higher-end assets) that we could take to maximize our capabilities.  I think even the USN and RN with the issues with their Zumwalt and Type 45/26 classes are realizing that ultra-expensive, do-everything platforms aren't a feasible solution (even moreso with the RCN I'd say), so I think Canada should be more open-minded about possible solutions for our fleet.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just in terms of sensor distribution, I would love to see what the CSC project would morph into if the RCN were allowed to take direct ownership of the Aurora's and have the right to procure and manage all aircraft/uav's (potentially systems like Tritons or Guardians) in the offshore environment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Royal Canadian Coastal Command?  [
Maybe we can get Viking to build us some flying boats.... :nod:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Could RN Type 26 delays do in as candidate for RCN CSC?



> Defence Minister Tight-Lipped On New Frigates' Time-Frame
> 
> A defence minister has refused to say when the next generation of Royal Navy warships will be built, amid warnings that axing them would be an "unforgivable betrayal".
> 
> Tory frontbencher Harriet Baldwin was unmoved by calls from SNP and Labour MPs to confirm a time-frame around cutting steel on Britain's eight new Type 26 frigates, insisting it would be "inappropriate" to give key dates as negotiations continue.
> 
> The ships are due to be built on the Clyde in Scotland, with SNP defence spokesman Brendan O'Hara predicting construction of the ships would not start until summer 2017 or possibly later...
> http://forces.tv/03674409



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

With the falling British Pound, I'm betting they want it 'in mix' to drive all the competitors to ensure their pencils are as sharp as possible....


----------



## Kirkhill

With as much Euro kit as there is likely to be aboard them, possibly even the steel,  and with labour (sweat equity) being a national thing, it may be that Canada could build them for less than the Brits because of that weak pound.

While I prefer the Danes or the Dutch my money with this bunch is on the Fremms.


----------



## jollyjacktar

FREMM is sweet.


----------



## Kirkhill

FREMMs and F35s?

Straddling the Atlantic?


----------



## MarkOttawa

And depending on how many CSCs (whatever design) can be afforded, perhaps a few smaller frigates or OPVs--e.g.?



> France Unveils New FTI Frigate Designed for the French Navy and Export
> 
> French defense minister Jean-Yves Le Drian unveiled the design for a new intermediate frigate Tuesday at the Euronaval trade show, and told reporters a budget of €3.8 billion ($4.2 billion) has been set to build five of the ships for the French Navy.
> 
> The Frégate de Taille Intermédiaire (FTI) is intended as a replacement for the fleet’s Lafayette-class frigates beginning in 2023. The government is also anxious that the design can be adapted for the international export market.
> 
> The ship’s design had been a well-kept secret until the unveiling of the model at noon in front of the defense ministry stand. The 4,200-ton frigate is a fresh design, different from the preceding Fremm multimission frigates, and features an unusual “inverted bow” intended to improve seakeeping in high sea states...
> 
> The multimission FTI frigate will carry a 125-strong crew – including a 15-person aviation detachment and with accommodation for another 50 -- displace 4,250 tons and come with a price tag 20-30 percent less than the 6,000-ton Fremm, which has entered service with the French Navy with more units under construction by DCNS. The ship has an overall length of 122.25 m and a beam of 17.7 m.
> 
> DCNS separately announced the export version of the intermediate frigate, dubbed Belh@rra...
> http://www.defensenews.com/articles/france-unveils-new-fti-frigate-ship-is-designed-for-the-french-navy-and-for-export



Image:





http://en.dcnsgroup.com/news/dcns-devoile-belhrra-la-fregate-numerique-de-nouvelle-generation/

Mark
Ottawa



..


----------



## Kirkhill

Is not allowed.

Is not in water....


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: Was suggesting well down the road--FTI or something else around that size--when money running out stifles planned CSC numbers.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen Mark:

Forgot the smiley.

I am of two minds on the acquisition strategy of only buying something that is already floating.

Plus:  It is already floating and it works and it is ready to build.

Minus:  This is Canada.  When it is built it is questionable if it will work, or if it will float.  The one thing for sure is that given our delivery schedule it will be a forty year old design when the last one hits the water.

Christ! Someone must have upped my dosage of cynical pills recently.


----------



## Lumber

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Seen Mark:
> 
> Forgot the smiley.
> 
> I am of two minds on the acquisition strategy of only buying something that is already floating.
> 
> Plus:  It is already floating and it works and it is ready to build.
> 
> Minus:  This is Canada.  When it is built it is questionable if it will work, or if it will float.  The one thing for sure is that given our delivery schedule it will be a forty year old design when the last one hits the water.
> 
> Christ! Someone must have upped my dosage of cynical pills recently.



When I first saw MarkOttawa's post, I thought, "Wait... that can't be right. They are replacing the Lafayette's? They just build the damn things!"

So I checked.

Lafayette class: Commissioned in 1996, being replaced in 2023.
Halifax class: Commissioned in 1992, being replaced in... 2030?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hull design is not going to change remarkable over the build life of the ships. The propulsion, weapon and sensor systems will change considerably though. Ensuring the design can be easily retrofitted (cable runs, hard points, ammunition storage and lifts) is important. Some thought to be able to replace significant portions of the power plants and drive system would be nice, but worse comes to worse, cut the ship in half and replace them.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lumber said:
			
		

> So I checked.
> 
> Lafayette class: Commissioned in 1996, being replaced in 2023.
> Halifax class: Commissioned in 1992, being replaced in... 2030?



Good lord, Lumber! Are you telling me you just realized that for every class of warship Canada commissioned since WWII, our allies have gone through commissioning two or more different class of similar warship?

Look just at the Brits:

While we had the Saint-Laurent's (all categories) in commission, they went through three different batches of Leander's, the type 21, type 22 frigates, and began commissioning the type 23 frigates two years before we commissioned the first Halifax. With the last type 23 commissioning in 2002, why do you think that everyone in the U.K. is clamouring that they are way behind the 8-ball with the type 26's!

While we had the IROs in commission, they went through the type 82, type 42 batch 1, 2 and 3 and type 45 destroyers, not to mention that the batch 2 County class destroyers were only 2 to 6 years old when the IRO's commissioned in 1972.

The Americans and the Germans are even faster at switching classes and batches.

As they say in police work: "Move along! Nothing to see here!"


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Good lord, Lumber! Are you telling me you just realized that for every class of warship Canada commissioned since WWII, our allies have gone through commissioning two or more different class of similar warship?



Good Sir, I am still relatively junior and thus relatively naïve. I shall enjoy my ignorance whilst it is still bliss.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That's the attitude! A positive and optimistic outlook, even based in ignorance, will see you through any troubles!  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

Corngradulations to both of you, Lumber and OGBD.

Cynicism needs a counter.


----------



## MilEME09

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is not allowed.
> 
> Is not in water....



Tell that to the Type 21


----------



## Kirkhill

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Tell that to the Type 21   26



FTFY but yep.  Rules seem to be really funny things these days.


----------



## jmt18325

I wouldn't doubt the Type 26 being a paper bid, as much as it's a paper ship.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Forget the type 26. It'll never fly in Canada because BAE was clear when they tried to pawn them on the Conservatives: They will not allow them to be built outside of the UK. That rules them out for Canada.

As for the FTI of DCNS: They already have contracts for five of them by the French Navy, who is paying all the development costs associated with the new design. First delivery is 2023 - so it could be in the mix if they are wiling to build them outside of France, something which the french arms makers have been known to accept to consider in the past. But it doesn't mean that it would necessarily be in the mix, as they are also already proposing their FREMMs to Canada, and - at least for the Command/ADD version, the FREMM is more appropriate than the FTI (FTI has more restrictions on amount of missiles carried and radar suite that can be put topside (i.e. it relies on an upcoming, but yet unproven new radar suite).


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Forget the type 26. It'll never fly in Canada because BAE was clear when they tried to pawn them on the Conservatives: They will not allow them to be built outside of the UK. That rules them out for Canada.
> 
> As for the FTI of DCNS: They already have contracts for five of them by the French Navy, who is paying all the development costs associated with the new design. First delivery is 2023 - so it could be in the mix if they are wiling to build them outside of France, something which the french arms makers have been known to accept to consider in the past. But it doesn't mean that it would necessarily be in the mix, as they are also already proposing their FREMMs to Canada, and - at least for the Command/ADD version, the FREMM is more appropriate than the FTI (FTI has more restrictions on amount of missiles carried and radar suite that can be put topside (i.e. it relies on an upcoming, but yet unproven new radar suite).



The FTI is a much smaller vessel than FREMM is it not?  

Question for those in know:  Are there preferences in RCN between the French and Italian versions of FREMM?  My recollection is that both Italian and French shipyards are bidding.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Yes. FTI is 30% smaller than the FREMM, which is why for the ADD/command version it may not provide the same capability as a FREMM. And remember that the French themselves say that the FTI will only save you 20% on the cost of a FREMM. Considering how long we keep our warships in Canada, I would think that this 20% saving is not overwhelming, especially when you consider that, by definition, a 30% larger ship will give you that much more space for future weapons systems than a smaller one when mid-life upgrades come home to roost. 

As of the Italian vs French version of FREMM, you have to keep in mind that they are proposing a design, which is the hull and machinery and general layout on the one hand, and the system integration on the other hand. This last aspect the combat systems integration may or may not be the one used on the French or Italian ships, but a different set altogether since we have Canadian requirements that are specific to ourselves. For instance, I think it very unlikely that Canada will want to switch the Aster family of anti-air missiles, which means that the most likely system will be a combination of standard missiles with Mk 41 launchers, rather than a combination of  Aster 15/30 with the Sylver system. Similarly, our communications suites will likely be different. But the integration of systems can still be evolved from the French/Italian underlying system.

Given that, I think (no specific knowledge here, just gut feeling) that given similarly priced bids, the RCN would prefer the Italian FREMM's CODLAG giving 29+ knots of speed to the French CODLOG giving only 27+, especially since the Italian propulsion system configuration gives an extra 700-750 NM greater range at economical speed (of 15 KTS in each case).


----------



## Kirkhill

Personally I would be in favour of the bigger hull across all variants.

But I am also in favour of saving costs by just leaving some of that space empty - against future requirements and flexibility.

As has been often stated previously.  The hull is the minor cost.  The major capital cost is in weapons, sensors, comms and connectors.  The major operating cost is crew.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I would be somewhat cautious of the Italian designs, just because they build with the Med in mind.

The North Atlantic/North Pacific are altogether another kettle of fish when it comes to sea keeping. I would want to see the sea trial data before committing to them.


----------



## tabernac

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Corngradulations to both of you, Lumber and OGBD.
> Cynicism needs a counter.



You're not a cynic, you're a realist!  



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Given that, I think (no specific knowledge here, just gut feeling) that given similarly priced bids, the RCN would prefer the Italian FREMM's CODLAG giving 29+ knots of speed to the French CODLOG giving only 27+, especially since the Italian propulsion system configuration gives an extra 700-750 NM greater range at economical speed (of 15 KTS in each case).



The last time I operated with a French FREMM they had very weird engineering restrictions when compared to the RCN. When going from their diesel to their GT, they had to slow down to (IIRC) obscenely slow speed to effect a drive mode changeover. If we end up with the FREMM, I hope it's with a more robust, more flexible engineering configuration.
Knowing that they have (had?) that restriction, I'm very happy with our SSS clutches, for what they allow.


----------



## MarkOttawa

How smoothly will process go?



> RFP Finally Issued for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant: “eye-watering” Details Wanted
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/10/28/mark-collins-rfp-finally-issued-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-eye-watering-details-wanted/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Process ripples, BMD mentioned (last para at quote):



> Public works clarifies gag order as experts warn of chill in warship debate
> Officials say restriction on communication meant to insure bidding not influenced by 'other information'
> 
> The Public Works Department has attempted to smooth the waters with the defence industry and issued a clarification on its demand that bidders, vying to design the navy's new warships, refrain from talking about the program in public and attacking each other in the media.
> 
> The Liberal government faced a backlash last week from contractors and business publications over the requirement, which officials insist was meant to ensure an orderly bidding process...
> 
> Normally cut-throat contenders, their subcontractors and employees are not allowed to 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," according to the leaked draft, dated Oct. 9, 2016.
> 
> The behind-the-scenes response was swift and prompted public works officials to issue a clarification late Friday that the industry is "free to communicate as it sees fit."
> 
> *Debate chill*
> 
> Danny Lam, an analyst in environmental engineering and defence issues, says regardless of the government's "backtracking" the restriction imposes a far-reaching chill over one of the most important military projects in a generation...
> 
> "The chilling effect of this clause effectively means there will be no informed debate in Canada especially on the Canadian specific issues," said Lam, who cited the politically-sensitive issue of whether the new warships should come equipped with ballistic missile defence against rogue nations such as North Korea...
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-replacement-gag-order-1.3830144



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I get two points from that article:

First, it is ridiculous to claim that "you are free to communicate as you see fit" is a clarification of a gag order that clearly stated you "are not allowed to 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".

Second: Is it just me, or does the last part of the article almost reads like an admission by the Liberals that they used misinformed opinions instead of facts to screw the Conservative's government choice of the F-35 (and they are now regretting it, as their "factual" review of what is available and at what cost is probably showing the F-35 to be the best choice  [).


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD

It isn't just you - on either call.

The difference between winning a popularity contest (promoting) and governing (restricting).  The problem with the revolution is how do you avoid Robespierre?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Lots of interesting points raised in piece linked to here:



> RCN Canadian Surface Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-irving-intellectual-property-and-espionage-plus-fighters-and-trump/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Karel Doorman

This could be the new radar system for the surface combatantsdon't know whether it's been posted before)


APAR in a technical new look
July 04, 2016

Thales Netherlands presented in late May at the CANSEC exhibition in Ottawa APAR Block 2. Representatives of the most important shipyards in the world were very interested. The reason for this interest: the demands of the Canadian government for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program.

There is nothing fixed, but as the Royal Navy(Dutch) proceeds to replace the M-class frigates, the industry has already done the work. Thus Thales Netherlands also took the first steps to make technology available for these ships. Like the M-class frigates, the new ships will be multifunctional, but specializing in anti-submarine warfare. The threat levels as we knew it remained unchanged in many aspects of the Cold War. Threats have been added, are mostly located in the unpredictable spectrum. Threats such as shells fired from land, guided bombs fired by aircraft, small boats firing missiles, et cetera. With APAR in a technical new look all these threats can be addressed efficiently. APAR is capable in particular, to detect many, small, and fast clutter objects in a difficult-rich environment.

The interest in APAR block 2 is great, now that the Canadian government published its requirements for the CSC program: they are looking for a system like APAR. And of such a multi-function radar system that can track targets simultaneously and can control guns there is only one in the world: the APAR.The CSC programme involves 15 Area Air Defence vessels. These ships can not only defend itself but also other ships in the area. CSC is an important program, the largest acquisition of Naval surface ships currently worldwide. Canada would like a copy of an excisting ship(class) at this time. Large shipyards are interested in talking with Thales to be able to offer that together with the Thales APAR.

Thales Netherlands has been since the 60s the preferred supplier of various sensors on board Canada's ships. Canada participated in various development projects, from which Canadian industry benefited.From the start APAR also included  Canadian industry, but Canada has never bought APAR for themselves.Canadian industry is again involved in the development of APAR block 2. The coming months are used to approach potential strategic partners. There is already a partnership with Sanmina-SCI. The joining of forces should provide for the worldwide export of these systems, but focuses on a solid Canadian base system. Thales hopes for delivery to the Canadian Surface Combatant project (CSC).

Multi-function radar

The new aspect of APAR block 2 is that it is entirely digital, we use high-power gallium nitride (GaN) transmit / receive modules and the amount of space required is reduced considerably below deck. However, most important is that APAR Block 2 is able to detect all the potential threats, from very small to very large, and from slow to very fast. Under difficult atmospheric conditions.


Source(in Dutch): https://connect.thalesgroup.com/en/news/apar-in-een-technisch-nieuw-jasje


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good lord, Karel! I hope you ran that article through Google-translate to obtain such a horrible translation. I think we get the gist, but many sentences make no sense at all.

Anyway, Happy New year and all the best for  2017, my friend.

And yes, APAR Mk2 is a very nice radar system and would certainly fit the bill for the surface combatants. BTW, the reason the original APAR was not selected for the Halifax modernization program is that we would have had to build an extra mast for it and the combination mast/radar for it and the accompanying SMART-L would have added too much top-weight. So we had to settle for SMART-S / upgraded sea giraffe combination.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Good lord, Karel! I hope you ran that article through Google-translate to obtain such a horrible translation. I think we get the gist, but many sentences make no sense at all.
> 
> Anyway, Happy New year and all the best for  2017, my friend.
> 
> And yes, APAR Mk2 is a very nice radar system and would certainly fit the bill for the surface combatants. BTW, the reason the original APAR was not selected for the Halifax modernization program is that we would have had to build an extra mast for it and the combination mast/radar for it and the accompanying SMART-L would have added too much top-weight. So we had to settle for SMART-S / upgraded sea giraffe combination.



Sorry,my friend i did(use Google) ;D

And for all of you a happy new year.


----------



## NavyShooter

Does look like the results of a google-translate service.

Interesting to see the focus on the APAR, and the mention that the RFP seems to specify a RADAR system that can simultaneously track targets and control guns.  That's setting ourselves up for a sole-source via writing every other system out of the specs.  

Similar to writing the glock out of the specs of the GSP contracting by one of the clauses.

NS


----------



## Karel Doorman

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Does look like the results of a google-translate service.
> 
> Interesting to see the focus on the APAR, and the mention that the RFP seems to specify a RADAR system that can simultaneously track targets and control guns.  That's setting ourselves up for a sole-source via writing every other system out of the specs.
> 
> Similar to writing the glock out of the specs of the GSP contracting by one of the clauses.
> 
> NS



Ok all, i tried to enhance the translation.So it should be readable now.   ;D  (see above)

gr,Karel.


----------



## Underway

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Ok all, i tried to enhance the translation.So it should be readable now.   ;D  (see above)
> 
> gr,Karel.



Here's  Jane's  report on the same situation.  All in original english... [

Repeated here for the link challenged.



> With the planned Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) programme firmly in its sights, Thales Nederland is looking to bring Canadian suppliers on board for the development of a second-generation version of its APAR X-band multifunction radar.
> 
> Known as APAR Block 2, the new baseline would build on the existing APAR reference platform, but further improve performance through selected technology insertions in both the antenna ‘front end’ and system processing.
> 
> APAR (an acronym of active phased array radar) is currently in service on the Royal Netherlands Navy’s four De Zeven Provinciën class air defence and command frigates, the German Navy’s three F 124 Sachsen class air defence frigates, and the Royal Danish Navy’s three Iver Huitfeldt class frigates. In all three cases, APAR forms part of a Thales-supplied anti-air warfare system that also comprises the SMART-L D-band volume search radar and a fire control cluster.
> 
> Originally developed as part of the Trilateral Frigate Cooperation programme – which included the participation of Canada as a funding partner – APAR performs horizon search and air target tracking as well as back-up volume search. In addition, APAR provides interrupted continuous wave illumination guidance for the Evolved SeaSparrow Missile and SM-2 missile families.
> 
> While Canada did not procure the first-generation APAR, Canadian companies have remained a key part of the supply chain, For example, Sanmina has supplied gallium arsenide transmit/receive modules (TRMs) through the life of the programme.
> 
> According to Albert Wildenberg, Thales Nederland’s business development manager, APAR Block 2 would build on this successful heritage.
> 
> “As new and more demanding threats emerge, we have developed a technology insertion roadmap that upgrades APAR performance and sustainability, and reduces weight and space demands below deck,” he told the CANSEC Show Daily. “In parallel, this insertion will lead to overall costs reduction, which of course is a further benefit for the Canadian customer.
> 
> “So that means moving to a fully digital radar architecture, developing a new front end based on high-power gallium nitride TRMs, and substantially rationalising below-decks cabinets by moving to all COTS-based processing.”
> 
> With Thales Nederland ramping up its CSC pursuit, the company is looking to extend the participation of Canadian industry into its supply chain. “CSC is a 15-ship programme,” Wildenberg said.
> 
> “We want to use the in-country engineering, development and manufacture base, and grow local content and work-share, with the intent to make this a true Canadian system.”
> 
> Last year, Thales Nederland and Sanmina signed a memorandum of understanding for the development and manufacturing of subsystems for candidate CSC radar systems. “The participation of Sanmina in APAR Block 2 could be an extension of this agreement,” said Wildenberg.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Will CSCs get Raytheon SM-6, with missile defence role for at least some ships (NORAD and NATO would surely like)?



> SM-6 Cleared for International Sale; Australia, Japan, Korea Could Be Early Customers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _An artist’s concept of the planned Japanese 27DD guided missile destroyer. Image via Navy Recognition_
> 
> Raytheon’s Standard Missile 6 has been cleared by the Pentagon for international sales and a trio of potential Pacific nations are likely the first customers.
> 
> SM-6 — currently in limited initial production – is a key weapon in the both the Navy’s emerging distributed lethality concept and the service’s Naval Integrated Fire Control Counter-Air (NIFC-CA) for its ability to strike air, surface and limited ballistic missile targets.
> 
> Of the five international Aegis combat system operators, three are in the process to have the upgraded combat system to field the SM-6 – Australia, Japan and South Korea.
> 
> All three countries to have guided missile combatants upgraded to Aegis Baseline 9. Baseline 9 replaces the Aegis combat system older military specific computers with commercial-off-the-shelf servers to handle the data the ships absorb through its radar and adds a multi-signal processor. The modifications allow an Aegis ship to take targeting information from a third party to interdict air and sea warfare threats using the SM-6.
> 
> Concerns with both North Korean and Chinese military expansion have driven countries in the region to likewise expand their military capability — particularly at sea.
> 
> “These are international Aegis shipbuilding program that are under construction today or new construction,” Thad Smith with Raytheon told reporters on Tuesday [Jan. 10]...
> 
> While the three countries all could field the SM-6 its unclear if each country will be allowed to use all three modes of the missile – anti-air warfare, anti-surface and a limited ballistic missile defense capability [ https://news.usni.org/2016/12/15/mda-conducts-successful-ballistic-missile-intercept-ship-launched-sm-6 ].
> 
> While the missiles will all have the inherent capability for all three missions, the U.S. government will determine which of those features will be activated for international sales, Smith said...
> https://news.usni.org/2017/01/10/sm-6-cleared-international-sale-australia-japan-korea-early-customers



From a 2015 post at the _Defence Muse_ blog:



> ...the RCN is in the design stages of the program that will see the construction of new Air Defence/Command and Control Destroyers. Work on those new ships will raise the questions of Ballistic Missile Defence once again. Should the ships be made capable of participating in the Anti-Ballistic Missile battle?
> 
> The real question should be “Can we responsibly prevent the ships from being capable in an ABM role?”
> 
> In examining radar, combat management and weapons capabilities of the equipment most likely to form the backbone of Canada’s new CSC Air Defence/Command and Control destroyers we notice an interesting pattern. They all have either a demonstrated ABM capability, or are developing one.
> 
> The US Navy’s AEGIS system is the best known capability, having demonstrated that ability during numerous tests. On February 20, 2008, the satellite US 193 was destroyed in low Earth orbit by the AEGIS-equipped USS Lake Erie. This demonstrated the systems ability to hit a target at an altitude of 133 miles. AEGIS is combined with the SM-3/SM-6 missile for its ABM capability. AEGIS will even see service on land as AEGIS ASHORE. This will see components of the AEGIS system built into structures on land, mimicking the shipboard installations...
> https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/technology-and-politics-canadian-ballistic-missile-defence/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

I honestly don't have a clue.  If the ship goes the VLS route for an ASW missile (which is coming soon) then the large version of the VLS's will be required.  Then really its going to be just a software+missile issue as all the ships in competition (except perhaps the Type 26) have BMD capability inbuilt in their missile defence systems.

What I really want to know is what are the "must haves" or design constraints (for those engineers in the building) for the CSC bidders.  We can probably extrapolate from some of the obvious ones and the ones that have been stated publicly:

Constraints:
-127-millimetre gun
-Crew accommodations from 165 to 200
-Capacity to carry Cyclone helicopters
-Medium-range radar (up to 200 nm)

The vague constraints:
-Anti-surface warfare capability, much like the RCN has in the frigates 
-Long-range air defence capability, much like what is in the Iroquois-class (for the first 3-4 of the class)
-Anti-submarine warfare capabilities
-Passive and active decoy systems (what kinds?  are there specifics?)

Things we don't know:
-ASW system/requirements - must use CANTASS?? Use current torp family or switch to the MU90?
-ASuW missile type - is this a hard and fast requirement or something the designer can submit? Assume Harpoon, Exocet or LRASM (we've expressed interest in it, this means the strike Mk 41 boxes for launching thus leaving door open for AAW destroyer to have SM-6 capability).
-Radar specifications.  Does the navy want the two radar combo or something else.  This really depends on the AAW missile defence system.
-Damage control requirements.  We're usually pretty specific on these for the ships as they must usually match across the fleet.
-Navigation requirements.  Easy fix for nav systems. 
-Speed - minimum?  Engineering setup? (CODLAG, CODOG, etc..??)
-Tonnage - bigger is generally better and most of the bidders run between 5400 to 7200 tonnes.
-Extra mission capability - multimission space (boarding party boats, SOF, humanitarian, UUV's etc...)
-RAS - probably a very specific equipment setup for the ships as there is a "Canadian way" to do this.  Not sure if the navy is flexible enough on this, perhaps we are...
-Chinook capability
-signature management
-comms
-C4ISR - cooperative engagement capability, Flag ship abilities

I realise that with a limited amount design constraints you give the engineers a large amount of flexibility to come forward with creative and competitive designs to cover off many different things.  Perhaps that's the point.  We have a tradition in Canadian procurement to over specify.  Also its going to be basically two different ships (AAW and GP) you might find that the radars for example are different or the amount of flight deck/multimission space is changed between the types.  I'd really love to see the SOR and compare them to each other.


----------



## Kirkhill

In addition, could you ask for a Foreign Policy and a statement of how the Canadian Forces are expected to support it?  

(In case Dimsum is listening in, I'm still in the market for beachfront property)   >

Sorry for the interruption, Underway.


----------



## Journeyman

Underway said:
			
		

> .... the "must haves" or design constraints (for those engineers in the building) ....


It's also a term in higher HQ's guidance (for the military planners in the building)   

constraint = must do
restraint = must not

/tangent


----------



## Good2Golf

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's also a term in higher HQ's guidance (for the military planners in the building)
> 
> constraint = how it must be done
> restraint = must not
> 
> /tangent



[/pedant]


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> [/pedant]


Addressing a sailor, I was simplifying.


----------



## Good2Golf

You should have greater respect for Her Majesty's Canadian Senior Service... :nod: ...you are likely now on their watch list.    

Yours, aye! 
G2G


----------



## Journeyman

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> You should have greater respect for Her Majesty's Canadian Senior Service...  :nod:  ...you are likely now on their watch list.


I'm not too worried about being on their watch list; I hear they're kind of busy at the top end of the food chain, dusting off succession lists and all....

About all I know of the Navy is, when some officer walks in the room and someone shouts "rounds," no one is actually buying drinks.   :'(


(Once the grizzled PO shooed the ASlt away and determined that we weren't sailors [just in town for the Dive course], he kept the officer away for the rest of time.   ;D ) 

/tangent


----------



## jollyjacktar

Journeyman said:
			
		

> About all I know of the Navy is, when some officer walks in the room and someone shouts "rounds," no one is actually buying drinks.   :'(



Sigh, always promising and never delivering... :nod:


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Will CSCs get Raytheon SM-6,?
> Mark
> Ottawa



The question is if there is any choice?.....rumor has it that Raytheon has already issued a "last buy" notice on SM-2 missiles....ie they are ending production. Leaving only ESSM block 2,  SM-6 and SM-3 in their portfolio.  

As to the veracity of the rumor...i have no idea*, but it would make sense .....at ~$5 million a piece, the SM-6 is going to be a hard sell to anybody but the USN, at least as long as there are cheaper alternatives on the market. 

* I heard it from a defence industry insider , someone who works very closely with LM and Ratheon on BMD systems.


----------



## MarkOttawa

MikeKiloPapa: Also question of how overtly, if at all, this gov't is willing to get a missile defence capabillty,

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Lumber

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> MikeKiloPapa: Also question of how overtly, if at all, this gov't is willing to get a missile defence capabillty,
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



So, what? We're going to be as heavily armed as the USCG?


----------



## Underway

From the Cronicle Herald.  Ken Hansen was quoted saying the following:



> He said it has long been known that the navy sees the Type 26 frigate that BAE Systems designed for the United Kingdom as the best pre-existing ship design to replace its Halifax-class frigates...



Wait... What??

Anyone else have eyes on this one before now?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I noticed that in the article also.  That leaves me wondering too.

My understanding of the whole "combatant" part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) was that we had a list of specifications and requirements and that, once the lead yard was selected, a ship designer was going to be selected, then a systems integrator, and those last two would come up with a design that would fulfill all the requirements. There was no indication that any of these new combatants would be a pre-existing design at all.

Then the new Trudeau government took over, a little more than a year ago, and for the first time in the whole CSC program, the idea of utilizing a pre-existing - proven because built - foreign design was adopted, supposedly to save time and make costs easier to evaluate.

I have never heard at any point that the RCN had a favourite, and even less that that favourite would be the type 26 design, a then non-existent ship and non finalized design which has only been completed very recently.

I do know that, shortly before the Harper government was to come out with the call for tenders for the selection of the shipyards for the NSS, the British RN was also embarking on the development of its next frigates with BAE and that they approached Canada to see if it could be a joint program. The Harper government declined once they found out that the British government wished, as part of that joint program, to ensure that all the ships would be built at BAE in the UK. However, at that point in time, the British frigates at issue were still the type 24 (GP) / type 25 (ASW) combination - not the further development of the idea resulting in the Global Frigate - type 26 program now in its infancy in the UK.


----------



## Half Full

Underway said:
			
		

> From the Cronicle Herald.  Ken Hansen was quoted saying the following:
> 
> Wait... What??
> 
> Anyone else have eyes on this one before now?



Take anything quoted or said by Ken Hansen with a grain of salt.  His commentary on anything naval related is many years passed its prime. The Type 26 is not a ship the Navy has been pushing for.  To be honest the RCN doesn't really care what ship it gets as long as it meets the SOR.


----------



## jollyjacktar

However, my boss, who is a Naval Constructor and has experience in PMO projects did say that the Type 26 makes sense as the others in the running are 15-20 year old designs.  The Type 26 is new, current and cutting edge so to speak.  A newer design is better than an older one and therefore it shouldn't be counted out as less desirable.

I should have added, that in dealing with folks that are on the CSC PMO, they are tight lipped on the subject of which platform they like.  I'm surprised at the thought of anyone outside of the project having any knowledge on what they're thinking.


----------



## Half Full

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I'm surprised at the thought of anyone outside of the project having any knowledge on what they're thinking.


Well, the Project is not the RCN...they progress the project on behalf of the RCN...but actually work for ADM(Mat), correct?  The RCN has never professed to prefer one design over the other.  If it came across that the RCN doesn't want the Type 26 that's not what I meant to say.  The RCN stands by their SOR and if whatever ship is ultimately selected meets the SOR...they will be content.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have never heard at any point that the RCN had a favourite, and even less that that favourite would be the type 26 design, a then non-existent ship and non finalized design which has only been completed very recently.



Me neither, but it's not like I'm walking the halls of power...



			
				Half Full said:
			
		

> Well, the Project is not the RCN...they progress the project on behalf of the RCN...but actually work for ADM(Mat), correct?  The RCN has never professed to prefer one design over the other.  If it came across that the RCN doesn't want the Type 26 that's not what I meant to say.  The RCN stands by their SOR and if whatever ship is ultimately selected meets the SOR...they will be content.



I believe the same.  It seems that the RCN really just wants the ships to do the job at this point.  And they are willing to cast the net wide to get it (and learned some stuff from the RCAF fighter replacement program).

I can see the attraction of the Global Combat Ship.  It's starting its build this summer, it's the right tonnage.  It's got that amazing "flex" space in the middle.  Reliable engineering configuration.  Military build standards.  Large enough flight deck to land a Chinook on.  Large hangar space (Merlins sized so can fit a Cyclone).  The 127mm gun space.  Designed for 12 self defence and 24 strike sized VLS canisters...   It's very nice on paper...


----------



## jollyjacktar

Half Full said:
			
		

> Well, the Project is not the RCN...they progress the project on behalf of the RCN...but actually work for ADM(Mat), correct?  The RCN has never professed to prefer one design over the other.  If it came across that the RCN doesn't want the Type 26 that's not what I meant to say.  The RCN stands by their SOR and if whatever ship is ultimately selected meets the SOR...they will be content.


I may be wrong, but I believe they are RCN, not ADM(Mat).  Just as DNR are RCN and not ADM(Mat).   The PMO are not within our lines but over in Ottawa.   We do provide them with information and assistance as required as we do for the fleet.


----------



## dapaterson

DNR takes projects through Identification and Options Analysis phases.  Once the project enters Definition phase, DGMEPM in ADM(Mat) takes over, and takes the proejct through Definition and Implementation, then does the closeout.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Correct.  They identify the need and requirement to satisfy the need.  We act upon that to make it happen.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> .  The Type 26 is new, current and cutting edge so to speak.



Ahh....but if you wait another 15-20 years to pick  a CSC design ,there will be even newer and cutting edgier warships to choose from  ....clever clever ;D



> as the others in the running are 15-20 year old designs



Sorry, but that is simply not true ....The Italian and French FREMMs were launched in 2011/2010, so were the Iver Huitfeldts and TKMS is likely offering a version of their F125 , a brand new design not even commissioned yet (launched in 2013) .
Only Navantias bid, a Hobart class AWD based design. itself derived from the F100 class(Alvaro de Bazan )can reasonably be said to be somewhat outdated..(Dont know about the US submitted designs ? ) 

And lets not forget that the T26 is just the latest iteration of a line of warship design proposals, dating back to the beginning of the UKs Future Surface Combatant program in 1998. Even the current design of the "global combat ship" will be more than a decade old by the time the first hull hits the water. 

Dont get me wrong, i want the best for the RCN and i can certainly understand the allure of the T26.....At 150x21 meters and 8000 tonnes it is the biggest and potentially most capable ship in the running.
But it is also by far the most expensive option and the one that carries the most risk.  Because it hasn't been built yet any design flaws revealed during construction is likely to translate into even more delays for the CSC program . 
The question is how long you are willing to wait though, ....the "jam tomorrow" strategy has a history of not paying off. Maybe settling for the  90% solution will ensure that you actually get the full fleet of 15 warships on budget and on time.


----------



## Karel Doorman

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Ahh....but if you wait another 15-20 years to pick  a CSC design ,there will be even newer and cutting edgier warships to choose from  ....clever clever ;D
> 
> Sorry, but that is simply not true ....The Italian and French FREMMs were launched in 2011/2010, so were the Iver Huitfeldts and TKMS is likely offering a version of their F125 , a brand new design not even commissioned yet (launched in 2013) .
> Only Navantias bid, a Hobart class AWD based design. itself derived from the F100 class(Alvaro de Bazan )can reasonably be said to be somewhat outdated..(Dont know about the US submitted designs ? )
> 
> And lets not forget that the T26 is just the latest iteration of a line of warship design proposals, dating back to the beginning of the UKs Future Surface Combatant program in 1998. Even the current design of the "global combat ship" will be more than a decade old by the time the first hull hits the water.
> 
> Dont get me wrong, i want the best for the RCN and i can certainly understand the allure of the T26.....At 150x21 meters and 8000 tonnes it is the biggest and potentially most capable ship in the running.
> But it is also by far the most expensive option and the one that carries the most risk.  Because it hasn't been built yet any design flaws revealed during construction is likely to translate into even more delays for the CSC program .
> The question is how long you are willing to wait though, ....the "jam tomorrow" strategy has a history of not paying off. Maybe settling for the  90% solution will ensure that you actually get the full fleet of 15 warships on budget and on time.



True about the Type-26 but it's mainly an ASW ship,yet to be built(as said in the design phase)

If you're going that route the RCN might aswell consider the Dutch option,the vMFF(or replacement for the M-class)also mainly an ASW ship;(will be in the 4500-5500 tonns region,from what we know now)

Got a rendering of it:to give you all an idea(the plan is to buy 2 for the KM and 2 for the Belgian Navy,but it might be more for the KM,since there's a shortage on this sort of ships within NATO,we'll see)






I think again it looks beautiful,but hey i'm biased(Dutch)


----------



## jollyjacktar

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Ahh....but if you wait another 15-20 years to pick  a CSC design ,there will be even newer and cutting edgier warships to choose from  ....clever clever ;D
> 
> Sorry, but that is simply not true ....The Italian and French FREMMs were launched in 2011/2010, so were the Iver Huitfeldts and TKMS is likely offering a version of their F125 , a brand new design not even commissioned yet (launched in 2013) .
> Only Navantias bid, a Hobart class AWD based design. itself derived from the F100 class(Alvaro de Bazan )can reasonably be said to be somewhat outdated..(Dont know about the US submitted designs ? )
> 
> And lets not forget that the T26 is just the latest iteration of a line of warship design proposals, dating back to the beginning of the UKs Future Surface Combatant program in 1998. Even the current design of the "global combat ship" will be more than a decade old by the time the first hull hits the water.
> 
> Dont get me wrong, i want the best for the RCN and i can certainly understand the allure of the T26.....At 150x21 meters and 8000 tonnes it is the biggest and potentially most capable ship in the running.
> But it is also by far the most expensive option and the one that carries the most risk.  Because it hasn't been built yet any design flaws revealed during construction is likely to translate into even more delays for the CSC program .
> The question is how long you are willing to wait though, ....the "jam tomorrow" strategy has a history of not paying off. Maybe settling for the  90% solution will ensure that you actually get the full fleet of 15 warships on budget and on time.



By they time they finalize a design cut steel on the CSC, a ship like the FREMM will be a 15+ year old design.  They were given the go ahead in 2005 for that ship and I am sure there was something on the boards before then.  It is at this juncture a 12 year old design at the very least.


----------



## Karel Doorman

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> By they time they finalize a design cut steel on the CSC, a ship like the FREMM will be a 15+ year old design.  They were given the go ahead in 2005 for that ship and I am sure there was something on the boards before then.  It is at this juncture a 12 year old design at the very least.



Yep that's the whole problem,it's just keeps going and going and....................(almost like overe here.)

Therefore  maybe the newest designs will be more interesting(Type-26/vMFF and whatever comes)

But as said before i think the new Dutch design will have APAR2 and that could be interesting for Canada.


----------



## STONEY

Where does some of the info on the T-26 come from. I do not say its wrong just that it does not agree with what I have seen.
6000 tons not 8000. Will power plant be a disaster like the T-45 and its quoted speed is slower than the Halifax class . It does not have a Air defence version so what happened to the Iroquois class replacement, in fact the missile, what am I missing here.s its design shows are only half the range of the Halifax class. Will the design have to be completely changed to suit Canada it does not even have a anti surface missile.
What am I missing here.

Cheers


----------



## Lumber

STONEY said:
			
		

> Where does some of the info on the T-26 come from. I do not say its wrong just that it does not agree with what I have seen.
> 6000 tons not 8000. Will power plant be a disaster like the T-45 and its quoted speed is slower than the Halifax class . It does not have a Air defence version so what happened to the Iroquois class replacement, in fact the missile, what am I missing here.s its design shows are only half the range of the Halifax class. Will the design have to be completely changed to suit Canada it does not even have a anti surface missile.
> What am I missing here.
> 
> Cheers



What your missing is that this is all just speculation. Any ship that is chosen will have to fit the SOR as closely as possible.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> By they time they finalize a design cut steel on the CSC, a ship like the FREMM will be a 15+ year old design.  They were given the go ahead in 2005 for that ship and I am sure there was something on the boards before then.  It is at this juncture a 12 year old design at the very least.



Yes....and the T26 design is, at best, a whopping 4 years newer.....hardly a generational quantum leap that is. With that line of thinking you will never get a new surface combatant. Even if you started on a brand new warship design today, it would still be more than a decade old by the time it is commissioned. 

Australia seem to do fine with a 20 year old design, and the yanks soldier on with the 30 year old Burkes. In that context, claiming that the FREMMs and contemporary ships are obsolete is frankly absurd


----------



## jollyjacktar

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Yes....and the T26 design is, at best, a whopping 4 years newer.....hardly a generational quantum leap that is. With that line of thinking you will never get a new surface combatant. Even if you started on a brand new warship design today, it would still be more than a decade old by the time it is commissioned.
> 
> Australia seem to do fine with a 20 year old design, and the yanks soldier on with the 30 year old Burkes. In that context, claiming that the FREMMs and contemporary ships are obsolete is frankly absurd



My friend, I work in the procurement side of the navy at present, and we all wonder if we'll ever see the new ship.  I know I shall be retired before they "probably" start even cutting steel.  You're preaching to the choir.  Now, as to the "O" word. I never once said they were obsolete or even suggested it.  I said that my boss stated they were 15-20 year old designs and the Type 26 was newer and more cutting edge.  I just happen to agree with him more than I agree with you.  But that's OK, it's a free world and we're all allowed to have an opinion.

As an aside, all navies sail with what they are given as long as they can, to the best of their ability.  Unlike you, I can't get out of my ship and walk back to my lines if the damn thing breaks down.  The nearest point of land at sea is about several miles beneath the keel and I have no desire to see it, thank you very much.  In most first world, tier 1 navies our present CPF would be considered very long in the tooth and would be looking at a well deserved retirement and a new ship coming to replace it in the not to far distant future.  One of the reasons we use these things as long as we can and it takes so long to pick and deliver a new ship is that they are no longer the "relatively" simple beasts they were 40 or 50 years ago.  Lots of more Buck Rodgers stuff that needs to be taken into account nowadays in the design and manufacture not to mention the spiralling costs of things like steel etc. Thrown in all the red tape that goes with a major commitment like this and its a damn wonder we get anything at all, quite frankly.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

STONEY said:
			
		

> Where does some of the info on the T-26 come from. I do not say its wrong just that it does not agree with what I have seen.6000 tons not 8000.



Well BAE themselves quote the T-26 as being  6900 metric tonnes. I think the 6000 tonnes was for the previous design proposal which was a smaller vessel ~25 ft shorter than the current version.
Now the 8000 tonnes displacement number has not been officially confirmed by either BAE or the RN , but it is supposed to be the the end-of-life full load displacement (ie the design max).
The 6900 tonnes would then be the standard displacement as built. The T-26 being both long and very beamy, almost as big as a 8300 tonnes Flt 1 Arleigh Burke, those numbers seem plausible to me. 



> Will power plant be a disaster like the T-45



Unlikely....the T26 will have a conventional diesel-electric propulsion system, precisely because of all the problems with the Darings IEP plant. 



> and its quoted speed is slower than the Halifax class



+26 kts could just as well mean 30 kts......anyhow, its a design speed....we wont know how fast it really is before its sea trials/SATs



> It does not have a Air defence version



I think you could make the case that the basic T26 with Sea Ceptor, Artisan radar, a 5 " Mk 45 mod4 and 24 cell Mk41 vls, is at least as AAW capable as the FELEX'ed Halifax class...so its not like it doesn't have any air defence capability at all....and to be fair, it is easier to add a decent Area Air Defence capability to an excellent ASW ship , than the other way around. 




> in fact the missile, what am I missing here.s its design shows are only half the range of the Halifax class.



An ESSM fired from a Halifax or any other vessel employing a rotating 3D radar in conjunction with a CW illuminator , has a much shorter effective range than an ESSM fired from a ship using command guidance to control the missiles ...meaning ships equipped with either SPY-1 or APAR. 
So the public data on range should be taken with a huge bucket load of salt.....its very dependent on the version of missile and the launching platform. 

Now Sea Ceptor i dont know the real range of, but its a lighter missile ,its "cold" launched and because it is an active missile it has a more efficient flight profile....so all in all, the difference in effective range between the two missiles likely isn't all that great.   



> Will the design have to be completely changed to suit Canada it does not even have a anti surface missile.



I am sure you could find somewhere to bolt on a Harpoon launcher or 2....But as an anti-ship missile the Harpoon is nearing obsolescence anyway and the LRASM meant to replace it, is launched from a MK41 vls container.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

@MikeKiloPapa

I apologize as I'm no expert in missile or radar systems, but can you elaborate on the following as it seems counter intuitive.

"An ESSM fired from a Halifax or any other vessel employing a rotating 3D radar in conjunction with a CW illuminator , has a much shorter effective range than an ESSM fired from a ship using command guidance to control the missiles ...meaning ships equipped with either SPY-1 or APAR. "


Thanks in advance, Matthew.


----------



## NavyShooter

Yes, please.

I read that and would like a better explanation of why there's a shorter effective range.

Please explain so that  Weapons Engineering CPO2 with a good grounding in SONAR, NAV, and CCS (now CMS) can understand it.  

Oh, and please be careful to use open-source info to backup your answers.  We don't want anything out that shouldn't be.

NS


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> My friend, I work in the procurement side of the navy at present, and we all wonder if we'll ever see the new ship.  I know I shall be retired before they "probably" start even cutting steel.  You're preaching to the choir.  Now, as to the "O" word. *I never once said they were obsolete or even suggested it*.



No you are right....my bad...it must have been the voices in my head  ;D



> I said that my boss stated they were 15-20 year old designs and the Type 26 was newer and more cutting edge.



Its quite interesting that it has received a lot of criticism back in the UK for being_ too_ conventional and unambitious in its design. Aside from the ludicrously expensive automated loading system for the mk45 gun i must admit i too struggle to see the "cutting edge" in the Global Combat Ship platform design. The hull and superstructure is very conventional, almost indistinguishable  from its (older) european counterparts....its fancy "Mission Bay" is an unashamed rip-off of Danish, Dutch and German concepts and its general internal arrangement is also fairly standard. ...and although perhaps not terribly relevant to the RCN ....The T26s legacy weapons and sensors fitout is also decidedly modest (save perhaps for the 2087 sonar). 

 In terms of damage control features, electrical infrastructure, PMS and bridge systems, accommodation standards etc...i'm sure that the type 26 is taking advantage of the latest developments.....but so would a future FREMM , Huitfeldt or F125 based CSC .




> I just happen to agree with him more than I agree with you.  But that's OK, it's a free world and we're all allowed to have an opinion.



Why thank you  ....though not all opinions carry equal weight.....in this case i'll admit, your position lends greater credence to yours.



> As an aside, all navies sail with what they are given as long as they can, to the best of their ability.


 :nod: yes we do....its not like we have a lot of choice in the matter though.



> Unlike you, I can't get out of my ship and walk back to my lines if the damn thing breaks down.



Ahh...you must be referring to my former occupation/career as a Tank mechanic. 
Well this is what my "tank" looks like now : 






   ;D,,,,6 months a year i'm a lot closer to Canada (and the ocean floor) than home. 



> In most first world, tier 1 navies our present CPF would be considered very long in the tooth and would be looking at a well deserved retirement and a new ship coming to replace it in the not to far distant future.


I agree and i feel your "pain"....the Thetis class above has prowled the arctic and north atlantic for more than 25 years and will have to soldier on for a further 10-15 years before they are replaced. Canada is not the only first world nation with ancient ships  



> One of the reasons we use these things as long as we can and it takes so long to pick and deliver a new ship is that they are no longer the "relatively" simple beasts they were 40 or 50 years ago.


  So very true, as a marine/naval engineer i know better than most....the ever increasing complexity of ships also requires much greater education, skill and know how of the naval personel involved in both design and construction of new warships.....and finding competent people with the right skill set can be a challenge.



> Thrown in all the red tape that goes with a major commitment like this and its a damn wonder we get anything at all, quite frankly.


In your case the industrial considerations of the national shipbuilding strategy isn't making things any easier either....it seems to me that the interests of the naval/marine industry is sometimes at odds with those of the RCN.


----------



## NavyShooter

It was said in the past that the NSPS is not a project to get ships for the RCN.  It's a jobs project, with ships being a useful by-product.  

I tend to agree with that assessment.  If we consider that the primary reason for the NSPS appears to be to employ some Canadians and build our industry, then the NSPS will probably succeed with flying colours.  

NS


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Yes, please.
> 
> I read that and would like a better explanation of why there's a shorter effective range.
> 
> Please explain so that  Weapons Engineering CPO2 with a good grounding in SONAR, NAV, and CCS (now CMS) can understand it.
> 
> Oh, and please be careful to use open-source info to backup your answers.  We don't want anything out that shouldn't be.
> 
> NS



Alright i'll give it a shot....I'll admit when i first heard the claim from a USN officer on a cross-pol EX, i too was sceptical. But then i asked our own AAW experts (aboard HDMS Absalon) ...and they said the same thing. Later , on a visit to the Danish Navy's weapon center, they too confirmed it and the explanation i got was as follows : 

On a surface combatant with a low update rotating radar ( like SMART-S mk2s maximum ~2s update rate ) , and no uplink capability to provide mid-course guidance ,....the fire control director (Ceros 200 for both RCN and RDN) has to illuminate the target from launch to impact. So after being launched to a predetermined point close to the ship the ESSM now needs the CW return signals bouncing of the target, to guide it towards that target. 

Now of course the effective range is also affected by the bearing of the incoming threat..... on a head on target this guiding principle has less impact on range.
But against a crossing/ parallel moving target it means that the ESSM has to spend energy maneuvering all the way to impact, since it is just following the CW illuminator. This "curved" flight profile is what reduces range compared to an active or command guided missile which tends to fly in a straighter line to target. 

An Arleigh Burke for instance, with its fixed faced arrays ...receives an almost instantaneous and continuous track of the targets bearing, speed and altitude and uses that information to generate what is called a PIP, predicted intercept point, ie the shortest route to impact. These coordinates are then fed to the ESSM via the S_band uplink and continuously updated based on the targets movements.(ie mid course guidance) On AEGIS equipped ships the version of the ESSM used also has an inbuilt s-band downlink to report its position back to the launch platform for better accuracy. Only a few seconds before it reaches the PIP it enters the terminal phase where it needs illumination from the AN/SPG-62 FCD.

The version used with APAR has an x-band uplink receiver but no downlink but otherwise the guiding principle is very similar. So in short,  in most cases, they achieve longer effective range because they travel in a shorter straight line to target and doesn't have to maneuver as much. 

This explains it well : 
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td2804/Cole.pdf

Now in the real world its probably a lot more complicated and with a lot more variables affecting relative performance.....but the overall principle should still apply. 

Ps: all the above information is readily available in open sources , so i'm not breaking OPSEC.


----------



## jollyjacktar

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Ahh...you must be referring to my former occupation/career as a Tank mechanic.
> Well this is what my "tank" looks like now :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ;D,,,,6 months a year i'm a lot closer to Canada (and the ocean floor) than home.
> I agree and i feel your "pain"....the Thetis class above has prowled the arctic and north atlantic for more than 25 years and will have to soldier on for a further 10-15 years before they are replaced. Canada is not the only first world nation with ancient ships
> So very true, as a marine/naval engineer i know better than most....the ever increasing complexity of ships also requires much greater education, skill and know how of the naval personel involved in both design and construction of new warships.....and finding competent people with the right skill set can be a challenge.
> In your case the industrial considerations of the national shipbuilding strategy isn't making things any easier either....it seems to me that the interests of the naval/marine industry is sometimes at odds with those of the RCN.



I had quite forgotten until after I posted that you're now a sailor, my apologies for thinking you're still a zipperhead.   :facepalm:  As we're both in the Marine Engineering world, I'm sure we more than understand each other's pain of keeping aging platforms afloat, moving and ready to fight.  

Money of course will always be the driver in what we get and use.  I know the project would love to be able to incorporate the new DC systems and gear that is really cutting edge on the Zumwalt class ships.  I understand the USN would love to retrofit it onto all of their platforms but the cost is prohibitive so they're going to get some of it on their Burkes.  Lucky bastards.

I do, btw, really like all of the ships in the running.  The European navies have fantastic ships.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Maybe old news for the experts here,but still wanted to post a bit of info between S-Band Radars and X-band radars.
In no way it's my knowledge,simply copied a piece placed on the dutch forum wich explained a bit,and why the X-band will be the common radar system.(It even seems that the Netherlands(Thales)is way ahead in this field,go fugure that small country.)  ,post was by another,much more experienced than i am (as said i'm no expert)


Some more information:

X-band radar frequency which the APAR uses to designate targets. Until the Zumwaltklasse the Americans only did that with S-band (even though they had come to the conclusion that X-band actually is better).

ICWI is a technique from Thales in wich the active phased array' radar (APAR )  can send missiles simultaneously on multiple targets. It does this by switching rapidly between those goals without tangling the missiles in question. That was a trick the Americans did not know yet. It is now applied to the Zumwalts and the Japanese have it I believe licenced by Thales on their destroyers.

The rockets wich the Netherlands uses on the LCF (Standard and ESSM) were obviously allready adapted , otherwise they would never be able to shoot a missile with APAR

With the new dual-band data link (JUWL) All Standard missiles can easily be made adapteble for both systems (S- and X-band plus ICWI). That is a matter of replacing a circuit board or something like that.So now there's no need for two different versions of  missile to be kept in stock and is also convenient for export ...

Raytheon had JUWL in 2013 in Den Helder tested with APAR. See http://investor.raytheon.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=84193&p=irol-newsArticle&id=1794313

The test program with the US Navy can be found here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy2016/navy-peds/0604366n_5_pb_2016.pdf


----------



## NavyShooter

Dammit that makes sense.

However, my understanding was the mid-course is something we can do.

Now I'm going to have to go talk to an engineer in FMF's AAW shop to settle my thoughts on this.  He'll probably expect coffee.

 :crybaby:



			
				MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Alright i'll give it a shot....I'll admit when i first heard the claim from a USN officer on a cross-pol EX, i too was sceptical. But then i asked our own AAW experts (aboard HDMS Absalon) ...and they said the same thing. Later , on a visit to the Danish Navy's weapon center, they too confirmed it and the explanation i got was as follows :
> 
> On a surface combatant with a low update rotating radar ( like SMART-S mk2s maximum ~2s update rate ) , and no uplink capability to provide mid-course guidance ,....the fire control director (Ceros 200 for both RCN and RDN) has to illuminate the target from launch to impact. So after being launched to a predetermined point close to the ship the ESSM now needs the CW return signals bouncing of the target, to guide it towards that target.
> 
> Now of course the effective range is also affected by the bearing of the incoming threat..... on a head on target this guiding principle has less impact on range.
> But against a crossing/ parallel moving target it means that the ESSM has to spend energy maneuvering all the way to impact, since it is just following the CW illuminator. This "curved" flight profile is what reduces range compared to an active or command guided missile which tends to fly in a straighter line to target.
> 
> An Arleigh Burke for instance, with its fixed faced arrays ...receives an almost instantaneous and continuous track of the targets bearing, speed and altitude and uses that information to generate what is called a PIP, predicted intercept point, ie the shortest route to impact. These coordinates are then fed to the ESSM via the S_band uplink and continuously updated based on the targets movements.(ie mid course guidance) On AEGIS equipped ships the version of the ESSM used also has an inbuilt s-band downlink to report its position back to the launch platform for better accuracy. Only a few seconds before it reaches the PIP it enters the terminal phase where it needs illumination from the AN/SPG-62 FCD.
> 
> The version used with APAR has an x-band uplink receiver but no downlink but otherwise the guiding principle is very similar. So in short,  in most cases, they achieve longer effective range because they travel in a shorter straight line to target and doesn't have to maneuver as much.
> 
> This explains it well :
> http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td2804/Cole.pdf
> 
> Now in the real world its probably a lot more complicated and with a lot more variables affecting relative performance.....but the overall principle should still apply.
> 
> Ps: all the above information is readily available in open sources , so i'm not breaking OPSEC.


----------



## Underway

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> On a surface combatant with a low update rotating radar ( like SMART-S mk2s maximum ~2s update rate ) , and no uplink capability to provide mid-course guidance ,....the fire control director (Ceros 200 for both RCN and RDN) has to illuminate the target from launch to impact. /snip



Really interesting.  So a ship with ESSM (or SM2) defending itself will not notice a range difference as the incoming target and the outgoing one are on reciprocal bearings, but shooting a crossing target would really reduce your range significantly. The mid-course uplink guidance seems to be the key from your article.  It's probably how the PAAMs system can work so well with a rotating radar.

This leads to the next question...

The difference between the AAW version and the GP version of the CSC is going to be...?  There certainly are different requirements.  Really from deck 1 down and aft of the stack its probably going to be near identical.  But the superstructure, sensors, and C4I might be completely different in the two ships.  I suppose the AAW sensors would be not as robust in the GP version for cost savings.  But if you build them all with the same sensors is it just the space for the Flag staff that changes them?  Or just the loadout in the VLS system?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Thanks for this discussion.    I love threads where I actually learn something. This sort of discussion is what makes Army.ca/Navy.ca/Milnet ... one of the very few of the best websites anywhere.

*(Just think how much better it might be if a few more of us donated a few more dollars to help Mike keep the site "on the air.")*​


----------



## Colin Parkinson

On the "modern" vs tried and tested. Considering the failure rate in "modern designs" like the Type 45 and the LCS, the more "elderly" designs are looking pretty good. We would be able twek those designs based on user feedback and experience as well. I doubt hull form principles have changed that much, more so software and installed combat systems are where the biggest changes are.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> On the "modern" vs tried and tested. Considering the failure rate in "modern designs" like the Type 45 and the LCS, the more "elderly" designs are looking pretty good. We would be able to tweak those designs based on user feedback and experience as well. I doubt hull form principles have changed that much, more so software and installed combat systems are where the biggest changes are.



You can make a pretty good argument for the Type 26 as being a safe, low-risk design.  There seems to be little that is new and nothing revolutionary or controversial (F125...) in the ship.  Definitely an evolutionary design using other modern frigates and destroyers for inspiration.  It might be more of a case of bringing mature technologies together in a different way that the other bids (though it could be argued the Sea Ceptor is new).

Best site I could find on the Type 26 for your reading pleasure Colin P.  You keep championing the Danes and Dutch, I'll take the Type 26's corner....  :nod:

_*edit for spelling*_


----------



## Karel Doorman

Underway said:
			
		

> You can make a pretty good argument for the Type 26 as being a safe, low-risk design.  There seems to be little that is new and nothing revolutionary or controversial (F125...) in the ship.  Definitely an evolutionary design using other modern frigates and destroyers for inspiration.  It might be more of a case of bringing mature technologies together in a different way that the other bids (though it could be argued the Sea Ceptor is new).
> 
> Best site I could find on the Type 26 for your reading pleasure Colin P.  You keep championing the Danes and Dutch, I'll take the Type 26's corner....  :nod:
> 
> _*edit for spelling*_



Well if i might,sorry Dutch. [

I'm sure that the Type-26 will be an awesome ASW(mainly)ship,but there are a few buts(as well as for the new dutch ships class which we cal in the Netherlands the vMFF,or replacement M-class,since there is no official name for it yet)
1-Applies to the T-26 and vMFF,they're still being designed,so there's risk(weaponsystems,radaroutfit,etc)
2-Price for the Type-26 will be high from what i read and hear,over a billion a piece,that's why the number is down from what it was and that's why the Type-31 is designed.

But for the rest i'm sure as said it will be an awesome ship(i think the vMFF will be awesome too,but i'm biased) :gottree:


----------



## Navy_Pete

Just got back from a deployment and we had the chance to work closely with both the _Absalon_ as well as several variations of the FREMM class from both the French and Italian navies.  Both were really capable platforms and their sailors really enjoyed working on them. _Absalon_ was particularly impressive; they did a lot of significant and completely different things well enough, and the modules they had for the command staff and extra mission staff all looked really comfortable. Great gym too, which was nice to see.

The modular approach for the combat systems is nice, and this way the powerplants could be common across all of them.  Doesn't really matter if it's full ISSC supported, standard support approach or something in between, common equipment will make logistic/engineering support and obsolescence management much simpler, as the MSE systems are really 95% of the kit on board, even if they don't have the same sex appeal as a missile system or a big gun.

Surprised they allowed the type 26 to be part of the bidding as it's an unproven design, but from talking to some RN guys in general sounds like they are sticking to proven methods (vice the type 45, which had some innovative ideas that didn't work out as well as planned), so should be pretty good once they get the initial bugs worked out.

As an aside, the ship building projects all fall under DGMPD (L&S) (Director general major project developments (land and sea) aka 'surf and turf') vice DGMEPM.  DGMEPM still provides technical support (design review, SOR input etc) but the actual PMOs fall under L&S and report to ADM(Mat).  There is a lot of work between the two but they are separate entities under the Mat umbrella.  The ISSCs will be fall under MEPM, so they had a lot of input into the RFP that went out for AOPs/JSS, as the PMO for that was pretty small (with input from the DMarP folks as well as PW and Industry Canada).  Not really sure what is the plan for any CSC ISSC, but guessing I'll find out in my next job back in the NCR in a few weeks.

It was interesting to see the perspectives between someone who just needs to deliver a product vice the folks that will have to support the product in the design phases.  Sometimes common sense prevailed, where you could justify an initial higher cost for a better product for a lower through life cost, but not all the time.  I think the sticker shock of including the through life costs for the procurement  was part of the political decision to split the two, but if you look at what is happening with the F35, where the different through life costs include all kinds of random things (pilots, fuel etc) makes it difficult to do in a meaningful way, unless you keep it at the system level for major pieces of equipment (ie DG sets, main propulsion engines, etc) vice doing it for everything.


----------



## Scott

So all are aware, I removed a post that linked to a reporter we do not host works of here. I felt that for context I had to bin two posts following. Sorry for any inconvenience.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Scott said:
			
		

> So all are aware, I removed a post that linked to a reporter we do not host works of here. I felt that for context I had to bin two posts following. Sorry for any inconvenience.



No problem,if i was wrong or caused inconvenience i'm deeply sorry.


----------



## Scott

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> No problem,if i was wrong or caused inconvenience i'm deeply sorry.



It's no problem at all. I was making the public post in case the two that followed yours wondered where their posts went.

No more need for apologies, shit happens.

Cheers


----------



## Underway

Well because of the previous misfire here's a story from the CBC on the frigate program delays...



> *Irving Shipbuilding consults with Ottawa on frigate design delay*
> _Irving president says alleged RCMP investigation of vice-admiral has not affected frigate program_
> _By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Feb 02, 2017 8:25 PM ET Last Updated: Feb 02, 2017 10:30 PM ET_
> 
> The Trudeau government is considering an extension to a call for bids from defence contractors interested in designing and equipping Canada's next generation of combat ships.
> 
> Last fall, the federal cabinet approved the release of a long-anticipated request for proposals for an off-the-shelf warship design and combat systems.
> 
> Pre-qualified defence companies lined up for the opportunity to participate in the program, which is expected to run up to $40 billion over three decades.
> 
> A deadline of April 27 was set for bidders 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.
> 
> But almost from the outset the competition, many of the warship designers complained about what they see as a tight turnaround time, even though the project has been in the industry consultation stage for years.
> 
> The notion of an extension is being examined, said Kevin McCoy, president of Irving Shipbuilding.
> 
> *Ottawa to decide*
> 
> "It's something we're in consultation with Canada on," he said in an interview Thursday.
> 
> "It'll be the government's decision. They'll get a recommendation from us, but we'll arrive at the right answer."
> 
> McCoy would not say whether Irving has asked for an extension or how many of the bidders have asked for extra time.
> 
> He did, however, downplay the discord among the notoriously cutthroat contenders.
> 
> "This is normal in a complex procurement that people think they need more time for a whole host of reasons," said McCoy, who testified before the House of Commons defence committee on Thursday.
> 
> A published report two weeks ago in The National Post — citing unnamed sources — said two of the bidders had asked that the entire process be delayed, and two others were considering such a request, in the aftermath of the suspension of the military's deputy commander.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was ordered to hand over his duties on Jan. 13 and is apparently under RCMP investigation for allegedly leaking classified information that may be related to shipbuilding.
> 
> *Suspended vice-admiral being investigated for alleged leak of classified shipbuilding data*
> 
> McCoy said Irving Shipbuilding has no knowledge about what is being investigated, nor has there been an effect on the bidding process.
> 
> "It's really not an issue in the [Canadian Surface Combatant] deliberations right now," he said.
> 
> *Timing crucial*
> 
> However, if the federal government does grant an extension to the bidding deadline, it raises concerns about keeping the frigate replacement program on track.
> 
> One of the questions officials are grappling with is how a delay might affect construction of the new warships, which are meant to replace the navy's 12 Halifax-class patrol frigates built in the 1990s.
> 
> The Irving-owned yard is slated to finish work on the navy's Arctic offshore patrol ships in 2019-20 and transition to the surface combatant project.
> 
> "We're very mindful of gap," said McCoy, who added work interruption raises the possibility of losing trained shipyard workers to other industrial sectors. "It's one of things we're constantly talking to the government about."
> 
> But he said the frigate replacement program is too important to rush.
> 
> "We've got to get the procurement right," McCoy said. "We want good submissions. We want the field to be well-represented and we want industry to feel they have been treated fairly."



Not a huge surprise, two bidders have asked for extentions and some stories have suggested that two others were going to ask for extentions.  If its only a couple of months I don't see a major issue.  There's no big surprise that there would be slippage.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As one of my old friend used to say (and trust me, it's the unofficial motto of commercial litigation lawyers): "It's not because i'm paranoid that they are not out to get me!"

I have learned that in negotiations and in politics, when you want to make a change and either not lose face or not let people notice you are changing, what you do is change your use of vocabulary ever so slightly.

Now, I don't know here if it is a proper reflexion of what is being said by officials or ISL personnel or if it is the journalist's writing but note the subtle changes:

It used to be that the "Canadian Surface Combatant" program was about replacing the fifteen surface warships with three AA/command ships and twelve GP combatant (the terms destroyers or frigates were never used). At the end of this article, the vocab used only mentions twelve replacement ships, and that they are frigates replacements only (GP for the Halifax's).

I think this may be the start of the government seeing us up for (1) less ships and (2) smaller/less capable ones.

But it's just me and I am paranoid when it comes to defence spending. :nod:


----------



## jmt18325

I kind of figured we'd only get 12, since that's been the general trend in western navies.  That doesn't mean that they'll be less capable though, and nothing that was said speaks to that.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Type 26 update--note Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! at end:



> Major investment scrapped at Upper Clyde's last yards
> 
> SHIPBUILDING in Scotland will wither in the global marketplace, it has been claimed, after BAE Systems scaled back much-vaunted investment plans that would have been a “game-changer” for the industry
> 
> The defence giant has confirmed it will no longer invest in a major new outfitting hall to build new frigates for the Royal Navy.
> 
> Instead it will this summer begin a series of less dramatic investments at both its facilities, Govan and Scotstoun, to enable it to carry out what is now a smaller contract than first mooted.
> 
> Shipbuilding insiders stress that scrapping the giant shed, planned for Govan, is just the latest move to downgrade multi-million-pound investments on the Clyde mooted before the Scottish independence referendum in 2014.
> 
> Analysis: Why shipbuilders take the long view
> 
> The investment in shipbuilding had been much-trumpeted ahead of the vote on Scotland's future. Nine months before the ballot, Charlie Blakemore, who is now operations director of BAE Systems, could not have been more upbeat: "It will provide a capacity that is world-class," he said.
> 
> "We will be able to compete in a more level playing field."
> 
> Last year, Defence Secretary Michael Fallon boasted that the order for Type 26 frigates - eight rather than an originally proposed 13 - would secure jobs on the Clyde for 20 years. But unions believe underinvestment is threatening the yards' long-term future after that job is done.
> 
> The trade union convener for the yards, Duncan McPhee, said: "BAE is investing in infrastructure which is essential for the Type 26 programme and in facilities for employees which is welcome.
> 
> “However, the investments are not on the scale we had hoped for. This is not the game-changer it could have been and we have long argued that this is a missed opportunity to provide world class shipbuilding facilities in Glasgow which would have helped us secure future export contracts.
> 
> “Unfortunately, it still means we are constructing ships outside rather than under cover, which is not the way modern shipyards should operate."
> 
> ..._Irving of Nova Scotia, is building a warship dock hall similar to the ones abandoned by BAE Systems and is currently advertising to lure skilled Clydeside shipbuilders to Canada_ [emphasis added]...
> http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/15101460.Major_investment_scrapped_at_Upper_Clyde_s_last_yards/?ref=twtrec



Current planning:



> Work on eight Type 26 frigates to begin in Summer 2017
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-37861162



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Type 26 update--note Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!



Maybe we should call Australia and do a swap.... here are some type 26's you are looking at if you send a few subs our way.  I mean if the all singing and dancing shipyard at Irving is going to be everything the Scottish think it is....


----------



## Underway

The bid due date has been pushed back 2 months to June 22.

http://www.vanguardcanada.com/2017/02/17/bidding-for-surface-combat-ships-set-back/



> Nestor Arellano   Feb 17 2017
> 
> Bidding for the Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program has been pushed back to the summer, according to the federal government.
> 
> The submission of proposals for the $26.2 billion program to source 15 new maritime combat ships for the Royal Canadian Navy was originally due on April 27th this year.
> 
> Twelve pre-qualified bidders had the opportunity to provide input on drafts of the request for proposal as well as the final version, prior to the RFP’s release on Oct. 27, 2016, according to the Public Service and Procurement Canada.
> 
> However, the PSPC and Irving Shipbuilding Inc., the prime contractor for the program, yesterday released a statement saying submissions will now be received until June 22nd.
> 
> According to the PSPC and Irving, companies interested in the project had requested the extension.
> 
> “In order to meet the requirement of the Royal Canadian Navy and provide economic benefits to Canada, it is important to ensure that the government receives the maximum number of bids that meet technical requirements and of high-quality economic benefits to Canada,” the statement said. “At this point, based on feedback from industry, an extension is the best course.
> 
> With this extension, the targeted completion for the procurement process remains the fall of 2017, with ship construction starting in the early 2020’s, according to the PSPC.
> In addition to requests for an extension to the closing date, the procurement department said, bidders also submitted a range of questions about the procurement.
> 
> As of February 10, 2017, bidders submitted 164 questions and received 88 responses.  Bidders have until March 10, 2017, to submit additional questions, according to the PSPC. All questions received prior to this date will receive a response.


----------



## MilEME09

though that doesn't fix the problems, I think the fact that the Italians are threatening to pull out due to the colossal problems in managing the program should alarm people.


----------



## jmt18325

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> though that doesn't fix the problems, I think the fact that the Italians are threatening to pull out due to the colossal problems in managing the program should alarm people.



They're threatening to pull out because they want to build some of the ships.  That was never part of the deal.  Let them go.


----------



## Underway

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> They're threatening to pull out because they want to build some of the ships.  That was never part of the deal.  Let them go.


Evidence, please...

All the bidders "want" to build some of the ships esp DCNS.  So it has nothing to do with the fact they are selling a slightly different version of the FREMM so are essentially competing directly with DCNS, who have greater experience working outside of their own country?  Or that all the best "combat systems integrators" are teamed up with someone else?  Or maybe that the program is actually a gong show right now?   Or that they perceive bias for a specific yard?  Or even that the field is really crowded and that with a 1 in 7 chance of winning it might not be worth it?  Or maybe they are just playing politics like all programs of these type do.


----------



## jmt18325

Underway said:
			
		

> Evidence, please...



I can't provide evidence, as the only evidence comes from someone whose stories we can't link to here.


----------



## jmt18325

BTW, for anyone that wants to find the evidence, look up Canada Shipbuilding Italy in Google.  That might get you there.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, whilst it is a personal interpretation on the part of jmt18325, it is not unreasonable to interpret Finacantierri's recent letter to the Minister of National Defence and the minister responsible for procurement in that way.

Fincantierri indicated that, as currently conceived, they see little advantage for themselves, and probably for other bidders as well, in participating in the process unless there is a high probability of getting some return on the 10 to 20 million dollars they will have to spend to participate.

As currently structured with the "already designed" ship road elected by the Liberal government to reduce risks, it is important to know that Irving is basically asking other shipyards who have designed and build warships for their country to provide them with 100% of their design work and techniques but in a situation where they will then be responsible to Irving and the Government of Canada for the totality of the design - even if they have no say in actual construction as this will be done by Irving - and 100% responsible for the integration work of the combat system, even though they will have no say in the choice of this integrator (picked by Irving) or how that integration work will be done. Basically, Irving has discovered yet a new way with this Liberal modification to the acquisition process to make its money - and then cut any responsibility for its product.

BTW, such process means that Irving will take its profit, but the designer - because of its exposure - will build the risk it assumes into its price, making the overall project yet more expansive.

In its letter, Finacantierri proposed to the GoC, to reduce risk and costs, that the first three ships be build directly by the winning designer (whichever it may be) and those three units thoroughly evaluated by the GoC for suitability in regards to specs. Once the units have passed, then and only then, would the designer transfer all of the design, integration process and knowledge to Irving, who would complete the last 12 units.

Considering the responsibility the designer selected would assume, Fincantierri's proposal makes perfect sense: They build enough units at their own yard, under their own control, to prove the design fully satisfies the GoC. Then they teach Irving exactly how to do it. If there are problems with the last 12 units, then the government knows it should look at Irving as the cause, as the design is proven.

Moreover, with Fincantierri's proposal, the first three units could be built by whichever yard is selected as designer while Irving is still busy with the AOPS, thus saving time.

The ministers referred Fincantierri's proposal to Irving, which did not exactly make Fincantierri warm inside. I have no doubt this is the last thing Irving wants, since they would not be able to pass the puck for any flaw in the ships they would build.


----------



## MilEME09

Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.


----------



## George Wallace

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.



My baseline for Irving Shipyards was the condition of the CN Marine ferry, the John Hamilton Grey, sailing between Borden and Cape Tormentine.  It was not very favourable.  It was disconcerting to see missing plates from under the Bridge on a ship that was less than a decade old.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.



Which is why it will never happen.  ;D


----------



## Karel Doorman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Makes sense to me, we get three ships to replace our retired destroyers in the fleet, cost goes down, Irving still gets work, and we have a baseline to compare Irvings work to. Sounds like a win-win to me.



Indeed,you can't expect a yard(whichever one)to"fork" over their designs and knowledge and in the best case not get blamed if anything is stuffed by another yard. :-[

And it would be nice to be able to campare work.(who's able and who's not)

But i'm too logical.


----------



## jmt18325

I'm not really interpreting much.  They want to build 3 of the ships.  That was never part of the deal.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Earlier:



> RCN Canadian Surface Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-irving-intellectual-property-and-espionage-plus-fighters-and-trump/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

And with apologies to Little Orphan Annie "Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow..........."



> *Multibillion-dollar naval warship project hits another delay*
> 
> LEE BERTHIAUME, THE CANADIAN PRESS  05.26.2017
> 
> OTTAWA — Hopes that the multibillion-dollar effort to replace the navy's warship fleet would move along quickly have taken a hit amid word the massive shipbuilding project has suffered another delay.
> 
> The federal government launched a competition last fall asking some of the world's largest defence and shipbuilding firms to design a potential replacement for the navy's 12 frigates and three destroyers.
> 
> Companies were given until the end of April to submit their designs, after which one would be selected and constructed by Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.
> 
> Government officials warned at the time that there was little room for delays or other hang-ups.
> 
> But *the federal public procurement department, which already extended the submission deadline by two months in February, says the companies have now been given even more time to enter their designs.
> 
> How much time?
> 
> "A new submission deadline will be communicated to the bidders shortly," Public Services and Procurement Canada spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold said in an email.*
> 
> Officials say the latest extension was needed to finish answering the approximately 560 questions that participating firms have asked the department about the bidding process since the competition started.
> 
> But this latest delay in what is the largest military procurement project in Canadian history, with a value of up to $40 billion, is cause for concern, given past assertions about the need for speed.
> 
> The navy recently retired all its destroyers, meaning fewer ships to patrol Canada's coasts and operate overseas, as well as a shortage of air-defence capabilities, until the new vessels arrive in the mid-2020s.
> 
> But more importantly, government officials said in October that they wanted Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax to begin work on the new warships as soon as it finishes the last of five new Arctic patrol ships in 2019.
> 
> Officials have said a gap, which currently sits at about two years as work on the warships isn't expected to start until 2021, would cost tax dollars as workers and equipment sit idle and material costs go up.
> 
> "From a program perspective, we have not a lot of flexibility," Patrick Finn, the head of military procurement at the Department of National Defence, said in October.
> 
> "Right now, schedule is very important for us. There are some risks emerging that we need to deal with."
> 
> Irving president Kevin McCoy has also since warned of "significant layoffs" at the Halifax shipyard, unless the gap is closed or the government provides it with more work.
> 
> Bujold said minimizing the gap remains a high priority for the government and Irving and that "the extent and impact of the gap will continue to be analyzed and potential mitigation actions examined."
> 
> Irving spokesman Sean Lewis echoed that assessment, saying in a statement that the company was working with the government "towards minimizing any disruption to the workforce" because of the gap.
> 
> "It is important that we take time to listen to the short-listed bidders and respond to their questions," Lewis added. "This will ensure they are able to submit a thorough and well-informed response."
> 
> Irving was selected in 2010 to construct between six and eight Arctic patrol vessels for $2.3 billion and 15 warships, known in defence circles as Canadian surface combatants, for $26 billion.
> 
> Both projects have since been amended due to scheduling and cost issues. Irving is now committed to building five Arctic ships, though it may add a sixth.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Liberal government has said it will not discuss a price or how many warships it will buy until more information is available, after documents pegged the cost at closer to $40 billion.



http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/naval+warship+project+hits+another+delay/13399362/story.html

Meanwhile we have this suggestion

http://navy.ca/forums/threads/17282/post-1490083.html#msg1490083



> I think we should ask Davie to provide a Turn key CSC alternative bid and see what they come up with.



But I think we are seeing some pushback on that front 

The Globe and CTV seem to have decided Davie are not nice.



> BARRIE MCKENNA
> Quebec’s Davie shipyard: the boondoggle that keeps taking





> Quebec seeks probe of Davie shipyard as part of contract review
> STEVEN CHASE, DANIEL LEBLANC AND ROBERT FIFE
> OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
> Published Thursday, May 25, 2017 10:10PM EDT
> Last updated Friday, May 26, 2017 7:16AM EDT



Together with Fife's previous "Tale of Two Shipyards"  and the CDR battle this is all starting to look really interesting.

Is it too much to hope that some light may penetrate stygian depths?  And we might discover that even with a paltry 20 BCAD per annum we might be able to buy appropriate quantities of suitable kit in a timely fashion.

Heading for another beer.  Anyone want pizza?


----------



## Lumber

This solution seems insanely simple. 

Ask Irving what kind of ship or ships they can build over a 2-4 year period. Evaluate those designs against current market demand. Pay Irving to build however many of those vessels they can between the end of AOPS and whenever CSC starts. We have no use for these ships, so sell them on the open market to whomever needs them (hence the market research).

We may take a loss on this, but that loss is basically a premium laid to keep Irving and it's employees working. This sounds like another shitty bailout for Irving, but in the long run, keeping those employees working ensure they continue to build experience in shipbuilding, that we don't lose them together to other industries, it ensures Irving is 100% ready to hit the ground running when CSC does start, and it's good for the local economy. 

Why is this so complicated? 

Lots of places use ferries; just build some f*kkin ferries.


----------



## serger989

I find it interesting that Irving is saying there would be layoffs after the bust if the government doesn't get the ball rolling and give them more work. Is it impossible for them to have more work outside of government contracts though? If so then their stance makes sense. If not... They need to build up a larger customer base and increase their capacity.


----------



## Stoker

serger989 said:
			
		

> I find it interesting that Irving is saying there would be layoffs after the bust if the government doesn't get the ball rolling and give them more work. Is it impossible for them to have more work outside of government contracts though? If so then their stance makes sense. If not... They need to build up a larger customer base and increase their capacity.



Its all part of the game, plead poverty and all the layoffs if they don't get work.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

KINGSTON  was laid down in December 94, and SUMMERSIDE hit the water in September 98. Basically 4 years to build the class when ISL was a crappy yard (allegedly) as compared to the ultra modern technology now at their disposal.

By 2019 (beginning of the alleged 2 year gap), SUMMERSIDE will have been in commission for 20 years, and KINGSTON for 22 years.

Two possibilities I can see: Use the gap to do major mid-life and upgrades on the MCDVs so they can go on for another 20 years. Or, in the next six months, come up with specifications for some sort of coastal defence vessel - keep it simple and let the designers come up with propositions (my preference would be around 1000t., 60 to 70 meters l.o.a., capable of 25 kts., no helicopter) that would become the next generation of vessels capable of providing gainful employment for reservists and keep their skill levels high without interfering too much in the operations of the main surface fleet), hold a design competition - these are simple vessels and a design can be developed, then reviewed and selected in a maximum of 18 months, to then let the contract to Irving to build them between 2019 and 2021, or up to whenever the gap is closed.

Then, if this second option: sell the MCDVs to other less fortunate navies, as there are always some looking for these kind of vessels.

As they say at Kayak: Problem Solved!


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> KINGSTON  was laid down in December 94, and SUMMERSIDE hit the water in September 98. Basically 4 years to build the class when ISL was a crappy yard (allegedly) as compared to the ultra modern technology now at their disposal.
> 
> By 2019 (beginning of the alleged 2 year gap), SUMMERSIDE will have been in commission for 20 years, and KINGSTON for 22 years.
> 
> Two possibilities I can see: Use the gap to do major mid-life and upgrades on the MCDVs so they can go on for another 20 years. Or, in the next six months, come up with specifications for some sort of coastal defence vessel - keep it simple and let the designers come up with propositions (my preference would be around 1000t., 60 to 70 meters l.o.a., capable of 25 kts., no helicopter) that would become the next generation of vessels capable of providing gainful employment for reservists and keep their skill levels high without interfering too much in the operations of the main surface fleet), hold a design competition - these are simple vessels and a design can be developed, then reviewed and selected in a maximum of 18 months, to then let the contract to Irving to build them between 2019 and 2021, or up to whenever the gap is closed.
> 
> Then, if this second option: sell the MCDVs to other less fortunate navies, as there are always some looking for these kind of vessels.
> 
> As they say at Kayak: Problem Solved!



The Kingston Class were built to commercial standards and not all the ship was built as HSL, the bows were constructed separately in Georgetown PEI, floated up on a barge and mated with the superstructure thus the relative fast build time for 12 ships. The Class is still being looked at retention post 2019, most likely scenario some may be paid off however the rumblings I have heard is major items being refitted during their 60M docking. The intent is to use the Kingston Class to develop crews for the AOPS as I understand it.
Naval reservists are employed across across all classes of RCN ships. With the addition of AOPS, there is no immediate need of a coastal defence vessel.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> KINGSTON  was laid down in December 94, and SUMMERSIDE hit the water in September 98. Basically 4 years to build the class when ISL was a crappy yard (allegedly) as compared to the ultra modern technology now at their disposal.
> 
> By 2019 (beginning of the alleged 2 year gap), SUMMERSIDE will have been in commission for 20 years, and KINGSTON for 22 years.
> 
> Two possibilities I can see: Use the gap to do major mid-life and upgrades on the MCDVs so they can go on for another 20 years. Or, in the next six months, come up with specifications for some sort of coastal defence vessel - keep it simple and let the designers come up with propositions (my preference would be around 1000t., 60 to 70 meters l.o.a., capable of 25 kts., no helicopter) that would become the next generation of vessels capable of providing gainful employment for reservists and keep their skill levels high without interfering too much in the operations of the main surface fleet), hold a design competition - these are simple vessels and a design can be developed, then reviewed and selected in a maximum of 18 months, to then let the contract to Irving to build them between 2019 and 2021, or up to whenever the gap is closed.
> 
> Then, if this second option: sell the MCDVs to other less fortunate navies, as there are always some looking for these kind of vessels.
> 
> As they say at Kayak: Problem Solved!



How about as above but with a flat spot but no hangar?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Smaller vessels can also get into some harbours that the bigger ones cannot.


----------



## Kirkhill

And up rivers that bigger ones can't.

I have this fantasy exercise of an RCN unit leaving from the Lakehead and ending up in Yellowknife.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And up rivers that bigger ones can't.
> 
> I have this fantasy exercise of an RCN unit leaving from the Lakehead and ending up in Yellowknife.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin P said:
			
		

>



Is that Steve McQueen I see up against the taffrail?


----------



## Stoker

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And up rivers that bigger ones can't.
> 
> I have this fantasy exercise of an RCN unit leaving from the Lakehead and ending up in Yellowknife.



Well we are having RCN river craft going from Yellowknife to Hudson's bay this summer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canoes?  [


----------



## Stoker

Colin P said:
			
		

> Canoes?  [



Jet boats I believe.


----------



## quadrapiper

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> Jet boats I believe.


Only thing fast enough to outrun the mosquitoes.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

In the arctic, nothing outruns the mosquitoes!

All kidding aside, the RCN does not have "river" crafts per se. Moreover, you have to get the crafts up there to start with.

So what we are talking about is RHiBs, including possibly the protection ones used in Halifax and Esquimalt that have an enclosed small cabin, as those type of crafts are the only ones that we have that will fit inside a Herc or a C-17 for delivery to Yellowknife.

Even if it is the enclosed cabin ones, a trip from Yellowknife to the Arctic along the whole length of the MacKenzie river rates as Adventure Training, as far as I am concerned.

And for a Lake head to Yellowknife transit, I would not want to use the Brazilian river patrol vessels, like the RAPOSO TAVARES whose picture Colin provided. That thing has barge like flat bottom and it would keel over in any type of storm on the Great lakes, in the gulf of Saint-Lawrence or along the coast of  Labrador.


----------



## Stoker

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In the arctic, nothing outruns the mosquitoes!
> 
> All kidding aside, the RCN does not have "river" crafts per se. Moreover, you have to get the crafts up there to start with.
> 
> So what we are talking about is RHiBs, including possibly the protection ones used in Halifax and Esquimalt that have an enclosed small cabin, as those type of crafts are the only ones that we have that will fit inside a Herc or a C-17 for delivery to Yellowknife.
> 
> Even if it is the enclosed cabin ones, a trip from Yellowknife to the Arctic along the whole length of the MacKenzie river rates as Adventure Training, as far as I am concerned.
> 
> And for a Lake head to Yellowknife transit, I would not want to use the Brazilian river patrol vessels, like the RAPOSO TAVARES whose picture Colin provided. That thing has barge like flat bottom and it would keel over in any type of storm on the Great lakes, in the gulf of Saint-Lawrence or along the coast of  Labrador.



We actually did it in Whalers in the 70's.






RAdm John F. Newton,
Commander Maritime Forces Atlantic ~

As sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy, we take pride in our inheritance of skill in patrol of the North Atlantic and vast Pacific Ocean. Recent experiences in operations that ranged from the Black Sea, to the Gulf of Guinea, and deep into Indo-Asia-Pacific have reasserted our global “deployability”.

In a new undertaking, 20 hand-picked sailors will gain experiential learning in a bold and completely new task. They will set sail on a once-in-a-lifetime voyage of Canada’s longest waterway, the Mackenzie River.

In celebration of Canada’s 150th anniversary, four force protection cutters will join Operation Nunakput 17. The flotilla will follow the waters that drain into a great watershed of northwestern Canada, from Great Slave Lake to the Beaufort Sea. On a voyage extending 4,000 kilometres to the sea and back, sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy will witness their land and peoples in a manner that very few have experienced.

How to apply

Over the next few weeks, the MARLANT Formation Chief, CPO1 Pierre Auger, will lead a selection process for the Nunakput boat crews. Personnel interested in obtaining more information should contact Chief Auger directly at Pierre.Auger@forces.gc.ca. Those wishing to participate are to make their interest known through their unit chain of command.

Operation Nunakput

Operation Nunakput is a sovereignty operation conducted annually under the command of Joint Task Force North. The mission is undertaken jointly with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and Provincial Government partners in order to ensure maximum sovereignty expression in the sparsely populated North.

Military participants include the 1st Canadian Ranger Patrol Group and five of their Patrols along the Mackenzie River. In the air, 440 Transport Squadron will sustain the mission using the venerable Canadian bush plane, the CC-138 Twin Otter. Canadian Army personnel will support the mission with Ranger Instructors and logistics.

After successfully testing the feasibility of force protection cutters during Nunakput 16, four of these high powered jet boats have been prepared for the 2017 mission.

Each cutter will be crewed by four sailors, male and female, selected from the two coastal Formations, national headquarters and Naval Reserve. The first group will execute the down-bound transit from Yellowknife, the second the up-bound leg. Inuvik, on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, will be the crew change and turnaround point. Each group will spend about seven days on the Mackenzie River, and between two and three days total in transit to and from the mission. The overall mission window is July 4 to 20.

Nights will be spent camping out in the great Canadian Boreal Forest. Field craft and small boat operating skills will be learned from Rangers. Engaging with fellow citizens living in remote communities will ensure that the mission is both a memorable experience and key learning opportunity as the navy prepares to take delivery of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels.

Indeed, the skills learned on Nunakput are formative requirements for those who will routinely voyage north in HMCS Harry DeWolf and the other ships of the class.

This will be an epic adventure, an important learning moment, and thrilling Canada 150 celebration. The mission commander is Lt(N) Jeff Horne, the second in command, Chief Petty Officer Second Class Currie.


----------



## Kirkhill

Time for me to drop a buck on a lottery.  Fantasy meets reality.

The variant exercise could see a flotilla of boats leave the Lakehead, transit to Quebec City, be taken aboard a pair of deWolfs, delivered to the mouth of the Mackenzie and then Navigate upstream to Yellowknife..... or, since you are doing boats see if you can make it to Peace River or Athabaska.

Yep.  It would just be adventure training - in the same sense that most of the Arctic Sovereignty exercises are adventure training.  The point is it is done because it can be done because we own the place.

And the Press coverage wouldn't be bad either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In the arctic, nothing outruns the mosquitoes!
> 
> All kidding aside, the RCN does not have "river" crafts per se. Moreover, you have to get the crafts up there to start with.
> 
> So what we are talking about is RHiBs, including possibly the protection ones used in Halifax and Esquimalt that have an enclosed small cabin, as those type of crafts are the only ones that we have that will fit inside a Herc or a C-17 for delivery to Yellowknife.
> 
> Even if it is the enclosed cabin ones, a trip from Yellowknife to the Arctic along the whole length of the MacKenzie river rates as Adventure Training, as far as I am concerned.
> 
> And for a Lake head to Yellowknife transit, I would not want to use the Brazilian river patrol vessels, like the RAPOSO TAVARES whose picture Colin provided. That thing has barge like flat bottom and it would keel over in any type of storm on the Great lakes, in the gulf of Saint-Lawrence or along the coast of  Labrador.



Believe it or not as far as I am aware the CCG sailed all their rivercraft up to Western Arctic from Vancouver


----------



## MarkOttawa

PBO report just out:



> The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants
> 1 June 2017
> 
> *Get the report*
> The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants.pdf
> http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf
> 
> *Summary*
> 
> The objective of this report is to provide a cost estimate of the CSC program. This estimate includes costs resulting from development, production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management and upgrades to existing facilities. It does _not include costs associated with the operation, maintenance and mid-life refurbishment of the ships_ [emphasis added], other than the spare parts that will be purchased when the ships are built.
> 
> There are two primary cost drivers for surface combatants: the ship’s weight and the combat system. The weight of surface combatants has been increasing, while their combat systems have become more and more complex, both factors driving up their cost.
> 
> Assumptions which the PBO used for it estimation were:
> 
> Contract awarded in 2018
> Construction starts in 2021
> 15th ship delivered in 2041
> CSC based on an existing design with _5,400 tons used as the reference lightship weight_ [emphasis added]
> 
> Total _program cost in FY2017 dollars is estimated to be $39.94 billion or $61.82 billion in then-year dollars. The original budget for the CSC was $26.2 billion (from 2008 and under review)_ [emphasis added] and it is estimated to buy six ships...
> http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/CSC_costing



Gentlemen and gentlewomen, start your abaci.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

woe woe woe woe, hold the phone did i just read *SIX* ships!??? may god have mercy on our navy


----------



## Karel Doorman

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> woe woe woe woe, hold the phone did i just read *SIX* ships!??? may god have mercy on our navy


I thought it was 15.If it's only 6 then oh my God that price(seems like they will get 6 Starships "Enterprise")  [Xp

Also upgrades,training,etc is not included,ludacrous pricing.

I'm sure it's possible to built 15 LCF's(the Zeven Provincien class)for less of half that price(scratch that a third is also possible).,Or maybe 8 LCF's and 7 of the new ASW frigate(vMFF),no name yet,not build yet.Just get on the phone with Damen and all will be solved,lol.


----------



## MilEME09

"61.82 billion in then-year dollars" for six ships in other words 10.25 billion give or take a few thousand for six ships. someone wanna explain to me how one of these damn CSC's cost as much a damn Ford class aircraft carrier?


----------



## suffolkowner

The Australian Hobarts are running over $3B each so add inflation a less capable shipbuilding industry etc..


----------



## Kirkhill

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> I thought it was 15.If it's only 6 then oh my God that price(seems like they will get 6 Starships "Enterprise")  [Xp
> 
> Also upgrades,training,etc is not included,ludacrous pricing.
> 
> I'm sure it's possible to built 15 LCF's(the Zeven Provincien class)for less of half that price(scratch that a third is also possible).,Or maybe 8 LCF's and 7 of the new ASW frigate(vMFF),no name yet,not build yet.Just get on the phone with Damen and all will be solved,lol.



Karel -  the difference is that you folks actually build ships.

Slainte.  :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You people are reading all this wrongly.

Here is the exact reference to 6 ships from the PBO report:

"_*PBO estimates that for the program to stay within the original budget of $26.2 billion (then-year dollars), the government could build only six ships*_"

It's important to understand the difference between "then year dollars" and "FY-2017 dollars", and remember that the original figure was derived in 2008.

Then year dollars means actual value of money year to year as it loses (or gains, but that's not happened in a long time) purchasing power, so it includes for instance both 100M$ used in 2017 and $100M$ used in 2030 as 100M$ even though, by 2030, that may only purchase what used to cost $25M$ in 2017. All the sentence means from the PBO is that, if we were to use the original amount of 26B$ forecasted and use it as we go along, it would end up purchasing only six ships.

More important and of greater value is the Average Ship Cost appearing in the table:

It lists the average cost for fifteen ships in FY2017 as 1.66B$ each. This means that if we were to acquire all fifteen ships in this fiscal year, that would be the average price. Considering the AAD version cost about 3B$ each and the ASW/GP version cost about 1.2 B$ each in today's market, the PBO is about right.

But more interesting, is the calculated average cost "in then years" for the whole fleet of 15, with construction spread from 2021 to 2041: It is 2.73B$ per ship. That's not so bad for ships 23 years from now. For comparison sake, the PBO shows that the "then-dollar" cost of the HALIFAX was 470 million dollars each. The Hal's were built over a period of only 9 years however.

For a better comparison, consider that the US Navy, which mass produces destroyers, went from a cost of 750M$ (Canadian dollars here for comparison) for the first Arleigh Burke in 1989, to $2.1B$ each for the latest ones.

So MilEME, the 61B$ figure is for 15 ships, and of that, only 41B$ is the actual cost of the ships. The rest is for facilities, spare parts, training, government "management" cost of the program, etc. etc., as all listed by the PBO.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In 15 years most of the welding, cutting and plate handling will be by robots, likely driving down costs. Even the cost of Robots will fall as they become more common and capable.


----------



## MarkOttawa

So Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! for robots not voters?  Unless Liberals can find way to extend the franchise... 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Seyek

The report mentions that there will only be one variant, I was under the impression we were still going with two, 3 AAW and 12 ASW, has that changed?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Why are they not delivering the last ship until 2041?

That seems incredibly slow....


M.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

What!!! And retire the last HAL before it has reached the appropriate age of 45 years of service?

That is so un-canadian, Blackshirt. Shame on you for even suggesting it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note PBO report on Canadian Surface Combatant costs mentions possible missile defence capability (pp.19-20 PDF):
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

More earlier on CSC and missile defence:



> Technology and Politics – Canadian Ballistic Missile Defence
> https://defencemuse.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/technology-and-politics-canadian-ballistic-missile-defence/



Be interesting to see if the defence review dares deal with this aspect.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Karel Doorman

GAN radar directed  at CSC:

Thales puts forward the APAR2 for the new Canadian Combatants;



Thales Nederland is showcasing its APAR Block 2 radar at CANSEC, having proposed the sensor for inclusion in the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) warship.

Canada invested in the development of the original APAR (active phased array radar), and while it was not adopted in Canada, the system was sold to the navies of Denmark, Germany and the Netherlands. APAR Block 2 is a new, ship-agnostic system that could be applied to a number of CSC design proposals.

Thales (Booth 1701) has developed APAR Block 2 with development funding from the Royal Netherlands Navy. However, there is considerable Canadian involvement in the form of the transmit/receive modules (TRMs) provided by Sanmina. In the new APAR iteration, those modules employ gallium nitride (GaN) semiconductor technology in place of the gallium arsenide (GaAs) TRMs used in APAR Block 1.

GaN permits greater mode flexibility and greater power transmission, and the radar no longer requires waveguides.

APAR Block 2 is an X-band radar offering rapid detection and tracking of small-RCS (radar cross-section) targets at low elevations, with an ability to see out to the horizon and beyond.

Unlike other radars, which require separate illumination systems, APAR Block 2 has the ability to provide guidance for missiles such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile and Standard Missile 2.

In a warship installation, APAR Block 2 would be part of a dual-band radar system, partnered by a Thales SeaMaster 400 S-band array offering a range of 450‑500km.

This was developed as a non-rotating radar for the Royal Netherlands Navy’s Holland class offshore patrol vessels. Both radars have four fixed arrays in a mast (along with surface search sensors) to provide 360° coverage, and they share a common processor.

Automated radar task scheduling optimises the employment of both antenna sets.

The Canadian DND has outlined a number of extreme threat environments in which the CSC’s defensive systems must operate, and Thales is confident that its system, with APAR Block 2, can meet the challenges associated with them.



http://www.janes.com/article/71025/gan-radar-directed-at-csc-cansec17d2#.WTEHf-irhgw.twitter


----------



## MarkOttawa

Irving and Canadian gov't to be trusted with CSC IP?  Plus USN:



> Analysis
> Intellectual property could be key as Canada and U.S. compete for frigate-building bids
> _Bidders might choose to participate in 'one, but not both' shipbuilding projects, analyst says_
> 
> The U.S. navy is in the market for up to 20 patrol frigates in a multibillion-dollar program that one defence expert says could cut into Canada's plans for its own, more modest project.
> 
> Not only is the American program more lucrative, but Canada's intellectual property demands could put it at a further disadvantage in the fight for international bidders, says defence analyst Danny Lam.
> 
> The Pentagon issued a request for information to the defence industry on July 10 for its new warship program. It proposes to open up competition to foreign designs in a manner similar to the Liberal government.
> 
> Lam says both programs have very similar requirements, but the Americans are moving more aggressively and want to begin construction on the first frigate in 2020.
> 
> The Canadian program, on the other hand, remains on schedule for the "early 2020s," according to Public Works and Procurement Services Canada.
> 
> Bidder urges overhaul of design tender in $60B navy frigate program
> Backroom battle underway over new frigate design data
> 
> Perhaps more importantly, Lam said, is the backroom dispute over intellectual property rights that's been raging for over a year between ship designers and the Liberal government.
> 
> Ship designers from France, Britain, Italy and the U.S., among others, are part of the Canadian competition.
> 
> Some of the 12 bidders, particularly those with designs dependant on electronics developed in conjunction with their home governments, have balked at the amount of technical data being requested by the Canadian government.
> 
> Defence and procurement officials have insisted the information is necessary to maintain the new fleet in the decades to come.
> 
> Part of the issue, Lam said, is the fact the nearly $60-billion Canadian program is being managed by an outside company, Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.
> 
> He said companies are concerned their data could be appropriated and used by Irving, or others in the industry, to come up with an entirely new warship design.
> 
> Irving officials, speaking on background in the past, have dismissed that concern.
> 
> Lam also predicted that once the project's database is established, the Canadian program will become a top target for Chinese, Russian and North Korean hackers, who would try to steal the information.
> 
> As such, the U.S. government would likely have significant security concerns about those companies participating in the Canadian program, Lam said.
> 
> "They can participate in one or the other, but not both programs."
> 
> *Government wants intellectual property*...
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/us-frigate-program-1.4216582



Earlier:



> RCN Canadian Surface Combatant, Irving, Intellectual Property…and Espionage (plus fighters and Trump)
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/12/05/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-irving-intellectual-property-and-espionage-plus-fighters-and-trump/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Can't the IP be held by the government and used by government as required, Irving only getting enough access to build the ship?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Article by Danny Lam that spurred Murray Brewster CBC piece above:



> Can USN sink Canada’s IP Piracy policy?
> 
> The U.S. Navy has decided it needs some new ships. Canada has been toying with the idea of a new Surface Combatant for years now, with very little progress. Will the IP requirements of one project impact the other? Let's compare.
> 
> With the goal of keeping costs down by using common equipment, the U.S. Navy’s new FFG(X) program (Guided Missile Frigate Replacement) is requesting information from both domestic and foreign shipbuilders for derivatives of an existing design for a class of 20 guided-missile ships that can be delivered starting in 2024.
> 
> At first, the USN had considered upgrading and enlarging its Littoral Combat Ship, but realized the time constraints would not permit such an extensive redesign. In theory, the requirements can be met with an upgraded Coast Guard National Security Cutter or a refreshed Oliver Hazard Perry Frigate, but the turnaround will be faster and price tag cheaper if chosen from an existing design. From that field, the ARGE F125, Fincantieri FREMM, Naval Group FREMM or its new Belharra, Navantia F-105, BAE Type 26 GCS, and Odense Iver Huitfeldt, are known to be in the running of foreign designs. The deadline for a response to the U.S. RFI (Request for Information) on the FFG(X) is 24 August 2017.
> 
> Canada is presently in the midst of a major procurement for the over 7000 ton displacement Surface Combatant vessels. Not surprisingly, most if not all of the qualified bidders for the Canadian program are also candidates for America's newest frigate replacement program, the 4000-7000 ton FFG(X).
> 
> Other than size, the biggest difference is that Canada is looking to select both a platform design and a combat system, whereas the U.S. RFI is for a platform design only, however, the FFG(X) will be equipped with many sophisticated systems, weapons and unmanned technologies.
> 
> A quick comparison of the two schedules, however, is astounding. The CSC procurement process for up to 15 vessels is twice as long as for the 20 completed FFG(X) ships – 16 years for 20 U.S. ships vs 38 years for Canada's 15 ships.
> 
> CSC: Industry Day (late 2012); Design contract (2018); Build contract (2021); First delivery (2026 or later); Final delivery (2050).
> FFG(X): Industry Day (mid-2017); Design and build contract (2020-21); First delivery (2024); Final delivery (2033).
> 
> Another key difference is that the U.S. Navy's procurement department has a full time staff of knowledgeable experts to evaluate and make decisions on the FFG(X) design, whereas in Canada, the Navy is not in the lead. Instead, the evaluation team of the privately-owned Irving Shipbuilding Inc (ISI) is a key decision-maker for the Government of Canada.
> 
> According to a spokesperson for ISI, "the Government of Canada has set the requirements for the CSC design RFP. Short-listed bidders will submit their RFP response to Irving Shipbuilding. Using the Government of Canada approved Evaluation Plan and Criteria, Irving Shipbuilding and the Government of Canada will assess the submitted proposals. The Government of Canada will make the final decision on selection of a design. All stages will be monitored by Canada’s Fairness Monitor."
> 
> Canada's Department of National Defence budgets the CSC platform and combat system at $26.2 billion, while the Parliamentary Budget Officer says a more realistic number is $61.8 billion. Experienced European shipbuilders are baffled by this figure, saying the vessels can be built for much less, which leads us to ask: who is accountable? As for the FFG(X), no budget has yet been determined.
> 
> How do these two programs relate? In fact, there is a direct security risk based on the procurement process alone. Let's look at the global picture first.
> 
> The security of commercial and military intellectual property is always a major issue, as Canada's spy agency, CSIS, openly warned less than a year ago. Western defence contractors – from major primes to small subcontractors – are all being targeted by Chinese, Russian, Iranian, North Korean, and other spies and agents who are eager to acquire commercially and militarily sensitive information. Thus, program security is a major concern.
> 
> What are the ramifications of these security and corporate espionage issues, and how will Canada's Surface Combatant procurement process impact the U.S. and its FFG(X) program?..
> http://defence.frontline.online/blogs/3896-Dr.-Danny-Lam/7750-Can-USN-sink-Canada%E2%80%99s-IP-Piracy-policy%3F



Read on.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good grief:



> Deadline for warship designs missing in action
> 
> The plan to replace the navy's warship fleet is officially sailing uncharted waters, as an important deadline for the $60-billion project has all but disappeared.
> 
> The federal government launched a competition last fall asking some of the world's largest defence and shipbuilding firms to design a potential replacement for the navy's frigates and destroyers.
> 
> Companies were given until the end of April to submit their designs, after which one would be selected and constructed by Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.
> 
> But after the federal government announced it was extending a second time in May, companies still don't know when their designs are now due.
> 
> The government says it continues to work with industry to deliver the warships the navy needs, and that a deadline for the designs to be submitted will be set soon.
> 
> But the development has left some defence experts and industry representatives puzzled and worried about the fate of what is the single largest military procurement in Canadian history.
> 
> The Canadian Press
> http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/07/25/deadline-for-warship-designs-missing-in-action-3/#.WXd3wemQzwo



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJKMji2688M


----------



## Karel Doorman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Good grief:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Yeah Canada will get new ships(Surface combatants)when is unknown. [Xp

But what is known is which 1,in my opinion,i mean they keep on pushing the "deadline",and now the Type-26 comes in play.(Although i seem to remember that the new ships would be build of an existing design)


----------



## MarkOttawa

Karel Doorman: see relating to Type 26 maybe:



> Irving Working with BAE Systems: Implications for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/mark-collins-irving-working-with-bae-systems-implications-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Brief I was given recently said that all the warship bidders were in pre-compliancy checks or something like that.  Basically the gov't and RCN were looking at all the CSC bids before they were officially submitted to ensure that they were compliant with the gov't requirements.  They want to help/ensure industry with/is meeting the requirements and that no bids are thrown out because of some compliance if possible, especially for something dumb like they forgot to submit something.  (Damn it Gary, it was your responsibility for the fire main pump specs!!).

These are big complicated bids so there are a lot of moving parts and stuff can get dropped/lost easily.  Should there be a compliance issue then the bidder will have time to figure out what they want to do (not bid, fix compliancy, etc...) before the bid is officially submitted.

There have been a number of non-compliant bids for various mil procurement since 2006 and the RCN seems to want to ensure that all the ducks are in a row before the "final deadline".  The navy also wants as many bidders compliant as possible to have a quote "really good solid competition to get the best ship for the navy and the best deal for the taxpayers".

Delays and lack of deadline reported might have something to do with this process.  Maybe we are taking to long to do the pre-screen or maybe there are compliancy issues they are letting some bidders sort out before giving a solid deadline.


----------



## MarkOttawa

USN sure planning to move a whole lot faster than RCN has:



> Navy Hosts Guided-Missile Frigate Industry Day; Analysts Worried About Early FFG(X) Requirements
> 
> The Navy held an industry day for companies interested in participating in the frigate program, walking them through what is already decided about the future ship program and what decisions are pending industry feedback.
> 
> The guided-missile frigate program, FFG(X), is the Navy’s latest iteration of the small surface combatant program, which was first filled by the Littoral Combat Ship and then subsequently by the LCS-based frigate (FF), which would be up-gunned, up-armored and multi-mission compared to the LCS.
> 
> The FFG(X) program, announced earlier this year, will take the best of the LCS and LCS-based frigate ideas – multi-mission design, a reliance on unmanned vehicles in all domains to increase range, a smaller design to reduce cost and increase access to global ports compared to the larger surface combatants – while adding features such as vertical-launched missiles and more powerful radars, the service says.
> 
> _According to the Navy’s industry day presentation slides, obtained by USNI News, industry will have until Aug. 24 to respond to the Navy’s request for information (RFI), released two weeks ago. The Navy will then enter a conceptual design phase to help take existing ship designs, called parent designs, and modify them to meet Navy requirements. The request for proposals (RFP) for the conceptual design contracts will provide system specifications and government furnished information (GFI), and conceptual design contracts will be awarded in calendar year 2018 ahead of a Fiscal Year 2020 detail design and construction contract_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Senate Armed Services Committee chairman and outspoken LCS critic Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said he was “cautiously optimistic” about the new frigate program after reading the July 10 RFI.
> 
> However, in a SASC seapower subcommittee hearing this week, leading voices in the naval analysis community expressed concerns about the Navy’s approach going forward.
> 
> Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments senior fellow Bryan Clark said during the hearing that he worried the Navy had begun this process with too many details left undecided, and said that the Navy should be able to better determine what it wants without first requiring industry feedback.
> 
> “I think what it does is it opens up the aperture too much in terms of what that future frigate could be. It makes it seem like it could be anything from a ship that’s only able to do surface warfare and [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] missions in support of distributed lethality, the Navy’s new surface concept. It could be from anything from that, which is a relatively low-end ship or less capable ship, all the way up to a frigate that can do air defense for another ship and do anti-submarine warfare,” Clark said towards the end of the hearing...
> 
> The industry day slides state that the RFI was meant to help the Navy “understand industry’s parent designs and their ability to integrate both the warfare system elements and the threshold requirements into the new FFG(X) design,” and to “understand the drivers in non-recurring engineering, recurring engineering, production schedule, and operations and supports costs,” before making certain decisions.
> 
> The RFI clearly outlines what anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare capabilities the FFG(X) will have to have, listing various systems and weapons the FFG(X) must include. The extent of its anti-air capability is less clear, with the RFI posing questions to industry about how to incorporate Vertical Launching System cells into the ship design.
> 
> Jerry Hendrix, senior fellow and director of the defense strategies and assessments program at the Center for a New American Security, said at the Tuesday hearing that, opposite of Clark’s concern, he worried too much emphasis was being placed on the addition of VLS cells and anti-air warfare capability...
> 
> According to the industry day slides, the FFG(X) will: supplement the fleet’s existing undersea and surface warfare capabilities, relieve cruisers and destroyers from non-combat duties, host unmanned systems that can penetrate and operate in contested environments, conduct over-the-horizon anti-ship missile operations, escort logistics ships, provide electromagnetic information exploitation capabilities and intelligence collection, and more.
> https://news.usni.org/2017/07/27/navy-hosts-guided-missile-frigate-industry-day-analysts-worried-early-ffgx-requirements



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Those IP issues, Irving and a certain US company:



> Warship bidders have issues
> 
> The federal government says intellectual property questions have dominated among bidders as the final bid deadline for the design of Canada’s new fleet of warships draws nearer.
> 
> In response to reports last week that the 12 firms prequalified to bid on the $60-billion procurement of 15 new warships were left wondering when a firm deadline would be imposed, Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) reached out to The Chronicle Herald with an update on the process.
> 
> Lisa Campbell, assistant deputy minister of defence and marine procurement at PSPC, said Friday the department has nearly completed reviewing and providing feedback on the draft proposals. This was an optional service provided to bidders who wanted feedback before officially entering the competition. Once that is complete, which won’t be before mid-August, firms will have four weeks to finalize and submit their final responses.
> 
> The deadline has been extended twice so far. In February the government announced it was being moved from April 27 to June 22 after a third of the firms requested an extension. Then at the end of May it was extended again to a date to be determined.
> 
> With the second extension, the targeted completion for the procurement process moves from fall 2017 to 2018, the department said at the time, but the start of ship construction remains scheduled for the early 2020s.
> 
> Even though this is a private competition solicited by the project’s prime contractor, Halifax’s Irving Shipbuilding, Campbell said the final submissions will be reviewed and scored by an evaluation team which includes both Irving and the federal government. The proposals, which will combine a pre-existing ship design and combat systems integrator, will be evaluated first on mandatory criteria, then the designs that are up to snuff will be ranked in areas such as design maturity, software development capability and value proposition to select a winner...
> 
> Intellectual property, or IP, is a big deal in the defence world and bidders are not happy to just hand it over to any company or government, as it can contain classified security data as well as proprietary information that could jeopardize a company’s future competitions if it falls into the wrong hands.
> 
> But without obtaining enough IP it will be extremely difficult and costly for Canada to maintain these large and complex pieces of equipment.
> 
> “Many people have called this procurement in its essence an IP procurement,” Campbell said.
> 
> “We’ve found in defence procurement that IP and access to it is a determining factor of whether or not we have control over the lifecycle of maintaining equipment. It allows us to go back to the market, it allows us to compete, it allows us to quite frankly not be hamstrung by an original equipment manufacturer. It is extremely complex and very important for us.”
> 
> _One well-placed industry source said it’s not the Government of Canada bidders are concerned about when it comes to intellectual property but private companies like Irving, and more specifically Gibbs & Cox, a U.S.-based warship giant Irving has retained to support engineering and design of the Canadian Surface Combatant_ [emphasis added]. The source said many of the firms bidding on the warship design compete against Gibbs & Cox on the world stage for other navy procurements regularly, so it’s not surprising they’re concerned about their intellectual property falling into the wrong hands...
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1490189-warship-bidders-have-issues



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

CSC: Should RCN collaborate with USN on new frigates (note missile defence angle)?  Excerpts from lengthy piece by ret'd RCAF naval aviator which starts with lots on LCS (headline a bit silly):



> ...
> While it might be comforting to believe that the CSC program is basically on track and moving briskly to build and introduce a world-class multi-purpose frigate to the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), in the numbers and at the cost projected, few informed observers would agree that this is the case.  Even after years of work to ameliorate the program, and on the cusp of the first bids being submitted in mid-August, the impenetrable complexity of the process, ongoing industry wrangling, and ever-expanding price tag all suggest that staying the current course seems most likely to deliver less capability than the RCN needs, later than it is needed, and at a cost that will ultimately prove shocking to Canadian taxpayers.
> 
> It has been suggested that the sign of a good compromise is one which dissatisfies all participants equally, but this is surely a poor metric for success for a multi-billion dollar weapon system which will be in service for decades, is intended to remake the face of Canadian Naval industry, and which will carry Canada’s sailors into harm’s way in service of the country.  Instead, would it not be better to leverage the considerable competencies of our most important economic and military ally, share our valuable operational and design knowledge in an area where we have world-class industry, and explore the possibility of collaborating to solve a common problem?
> 
> If the Government, procurement officials, the RCN, and Canadian industry can work together with a sense of urgency and boldness to formulate, propose, and ultimately execute on a collaborative Bi-National Frigate Strategy with the United States, it could lead to an elegant, win-win outcome that resets two highly problematic programs, in a manner that would greatly benefit both countries, their respective Navies, and industry as well.
> 
> In considering such an approach, the initial step is to quickly establish whether there is sufficient alignment between the operational needs of the two Navies to make a joint program feasible.
> 
> Fortunately, Canada has already produced a very solid CSC requirements document, which includes extensive technical specifications based on decades of multi-purpose frigate operations.  This could form an immediate starting point for a foundational capability discussion with the USN.  While the CSC mission set is not an exact analogue, there is significant overlap between it and many of the systems, sensors, weapons, and warfighting capabilities needed in the FFG(X).  Like Canada, the USN needs a survivable, multi-role vessel that has the equipment, speed, range, and seakeeping ability to operate independently in hostile waters, and work in concert with other nations.  It requires advanced anti-submarine and electronic warfare capabilities, and a highly capable long-range radar system able to direct modern air to surface missiles in self-protection, area air defence, and _perhaps even theatre ballistic missile defence roles_ [emphasis added].  It needs a conventional naval gun, smaller systems for close-in self-defence, and the ability to operate a medium-sized maritime helicopter in parallel with a range of airborne, surface, and possibly subsurface autonomous vehicles.  Finally, it requires an advanced suite of integrated combat management and automated ship control systems, to enable high-end warfighting operations and battle-damage tolerance, even with a reduced crew footprint.
> 
> On a purely military level, a harmonized requirements set has much to recommend it.  Although the two Navies train and operate differently, a strong baseline of procedural interoperability already exists, and would only be reinforced by commonality of equipment.  Canada could benefit from US advances in platform-level cyber protection, and would gain easier access to an expanded range of operational capabilities that might otherwise be unachievable due to CSC cost and technical obstacles. For its part, the USN would have a unique avenue to draw upon Canadian key industrial competencies already proven in the Halifax-class frigate, and under active development in anticipation of CSC.  These might include anti-submarine warfare sensors and processing, advanced sensor and system integration approaches, novel schemes for on-board automation, shipboard helicopter integration, and operation of unmanned air, surface, and sub-surface vehicles from medium-sized vessels.
> 
> Such collaboration would reduce manufacturing and technical risk not only in the design and build phases, but also as the complex weapon system is sustained over its lifetime...
> 
> This would not be a small undertaking, but if alignment were possible, it could dramatically enhance both the cost-effectiveness as well as the industrial attractiveness of the CSC program.  Already, some observers have suggested that a change in direction on LCS might cause CSC bidders to shift their focus to the more lucrative USN market.  Given the greater predictability of the US procurement processes, less onerous intellectual property (IP) requirements, and a more conventional distribution of labour between warship designers, system integrators, and shipyards, the possibility that major industrial players might reconsider their commitment to submit CSC bids is a real danger.  At the very least, a significantly reduced number of bidders could damage the quality of CSC competition, result in fewer options for Canada, and potentially create new cost and quality pressures on the program.
> 
> With a larger Bi-National program, however, the increased number of ships (at least 20 for the USN, and a further 12-15 ships for the RCN) will likely result in mutual cost and capability benefits due to the increased scale of manufacture, and greater scope for industry to recoup its investments over the service life of the fleet...
> 
> _Jeff Tasseron is a Naval Aviator and the former Commanding Officer of 423 Maritime Helicopter Squadron.  His 26-year career in the Canadian Forces included more than 15 years of operational flying in the Sea King helicopter community, numerous deployments, and staff roles as the Special Advisor to the Chief of Defence Staff (General Walt Natynczyk) and the Director of Joint C4ISR in Chief of Force Development.  Following his retirement, he worked in the Air & Naval business unit of General Dynamics Mission Systems Canada, among other defence industry positions.  He currently provides independent consulting services on a wide range of defence and security issues, including procurement, the function of the civil /military interface,  and industry positioning and strategy.  As he is genetically incapable of confining his prose to 140 character run-on sentences , his first blog can be found at https://avernica.wordpress.com/ – proving that even a retired RCAF Colonel can learn new tricks.  When not working or writing, he can be found playing squash_.
> http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2017/08/04/united-states-navy-seeks-nice-canadian-warship-for-sunset-cruises-visits-to-the-beach/#.WYSSCemQzwo



Meanwhile:



> Coast Guard Design for Navy Frigate? It’s Doable, [Commandant] Zukunft Says
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Coast Guard's 418-foot National Security Cutter Hamilton cruises alongside the Fast Response Cutter William Flores off Miami Beach on Nov. 11, 2014. Mark Barney/Coast Guard_
> https://www.dodbuzz.com/2017/08/03/coast-guard-design-navy-frigate-doable-zukunft-says/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Lumber

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile:
> Coast Guard Design for Navy Frigate? It’s Doable, [Commandant] Zukunft Says
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Not a bad design. That thing is as heavily armed as a CPF considering how often we sail without any missiles, torpedoes, or chaff embarked. In fact, probably more heavily armed if we aren't sailing around with war-shot for the 57mm.

Ramming speed!


----------



## Kirkhill

Lumber said:
			
		

> .... as heavily armed as a CPF considering how often we sail without any missiles, torpedoes, or chaff embarked. In fact, probably more heavily armed if we aren't sailing around with war-shot for the 57mm.
> 
> Ramming speed!



Excuse me?  rly:

I seem to recall being berated over the need for ships to be maintained at war establishment because every ship had to be ready for Pearl Harbor.  Thus the argument against reduced crews and lightly armed OPVs like the Holland.

Anywho....

Back to the CSC RFQ - 

Iroquois             - 129 m - 5100 tonnes
Halifax               -   134 m - 5032 tonnes
Huitfeldt/Absalon - 138 m - 6645 tonnes

What's wrong with a Halifax with additional freeboard to permit additional deadweight or fuel?

Transfer all the weapons and systems from the existing (and recently departed Tribal) hulls at zero cost.

Then.... and only then.... upgrade the existing systems on separate budgets.  Then you can have as many empty launchers as you like.


----------



## Lumber

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Excuse me?  rly:
> 
> I seem to recall being berated over the need for ships to be maintained at war establishment because every ship had to be ready for Pearl Harbor.  Thus the argument against reduced crews and lightly armed OPVs like the Holland.



I spent 4 years posted to the same ship. Sailed her into FELEX and then completed the TRP with her when she came out. Not once in those 4 years did she ever carry a single missile.

In fact, when we sailed on TGEX with the USN, you could see from miles away that we were missing our Harpoons, and if you had good optical equipment, you could see that our VLS system was empty as well; but, when we went on GLD, we sailed with empty ESSM and Harpoon canisters for public consumption.


----------



## dimsum

Lumber said:
			
		

> I spent 4 years posted to the same ship. Sailed her into FELEX and then completed the TRP with her when she came out. Not once in those 4 years did she ever carry a single missile.
> 
> In fact, when we sailed on TGEX with the USN, you could see from miles away that we were missing our Harpoons, and if you had good optical equipment, you could see that our VLS system was empty as well; but, when we went on GLD, we sailed with empty ESSM and Harpoon canisters for public consumption.



What is the reasoning for not sailing with missiles, etc?  Don't NWTs (?) need currency on maintaining such things?


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Lumber.

I wasn't questioning the authenticity of your statement.  Just restrained astonishment.

Cheers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I don't know what the logic is but it could be as simple as "why drive around loaded with high explosives and dangerous corrosive fuels when you're just training".

As for a possible quick joint frigate program with the US, here are the various mods based on the USCG Hamilton cutters that the Huntington Ingalls is proposing:  Run the 4 minutes + video. In particular, pay attention to the FF4923 Version toward the end, impressive and very close to what we are seeking.

http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/file?fid=540e18ebf6091d02aa000004


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Excuse me?  rly:
> 
> I seem to recall being berated over the need for ships to be maintained at war establishment because every ship had to be ready for Pearl Harbor.  Thus the argument against reduced crews and lightly armed OPVs like the Holland.
> 
> Anywho....
> 
> Back to the CSC RFQ -
> 
> Iroquois             - 129 m - 5100 tonnes
> Halifax               -   134 m - 5032 tonnes
> Huitfeldt/Absalon - 138 m - 6645 tonnes
> 
> What's wrong with a Halifax with additional freeboard to permit additional deadweight or fuel?
> 
> Transfer all the weapons and systems from the existing (and recently departed Tribal) hulls at zero cost.
> 
> Then.... and only then.... upgrade the existing systems on separate budgets.  Then you can have as many empty launchers as you like.


  

The Wardroom will only fit so many Officers.


----------



## suffolkowner

Lumber said:
			
		

> I spent 4 years posted to the same ship. Sailed her into FELEX and then completed the TRP with her when she came out. Not once in those 4 years did she ever carry a single missile.
> 
> In fact, when we sailed on TGEX with the USN, you could see from miles away that we were missing our Harpoons, and if you had good optical equipment, you could see that our VLS system was empty as well; but, when we went on GLD, we sailed with empty ESSM and Harpoon canisters for public consumption.



This is kind of disconcerting to me, did I not read something similar regarding our Hornet's being unarmed when flying in Iceland and even Romania?

Seems hard to sell the idea of new warships and fighters with all the fixings if we don't actually need them on deployments?


----------



## MilEME09

More trouble over Irving handling the program



> Impasse over intellectual property is tying up warship bids
> 
> The federal government's plan to buy an off-the-shelf design for the navy's new frigates is facing significant pushback from at least one of Canada's allies, which appears to question timelines and the fundamental structure of the high-stakes $60-billion project.
> 
> Documents obtained by CBC News show one of the 12 companies competing to design and help construct the warships has been blocked from handing over "supporting data and services."
> 
> The unidentified bidder says one of Canada's allies, which owns the rights to the sensitive electronics embedded in the warship, is refusing permission to include the information and instead wants direct negotiations with the federal government.
> 
> The nation, which is also not identified in the Aug. 2 document obtained by CBC News, has no interest in dealing directly with Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding Inc., which is the federal government's go-to company for warship construction.
> Diplomatic exchange
> 
> The issue is serious enough that it has already been the subject of a diplomatic exchange, and Canada's ally finds certain terms in the federal government's request for proposals unacceptable.
> 
> "Bidder has been advised directly by Foreign Government that Foreign Government has communicated concerns directly to Canada and is awaiting Canada's response," said the internal documents, which are a collection of questions and answers between prospective bidders and Irving Shipbuilding.
> 
> Since they are circulated to everyone in the competition, the name of the company and the country raising the objections have been censored.
> 
> "Bidder wishes to advise Canada that until appropriate terms for transfer of [government to government] supporting data and services are negotiated directly between Canada and Foreign Government, Foreign Government will not permit Bidder to submit mandated [Government to Government] supporting information."
> Faster, cheaper process
> 
> The federal government intends to build 15 warships to replace the navy's frigates.
> 
> Last year, the Liberals went to great lengths when they relaunched the national shipbuilding strategy to say they wanted a proven warship design rather than something done from scratch.
> 
> They said it would be faster and cheaper.
> 
> A design competition, involving a dozen pre-qualified companies, was launched last fall.
> 
> But there has been growing skepticism among the bidders, particularly when it comes to the amount of technical and intellectual property data requested by the Canadian government.
> 
> Officials have asked for all the data necessary to maintain equipment such as radar and combat management suites.
> The problem is many of Canada's allies, including the U.S., Britain, France and Australia, paid for the development of those essential electronics individually and don't want to share the data for their own national security reasons.
> 
> Defence analyst Dave Perry said he's heard informally that as many as three governments, including the United States, are balking at handing over the data.
> 
> "It's critical because the ship designers need the information in order to submit a compliant bid," he said. "There is a high degree of frustration."
> Bidder's responsibility
> 
> The Canadian government made it the responsibility of ship designers to acquire the sensitive data for inclusion in their proposals, and a defence industry source with knowledge of the file says the provision should be no surprise.
> 
> The Public Services and Procurement Department has yet to set a deadline for submission of final proposals, although it is widely expected to be in mid-September, and the source said it's likely some bidders are feeling the pressure to get their respective governments onside.
> 
> Even so, the documents show, at least one bidder believes negotiating state secret data is best done government-to-government.
> 
> "Whilst the Bidder respects Canada's absolute right to define the terms of any solicitation process, bidder respectfully suggests that Canada, rather than Canadian industry retains responsibility to conduct diplomacy and that it is up to Canada to negotiate terms with foreign governments," the documents said.
> 
> "Will Canada engage directly with foreign governments to resolve this issue?"
> Ottawa calls its request 'reasonable'
> 
> Perry said putting the onus on bidders is a "unique arrangement" that has the potential of severely limiting the number of design submissions.
> 
> "There is still work to be done to solve this in order to get to a situation where several companies can successfully bid," he said.
> 
> Public works officials, however, have insisted they're not asking for anything out of the ordinary and remain confident they will have a number of bids to evaluate.
> 
> "I want to emphasize we're only asking for a reasonable amount of [intellectual property] — owning what we paid to develop and a limited licence access so we can design, build and maintain, and ultimately dispose of these ships over the next several decades," said Lisa Campbell, the assistant deputy minister of defence and marine procurement, in a conference call with the media on July 28.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I don't know what the logic is but it could be as simple as "why drive around loaded with high explosives and dangerous corrosive fuels when you're just training".
> 
> As for a possible quick joint frigate program with the US, here are the various mods based on the USCG Hamilton cutters that the Huntington Ingalls is proposing:  Run the 4 minutes + video. In particular, pay attention to the FF4923 Version toward the end, impressive and very close to what we are seeking.
> 
> http://newsroom.huntingtoningalls.com/file?fid=540e18ebf6091d02aa000004



FF4923 is very impressive.  If thats a class of ships that is acceptable, why not this class as well: http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ppa-class-multi-purpose-offshore-patrol-vessels

It would be nice to see the CSC find some room to replace the 280's with a nasty destroyer. Oh well, can't have everything.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on Italian PPA (much more than normal OPV):



> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> /



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Lumber

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> This is kind of disconcerting to me, did I not read something similar regarding our Hornet's being unarmed when flying in Iceland and even Romania?
> 
> Seems hard to sell the idea of new warships and fighters with all the fixings if we don't actually need them on deployments?



Deployments are a different beast. When our ships deploy they are loaded for bear.


----------



## serger989

Lumber said:
			
		

> Deployments are a different beast. When our ships deploy they are loaded for bear.



For a second there I thought you typed "loaded for beer". Made me laugh. Can't say I have ever heard loaded for bear though, I assume that means packed to the brim with their required arsenal?


----------



## jollyjacktar

The days of loaded for beer are sadly now, history.


----------



## Lumber

serger989 said:
			
		

> For a second there I thought you typed "loaded for beer". Made me laugh. Can't say I have ever heard loaded for bear though, I assume that means packed to the brim with their required arsenal?



"The phrase originates with American hunters and woodsmen in regions frequented by the brown bear. Brown bears are the largest land-based predator on earth, and when expecting to deal with them the hunters would bring much more powerful rifles than they would if hunting other game."



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The days of loaded for beer are sadly now, history.



Indeed.  :crybaby:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The days of loaded for beer are sadly now, history.



Yep. Gone are the days we would organize an impromptu two days port visit to Seattle merely because the B.C. breweries were on strike.  [


----------



## Cloud Cover

Back to the CSC program. It seems that Canadian firms are obtaining contracts with the Type 26 program in the UK, this news from BAE itself.  If the Type 26 is a design contender, this certainly helps...
http://www.baesystems.com/en-ca/article/canadian-firms-win-contracts-to-support-uk-type-26-program

Canadian firms win contracts to support UK Type 26 program
Ottawa-based engineering firm WR Davis is the first Canadian company to secure a manufacturing contract to provide key equipment to the UK’s Type 26 Global Combat Ship program.
BAE Systems, the designer and manufacturer of this next generation anti-submarine warfare ship, has awarded the C$12m contract to WR Davis Engineering Ltd for the Uptake and Downtake elements of the ship’s funnel and exhaust system for the first three Type 26 ships. These components are key elements of the engine and propulsion system in the new UK Royal Navy ships.

Tom Davis, Vice President of WR Davis Engineering Ltd, said: “We are delighted to participate in the prestigious UK Royal Navy Type 26 Global Combat Ship program for the supply of the complete Downtake, Uptake, and Infra-Red Suppression systems for the propulsion and ship service engines. This builds on our previous experience of supplying similar systems for the UK Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers and reinforces our position as a world leader in the design and supply of engine Downtakes and Uptakes, for naval warships.” 

WR Davis is one of seven supply chain partners to have been awarded equipment manufacturing contracts with BAE Systems. The Canadian firm has already started performing system integration and detailed design work on the Type 26 program.

The manufacturing contracts follow on from a number of design contracts already placed for the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program, including Montreal-based L-3 MAPPS for major elements of the platform management system in support of its L-3 Marine Systems UK business and Rolls-Royce, based in Peterborough, Ontario, for the mission bay handling system.

BAE Systems’ Ric Elkington, based in Ottawa, said: “Canadian companies are playing a crucial role in the development of Type 26. This design is a next generation multi-mission frigate and is being considered for the Canadian Surface Combatant, to be built by Irving Shipbuilding Inc in Halifax, Nova Scotia.  

“The work already underway on Type 26 could eventually lead to over C$70m of work for Canadian industry, based on the construction of eight Type 26 ships for the UK Royal Navy.”

The UK Ministry of Defence awarded BAE Systems a C$886m contract in March 2016 to continue to progress the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program following the UK Government’s commitment in the Strategic Defence and Security Review to buy eight of the advanced anti-submarine warfare ships. This contract reinforced the UK Government’s investment in Type 26 ensuring continued momentum to further mature the detailed design work and to manufacture key equipment for the first three ships.

The Type 26 Global Combat Ship will be a world-class anti-submarine warfare ship and will in time replace the UK Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates. Globally deployable, it will be capable of undertaking a wide range of roles from high intensity warfare to humanitarian assistance, either operating independently or as part of a task group.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> More on Italian PPA (much more than normal OPV):
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



No missile system?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, Colin, the "full" configuration includes 16 cells for Aster 15 and Aster 30 anti-air missiles and 8 cells for Ottoman or follow on surface to surface missiles.

The real question is how many "full" version can the Italian navy afford (so far, one for testing), and how successful will it be as a front line warship? This second question is the reason they have ordered one "full" version, so it can be put through its pace and decide if it is a proper front line warship.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Both Fincantiere and Naval Group (was DCNS) FREMMs in running for CSC:



> France wants naval industry tie-up with Italy
> 
> France is keen to strengthen its naval industry and is pursuing cooperation with Italy in a bid to be a leader in building surface warships, according to France’s armed forces minister.
> 
> “I will also push for our defense industry,” Florence Parly said. “This is one of the catalysts for European defense and one of the motors for the French economy.”
> 
> The minister said she wanted to “give our defense industry the means to develop strongly,” particularly the naval sector. “That is why I am presently working on forming an alliance between the French and Italian naval industries in the area of surface warships with the ambition of building a world leader.”
> 
> Pauly was giving the closing speech Sept. 5 at a high-level defense conference at Toulon, southern France.
> 
> “This ambitious project was making progress, with the close cooperation of the companies concerned,” she said, adding that she would further address the subject in the next few weeks.
> 
> The French and Italian government have previously agreed that the two countries would reach an agreement by Sept. 27 in an attempt to resolve a dispute over the acquisition of STX, a French commercial shipyard, by Italian state-owned company Fincantieri.
> 
> The STX yard at Saint-Nazaire, western France, is the only one large enough in France to build an aircraft carrier, prompting concerns over national sovereignty.
> 
> Fincantieri, Naval Group and STX could cooperate and become a European leader to compete in the world market for commercial and military shipping, the French and Italian government said after an Aug. 1 ministerial meeting in Rome, where they sought to defuse the row over ownership of the STX yard.
> 
> 
> 
> Naval Group is in discussions with Fincantieri for cooperation on a surface warship, according to a spokesman for the French state-controlled shipbuilder. Naval Group has long had experience cooperating with Fincantieri, as the two worked together on the Horizon anti-submarine frigate and the FREMM multimission frigate, he noted.
> 
> The French company is also still in talks with the French government and Fincantieri on taking a stake in STX France, a commercial shipyard.
> 
> Naval Group may eventually hold 10-15 percent of STX if the French and Italian governments reach an accord on an acquisition by Fincantieri of the commercial yard...
> https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/09/06/france-wants-naval-industry-tie-up-with-italy/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

For pity's putrefying sake!



> Deadline for warship designs pushed several more months
> 
> Federal procurement officials are playing down the impact of yet another delay in the competition to design new warships for the navy, saying the extra time will help produce a better result.
> 
> The design competition is the most recent — and arguably most sensitive — phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 new warships, construction of which is expected to begin in 2021.
> 
> Defence companies were originally supposed to have submitted their proposed designs for the vessels in April, but the deadline has since been pushed back several times.
> 
> Lisa Campbell, head of military procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said officials are now aiming to have the ship designs arrive in mid-November, though an exact date still hasn't been set.
> 
> The delay was necessary, she said, to ensure all the participating companies understood what was expected of them, which will ensure a level playing field and maximize the number of bids.
> 
> The comments underscore the confusion — and extremely high stakes — that have surrounded the design competition, which involves many of the world's largest defence and shipbuilding companies.
> 
> Campbell said the government is also changing the way it evaluates the proposed designs, and will tell companies if their submissions don't meet the government's requirements.
> 
> There have long been concerns, including within the Department of National Defence, that any delay in the design competition will push the whole project off schedule.
> 
> That could result in higher construction costs and affect the navy's ability to do its job. The navy is already operating with fewer ships after retiring its three destroyers without a replacement.
> 
> The government likely won't be able to select the winning design until 2018, Campbell acknowledged, "but we still anticipate ship construction in the early 2020s. So it hasn't changed our ship construction start date."
> 
> One of the main grumbles from industry over the past few months has been the amount of valuable intellectual property, or IP, they are being required to hand over to the government and Irving Shipbuilding.
> 
> The Halifax-based shipyard is running the design competition in co-operation with the federal government, and will be responsible for building the warships in the coming years.
> 
> Campbell defended the government's approach, however, saying officials want to ensure they have whatever information is needed to not only buy the warships, but to operate and maintain them for decades.
> 
> "In many ways, this is an IP procurement," she said.
> 
> "And it is hugely important to Canada. It's very, very important for us to treat intellectual property carefully because it means Canada will have control of choice and competition down the road."
> http://www.timescolonist.com/deadline-for-warship-designs-pushed-several-more-months-1.22478799



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> For pity's putrefying sake!
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



You were surprised by this?  There seems to be more work going into pre-bid compliance evaluation than was originally anticipated, however that also means less work for compliance evaluation on the other end of the process after bids are "officially in".  Might be a case of more work up front and less at the back (*both fingers crossed*).  At the end of the day late spring and early summer was the expected time for the competition winner to be announced.  I will be more concerned if those timelines slip.


----------



## MilEME09

Well this is interesting 

https://youtu.be/UZ8VItho9rM

What could Davie be upto?


----------



## Half Full

Underway said:
			
		

> Might be a case of more work up front and less at the back (*both fingers crossed*).


From the CBC article :http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/warship-design-delay-1.4277967
 "Campbell said that the navy's requirements for the kinds of warships it wants and the systems that will go into them has not changed." 
 This tells me  that the requirements haven't changed but that the problem lies elsewhere... And in this case I bet the issue lies with Irving.  They have too much power and control over this project... And i will bet a beer they are concerned that they can't build them the way the companies have told them the Mots designs need to be built.  Probably to high of a standard required!


----------



## Kirkhill

Not to mention Canada wanting the suppliers to teach Canada how to compete with them - at the same time the French and Italians are discovering that they can't maintain their own national yards.


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Well this is interesting
> 
> https://youtu.be/UZ8VItho9rM
> 
> What could Davie be upto?



Davie has been pushing distributed block building for a while now.  If Canada were to implement distributed block build it reduces the impact inflation has on shipbuilding programs because the ships are built faster.  As an example the Harry DeWolfe is 70% finished.  Mainly it is missing a bow.  If the bow was made concurrent with the other two megablocks (at say Davie's shipyard?) then the Harry DeWolfe would be 90% finished right now and probably be ready to float end of Sept instead of end Jan.  

This could conceivably reduce the time for the ships by up to 50% if you had multiple yards working on multiple blocks, ship them to Irving for final assembly etc...

It would also spread the wealth out to multiple shipyards across the country.  In this model there would be a single prime contractor who would then subcontract out other parts to other shipyards.

Davie is basically angling for a piece of the CSC with this video while trying to look reasonable.  Irving could easily subcontract them to make the superstructure etc...  but they will only do that if the gov't forces them too.  It could also increase the amount of profit for Irving as the contract might be a fixed amount and therefore if they can find a way to build cheaper (ie: fight inflation) then more profit...


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:
			
		

> Davie has been pushing distributed block building for a while now.  If Canada were to implement distributed block build it reduces the impact inflation has on shipbuilding programs because the ships are built faster.  As an example the Harry DeWolfe is 70% finished.  Mainly it is missing a bow.  If the bow was made concurrent with the other two megablocks (at say Davie's shipyard?) then the Harry DeWolfe would be 90% finished right now and probably be ready to float end of Sept instead of end Jan.
> 
> This could conceivably reduce the time for the ships by up to 50% if you had multiple yards working on multiple blocks, ship them to Irving for final assembly etc...
> 
> It would also spread the wealth out to multiple shipyards across the country.  In this model there would be a single prime contractor who would then subcontract out other parts to other shipyards.
> 
> Davie is basically angling for a piece of the CSC with this video while trying to look reasonable.  Irving could easily subcontract them to make the superstructure etc...  but they will only do that if the gov't forces them too.  It could also increase the amount of profit for Irving as the contract might be a fixed amount and therefore if they can find a way to build cheaper (ie: fight inflation) then more profit...



Well in my opinion the entire shipbuilding plan should be a national plan, controlled by the government, where we hand out the work to yard for certain parts of the program, as you stated say Davie and others build blocks, Irving assembles and finishes. The government would get ships faster, everyone get's work, and if we planned it right we could keep the yards busy constantly for decades to come.


----------



## NavyShooter

In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them.  

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS


----------



## FSTO

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.
> 
> I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.
> 
> In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.
> 
> The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them.
> 
> Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.
> 
> NS



 :goodpost:

So true.


----------



## Halifax Tar

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.
> 
> I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.
> 
> In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.
> 
> The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them.
> 
> Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.
> 
> NS



 :cdnsalute:  :goodpost:

The fact we continue to give that yard tax dollars, breaks and contracts boggles my mind.


----------



## jollyjacktar

I'm more boggled that we don't make them properly fulfill the contract without penalty as we always let them slide on things.  They always get a hall pass.


----------



## YZT580

The maritimes voted liberal, almost unanimously.  Without them, Trudeau is the leader of the opposition.  La Belle Province not so certain.  Logically I would support Irving too, regardless of product.


----------



## MarkOttawa

While agree that a high-low (largish OPVs? smaller frigates? corvettes?) mix of sorts for RCN surface warship fleet--A/OPS not real warship--is all that is affordable, we must keep in mind need to have sufficient ASW/anti-missile capability to contribute usefully to NATO vs resurgent Russian navy submarine/cruise missile threat:



> Scale back warship plan: analyst
> 
> In June the federal government more than doubled the $26-billion budget to build 15 new Canadian Surface Combatant vessels — the first of which is expected to be delivered in 2026 — to $60 billion.
> 
> The U.K. revealed plans this week to buy five budget Type 31e general purpose frigates, on top of the eight type 26 global combat ships currently being constructed by BAE Systems, at a cost equivalent of about $400 million Canadian a piece. This is a fraction of what their Type 26 global combat ships — which are one of the designs in the running for Canada’s new fleet — will cost.
> 
> Ken Hansen, a retired navy commander and defence analyst, said Canada ought to follow countries like the U.K. and Denmark in scaling back on what he calls outrageous military-grade engineering standards as well as considering purchasing some vessels with more basic capabilities.
> 
> “(These standards are) driving defence procurement to ridiculously high extremes when in fact there is no imminent conflict that would justify that kind of expenditure,” he said.
> 
> “Historically . . . what we have always done is a high-low mix, and it makes no sense to be sending a really high capability ship off to low risk tasks,” he said.
> 
> According to Hansen, a large portion of shipbuilding costs are due to using extremely high engineering standards for systems and subsystems — things like water, power, heating and ventilation — that are commonly available, something that he said Denmark has managed to opt out of.
> 
> “They use Caterpillar diesel engines for diesel generators and they use stuff from their marine industry, the best industrial standard is good enough.”
> 
> Hansen said it was once thought that over engineering could improve survivability, but that’s no longer true with modern weaponry.
> 
> “Engineering standards will not save you for a torpedo hit or high-speed missile hit. The only thing that will absorb the destructive power of modern weaponry is size. So you’re better off to build it bigger and then use redundancy to get survivability, and that’s what the Danes do as well,” he said.
> 
> Instead of two diesel generators on a ship, Hansen said, the Danes will have four or six because because they’re a 10th of the cost of a military spec diesel generator.
> 
> “What’s driving the government to say ‘Oh we have to put all this extra money in the program,’ is that they’re allowing the navy to dictate this requirement when there’s no historical justification for it. If you do the analysis on the lethality of modern systems for it, there’s no justification for it there either,” he said...
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1501098-scale-back-warship-plan-analyst



Related:



> What Is the RCN For? Reprise
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/mark-collins-what-is-the-rcn-for-reprise/
> 
> USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?
> ...
> perhaps the national defence minister’s defence policy review should look very hard indeed at the minimum number of new Canadian Surface Combatants that will be needed to be seriously ready for real anti-submarine warfare–as opposed to say the essentially show-the-flag and alliance support expeditionary operations sometimes conducted by the RCN’s current frigates (which of course also are very ASW capable). Also how essential and affordable are the Navy’s few submarines for North Atlantic ASW and can we afford any substantial number of new ones down the road?..
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.


----------



## Underway

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.


Agreed.

The difference between the RCN and the Euro navies is that we can operate 24/7.  They operate 12 hours a day and then do basic bridge watch overnight.  Also because they've reduced manning so much they can't fight and do damage control at the same time.  Or if they take damage they have to "pull out of the line" to keep the ship alive.  RCN ships can always fight and damage control together (as does UK, US and I think Australia).  Civilian ship standards mean that when you do take damage it's often more severe and your ship is now a useless casualty.

The RCN and gov't want ships that have the highest chance of bringing home the sailors in it alive and well.  That is the highest priority for the CSC.  You can't do that with civi standards.


----------



## Navy_Pete

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.



It drives me crazy to read his commentary.


According to Hansen, a large portion of shipbuilding costs are due to using extremely high engineering standards for systems and subsystems — things like water, power, heating and ventilation — that are commonly available, something that he said Denmark has managed to opt out of.

“They use Caterpillar diesel engines for diesel generators and they use stuff from their marine industry, the best industrial standard is good enough.”

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/hewitt-equipment-limited-awarded-halifax-class-frigates-generator-replacement-contract-2028318.htm

Hey, so do we!

Hansen said it was once thought that over engineering could improve survivability, but that’s no longer true with modern weaponry.

“Engineering standards will not save you for a torpedo hit or high-speed missile hit. The only thing that will absorb the destructive power of modern weaponry is size. So you’re better off to build it bigger and then use redundancy to get survivability, and that’s what the Danes do as well,” he said.

The old milspec standards were adapted into commercial standards, and some industries have higher requirements than milspec.  What we do have is shock and vibration standards, but you take industrial equipment and shock mount it for that.  WE USE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT YOU DAFT GASBAG!

Our requirements to have redundant equipment is no different than normal marine requirements for redundancy.

No one really expects a frigate sized ship to recover from a direct torpedo hit, but with the engineering standards will drastically improve your chances as the shock mounting will drastically reduce secondary and tertiary damage from the high speed contact. Industrial equipment not shock mounted will eat the entire force of the shock wave and fail.  I was on the last RCN ship to do shock testing; we found out right away what happened when something was installed that wasn't up to the milspec.

Instead of two diesel generators on a ship, Hansen said, the Danes will have four or six because because they’re a 10th of the cost of a military spec diesel generator.

“What’s driving the government to say ‘Oh we have to put all this extra money in the program,’ is that they’re allowing the navy to dictate this requirement when there’s no historical justification for it. If you do the analysis on the lethality of modern systems for it, there’s no justification for it there either,” he said...


Two separated generators is the bare minimum for any ship, and we also have four on every ship.  Jesus H, what is he even talking about?

You want to know what drives the cost of warships?  Look at the expensive weapons systems and sensor packages.  Aside from the material costs involved in stuff like using naval brass for piping and valves, and the relatively minimal cost for shock mountings, warships cost a lot because there are a few BILLION dollars of WAR FIGHTING gear on it.

God he makes me angry.  What kind of idiot would design a multipurpose ship that would only deal with known imminent threats when the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years?


----------



## MilEME09

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> God he makes me angry.  What kind of idiot would design a multipurpose ship that would only deal with known imminent threats when the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years?



The government of Canada has traditionally been reactionary, not precautionary in spending, and procurement, his line of thinking kinda goes along with what our country always seems to do, sadly.


----------



## Kirkhill

> the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years



And that is not an insignificant part of the problem.   Delivering ships in flights with shorter operational careers would save money.

Take a low inflation rate of 3%.  Apply it for 20 years.

$100,000,000 in 2020 will be $181,000,000 in 2040.  Virtually double the price for exactly the same ship - assuming you are not paying a premium to buy obsolescent parts that the market no longer supplies.

Same rate of inflation applied for 35 years.

$281,000,000 in 2055.  Triple the original price to directly replace 35 year old technology.

And if the "actual" inflation rate were the 8% I have heard bandied around when discussing military procurement then, after 35 years,

$100,000,000  becomes $1,478,000,000.  15 times the price or 15 ships will buy you 1.


----------



## Navy_Pete

That's where the $62B price tag comes from; the PBO took the rolling cost estimates and adjust it to 2040 values.

I'll see if I can find the studies on warship cost escalations (RAND?) but there are a few that show 8-10% cost escalation each year of delays.  In practical purposes you can tie that to costs and makes business cases to recover schedule delays easier, as it becomes a 'pay now or pay later' issue.

It'll be interesting to see how it rolls out; with the obsolescence for computers running at a 3 year cycle, configuration and obsolescence management will be a challenge between the first and last ship.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note Type 26 going for RCN, RAN contracts too:



> BAE joins race for new US frigate with its Type 26 vessel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BAE Systems is officially gunning for the U.S. Navy’s new frigate program with its new Type 26 frigate now in production in the U.K.
> 
> Company officials confirmed Thursday it had responded to the U.S. Navy’s request for information and were in talks with unspecified companies in the states about how it would build the ship for the FFG(X) program, according to a BAE official who spoke on background to discuss early developments.
> 
> “In terms of the technical requirements, its a good fit. ... We responded to the RFI and we’re confident its a pretty good fit,” the official said.
> 
> The Type 26, designed primarily as an anti-submarine ship, is _competing hard for both the Canadian and Australian frigate programs_ [emphasis added, see below on current Irving link]. Anti-submarine warfare is a key requirement for FFG(X), which BAE thinks gives its frigate an edge. The design also incorporates a large mission bay that can be used as flex space for mission modules.
> 
> “The Type 26 is at the start of life, it‘s a new design and meets the new standards, and it‘s got adaptability built in,” the official said.
> 
> The ship’s mast could be reconfigured to support Raytheon’s Enterprise Air Surveillance Radar and will have enough power, space and cooling to support other requirements the Navy is looking to incorporate.
> 
> While the Type 26 incorporates or can adapt to virtually all the capabilities outlined in July’s RFI, including 36 vertical launching system cells and Mark 41 VLS launchers, the ship might be too rich for the Navy’s blood, according to Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a former aid to former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert.
> 
> “I think they‘re leaning to something with a little less capability that will be a bit more economical,” Clark said.
> 
> The British Royal Navy recently inked a deal for the first three Type 26 frigates worth £3.7 billion (U.S. $4.9 billion). That cost averages to just a little less than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, though that’s not a perfect metric because the costs would be different for a U.S. version.
> 
> Still, the Navy isn’t looking to buy a ship that compete’s for missions with the destroyer, said Rear Adm. Ron Boxall in an exclusive interview with Defense News in July.
> 
> “We don’t want the ship to be so big that it competes with the destroyer. We want this to be part of the high-low mix,” Boxall said. “So ensuring we get those capabilities at the best value is important.”
> 
> But the ship faces other headwinds as well, Clark said, because some of the competing designs already have ships they can show the Navy, whereas BAE Systems just cut steel for the first Type 26 this summer.
> 
> “The problem they‘re facing is the rest of [their competitors] have ships that actually exist,” Clark said. “You look at Fincantieri‘s FREMM, there are already hulls in the water you can point to. [Huntington Ingalls] can point to the National Security Cutter and say: ‘We could offer a modified version of this for the frigate.’
> 
> “The _Navy made a big deal in the rollout of the RFI that it was looking for ‘proven designs,’ which likely means they‘re looking for ships that already exist_ [emphasis added--and RCN?].”
> http://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2017/09/14/bae-is-in-the-race-for-the-the-us-ffgx-with-its-type-26-frigate/



Last year (Thales actually got this contract http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/royal-canadian-navy-ships-privatize-maintenance-1.4250961 ):



> Irving Working with BAE Systems: Implications for RCN Canadian Surface Combatant?
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/11/15/mark-collins-irving-working-with-bae-systems-implications-for-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Third time lucky one trusts:



> New deadline established for competition to design navy's new warships
> 
> Defence companies and shipbuilders competing to design Canada's new fleet of warships have been given until Nov. 17 to submit their proposals.
> 
> It's the third such deadline for the design competition, which is the most recent -- and arguably most politically sensitive -- phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 warships.
> 
> Participating firms were originally supposed to have submitted their designs for the new vessels in April, but that deadline was pushed back to June before disappearing entirely.
> 
> Defence companies and shipbuilders competing to design Canada's new fleet of warships have been given until Nov. 17 to submit their proposals.
> 
> It's the third such deadline for the design competition, which is the most recent -- and arguably most politically sensitive -- phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 warships.
> 
> Participating firms were originally supposed to have submitted their designs for the new vessels in April, but that deadline was pushed back to June before disappearing entirely.
> http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/new-deadline-established-for-competition-to-design-navy-s-new-warships-1.3600295



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Karel Doorman

It seems like the Canadian version of the City-class(Type-26) was proposed and looks like it will have APAR-2 on it.  :nod:  (if my guess is correct)


https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/warships1discussionboards/download/file.php?id=78

From this page:"Also, she appeared to have a 32 cell Mark 41 VLS forward and omitted the Sea Ceptor VLSs both forward of the bridge and aft of the funnel.  Aft of the funnel, she carried two quad Harpoon launchers.  Lastly, she was carrying SeaRams instead of Phalanx noisemakers in her waist positions. "


----------



## Colin Parkinson

and it looks like 2x25-35mm guns aft as well


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Not being a naval architect by trade, doesn't the helicopter deck seems a little closer to the waterline given the seas we operate in?


----------



## jollyjacktar

You'll notice the black line going around the hull between the red and grey?  That's the DWL or designed water line for the hull.  It's got plenty of room between there and the flight deck surface.  She's cool.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Not being a naval architect by trade, doesn't the helicopter deck seems a little closer to the waterline given the seas we operate in?



Your probably being deceived by conceiving of that ship as in the same size range as current  Halifax class frigates. She is not. She is much larger than the HALs, likely near 3000 tons more.

Use the Cyclone helicopter at the stern for scale. A Cyclone is probably around 15 feet high. That makes the height of the flight deck about 12 feet above the waterline, which is  more than ample enough.

Moreover, you will note that the overall shape of the ship is not the more frequent parallel, or "square side and width", that is more commonly used, but somethings described as "flared hull", That is the hull flares out from the water line going up to become wider and the sides also expand out from the ship's mid-length point. As a result, the flight deck is quite protected from seas and provides a much wider landing surface for the embarked helicopter.

This type of hull form also provides very good seakeeping characteristics without sacrificing speed.

On top of that, its a good looking lady.  [

P.s.: I like the 5 inch gun.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Your probably being deceived by conceiving of that ship as in the same size range as current  Halifax class frigates. She is not. She is much larger than the HALs, likely near 3000 tons more.
> 
> Use the Cyclone helicopter at the stern for scale. A Cyclone is probably around 15 feet high. That makes the height of the flight deck about 12 feet above the waterline, which is  more than ample enough.
> 
> Moreover, you will note that the overall shape of the ship is not the more frequent parallel, or "square side and width", that is more commonly used, but somethings described as "flared hull", That is the hull flares out from the water line going up to become wider and the sides also expand out from the ship's mid-length point. As a result, the flight deck is quite protected from seas and provides a much wider landing surface for the embarked helicopter.
> 
> This type of hull form also provides very good seakeeping characteristics without sacrificing speed.
> 
> On top of that, its a good looking lady.  [
> 
> P.s.: I like the 5 inch gun.



yep looks like a 127 mm to me,nice.

and to be honest(i'm dutch,so biast)but have to say i like her a lot.  ;D

but now it will come down to what the others have to offer and offcourse the price.(Type-26 is an ASW frigate first) and tbh not cheap.

Then hopefully for you lot,i mean Canada,a decision can be made shortly so you can start building asap.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just a quick thank you to JollyJacktar and OGB.

One of the reasons this site is so great.

Thank you gents.


----------



## jmt18325

That's a good looking ship.  I hope the other contenders are as impressive.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Look what Aussies will be doing with new RAN frigates (design bidders overlap with RCN's)--will our gov't note?



> Australia to fit warships with anti-missile defense systems
> 
> Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said on Tuesday nine war ships set for construction in 2020 will be fitted with long-range ­anti-missile defense systems to counter the threat of rogue nations.
> 
> Australia’s proposed frigates will use Aegis combat systems, produced by Lockheed Martin, in conjunction with SAAB Australia technology, Turnbull said.
> 
> Tensions in the region have spiked considerably in recent months as North Korea conducted a series of tests of its medium- and long-range ballistic missiles, some of which flew over Japan, as well as its sixth nuclear test on Sept. 3...
> 
> “Recent events in our region have proven that Australia’s future frigates must be equipped to defend Australia from the threat of medium- and long-range missile attacks,” Turnbull said in a speech in Sydney.
> 
> Work on the frigates is set to begin in 2020, with BAE Systems, Navantia and Fincantieri all competing for the A$35 billion ($27.39 billion) contract.
> 
> Turnbull said the decision to award the missile defense system contract allows the three bidders enough time to incorporate Aegis technology into their bids.
> 
> _Australia is expected to announce the winner of the frigate contract in early 2018_ [emphasis added]...
> 
> The decision to use the Aegis ballistic missile defense systems _brings Australia in line with U.S., Japanese and Korean vessels, allowing international cooperation_ [emphasis added], Vice Admiral Tim Barrett, Australia’s navy chief, told reporters in Sydney...
> 
> The frigates will be the next major component of Australia’s plan to increase defense spending by A$30 billion to be worth A$195 billion, or _2 percent of GDP_ [emphasis added], by 2021-2022 as Canberra seeks to protect its strategic and trade interests in the Asia-Pacific...
> 
> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-australia-defence/australia-to-fit-warships-with-anti-missile-defense-systems-idUSKCN1C72YM



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Karel Doorman

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Look what Aussies will be doing with new RAN frigates (design bidders overlap with RCN's)--will our gov't note?
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Well Mark tbh,if for example the proposed Type-26 for Canada should win,and when ,as i think it will,it will be outfitted with APAR 2 and the Smart-MMN(SMART-L mk2)they will be BMD capable.

Our ships(DZP)are allready BMD capable,and they have the SMART-L mk 1 and can allready do that,they will get the SMART-MMN(Milti Mission Naval)shortly and this radarset will be able to "look" at least 2000 kms,so i'm sure whatever ship will be selected wich will have these radars is BMD capable. 

Only thing we can't do is shoot them down ourselves since we lack the right rocket(SM-3)

I hope these will bought shortly(SM-3 and SM-6)but we'll see.


----------



## AlexanderM

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Well Mark tbh,if for example the proposed Type-26 for Canada should win,and when ,as i think it will,it will be outfitted with APAR 2 and the Smart-MMN(SMART-L mk2)they will be BMD capable.
> 
> Our ships(DZP)are allready BMD capable,and they have the SMART-L mk 1 and can allready do that,they will get the SMART-MMN(Milti Mission Naval)shortly and this radarset will be able to "look" at least 2000 kms,so i'm sure whatever ship will be selected wich will have these radars is BMD capable.
> 
> Only thing we can't do is shoot them down ourselves since we lack the right rocket(SM-3)
> 
> I hope these will bought shortly(SM-3 and SM-6)but we'll see.


If this occurs I will be pleased, although I read something that made me think some of the brass in our navy don't like the idea of having a rotating dish, which I don't get, given the amazing range of the system and the fact that the APAR is solid state. I would also like to see more than the 32 vls cells but that's just me.


----------



## Karel Doorman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> If this occurs I will be pleased, although I read something that made me think some of the brass in our navy don't like the idea of having a rotating dish, which I don't get, given the amazing range of the system and the fact that the APAR is solid state. I would also like to see more than the 32 vls cells but that's just me.



Well to go back to our ships,as an example,these have the possibility for 40 cells,only 32 are used right now but the provisions are there allready.

As to the not liking rotating radar part i can only say that the SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval)is the furthest "looking" system on the market right now(well actually i think it's not yet on the market but will be shortly,but i could be wrong),even the USA has nothing like it,so logically i would buy,if i was minister,the best possible/capable one on the market,but that's me.  :nod:

As said before the USA acknowledged the fact that Thales Netherlands is at least 6 six years ahead of them.(radar systems)


----------



## AlexanderM

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Well to go back to our ships,as an example,these have the possibility for 40 cells,only 32 are used right now but the provisions are there allready.
> 
> As to the not liking rotating radar part i can only say that the SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval)is the furthest "looking" system on the market right now(well actually i think it's not yet on the market but will be shortly,but i could be wrong),even the USA has nothing like it,so logically i would buy,if i was minister,the best possible/capable one on the market,but that's me.  :nod:
> 
> As said before the USA acknowledged the fact that Thales Netherlands is at least 6 six years ahead of them.(radar systems)


I think if you double check you'll find you have 48 cells but only use 40. I think if we don't equip the ships, at least the destroyers, with the Smart-MMN it will be a huge mistake, but that's just me.


----------



## Karel Doorman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I think if you double check you'll find you have 48 cells but only use 40. I think if we don't equip the ships, at least the destroyers, with the Smart-MMN it will be a huge mistake, but that's just me.



Yep,Alexander you've got me,in the number of cells,i was too quick in answering,my bad.  

For the rest i totally agree.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Looking at the "Canadian" version of the type 26 again, I can't say I am excited by the way they set up the Harpoon missiles launchers.

I mean why have them facing the way they do instead of 180 degrees from it (so that the port launcher shoots to starboard and the starboard launcher shoots to port, as usual and as on the HALs)? As set up right now, you will be flooding your deck with heat and toxic exhaust fumes every time you fire. By putting them back in the usual  configuration (port shoots to starboard and vice versa) you would have the heat and most of the fumes dissipated over the water instead of on the ship.

And, KD, I suspect the sea ceptors have been removed because as a usual loading, eight of the 32 Mk41 cells will be filed with quad ESSMs for that same purpose.

That would make the normal missile load as follows: 32 ESSM, 24 combination of Standards (SM-2ER, SM-3 or SM-6), 8 Harpoons (or the nextgen surface strike missile), and 22 SeaRAM rolling airframe missiles. Remember this is likely the GP version we are seeing here. 

The AAD version could have two supplementary eight cells Mk41 launchers. One back of the smokestack, which would likely require sacrificing the flex deck below, for 32 self-defence ESSM, and a total of 40 cells forward instead of 32 for the various Standard missiles, and possibly land attack missiles.


----------



## AlexanderM

It is my understanding that The Joint Strike Missile is being developed for use with the F-35, so if we purchase the aircraft and the missile proves to be a good system then at some point we may have to choose between the JSM and the Harpoon, which have very similar numbers in terms of range. If we did choose the JSM they would fire out of the vls cells and we wouldn't need the launchers on the decks, so would provide more options for the deck space.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/2328-exclusive-new-details-on-the-kongsberg-vertical-launch-joint-strike-missile-vl-jsm.html


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Does the RFQ specify a number of "Strike Length" cells in the Mk.41 VLS?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Fincantieri is offering their FREMM for CSC:



> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/italian-shipbuilders-pledge-to-use-allaustralian-labour-on-frigates/news-story/d0a6af4e61bad8a36ec984dc73a01db7



Meanwhile they're building a sort of super-OPV for Italian Navy:



> Fincantieri Building Second Italian Navy Patrol Ship
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/fincantieri-building429945#.WdPY9o9OHs4.twitter



From 2015:



> 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/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Looking at the "Canadian" version of the type 26 again, I can't say I am excited by the way they set up the Harpoon missiles launchers.
> 
> I mean why have them facing the way they do instead of 180 degrees from it (so that the port launcher shoots to starboard and the starboard launcher shoots to port, as usual and as on the HALs)? As set up right now, you will be flooding your deck with heat and toxic exhaust fumes every time you fire. By putting them back in the usual  configuration (port shoots to starboard and vice versa) you would have the heat and most of the fumes dissipated over the water instead of on the ship.
> 
> Agreed, I saw that as well.  Seems like a simple enough EC.
> 
> And, KD, I suspect the sea ceptors have been removed because as a usual loading, eight of the 32 Mk41 cells will be filed with quad ESSMs for that same purpose.
> 
> That would make the normal missile load as follows: 32 ESSM, 24 combination of Standards (SM-2ER, SM-3 or SM-6), 8 Harpoons (or the nextgen surface strike missile), and 22 SeaRAM rolling airframe missiles. Remember this is likely the GP version we are seeing here.
> 
> The AAD version could have two supplementary eight cells Mk41 launchers. One back of the smokestack, which would likely require sacrificing the flex deck below, for 32 self-defence ESSM, and a total of 40 cells forward instead of 32 for the various Standard missiles, and possibly land attack missiles.



From what I have been able to gather is that 48 cells is more than the requirement (recent article about De Zeven Provincien having more VLS capability at 40VLS than the requirement in CDR magazine).  I _believe_ (with no direct evidence) that the requirement is for 32 cells similar to what the 280's had with the AAD version being exclusively kitted out with SM family missiles and the GP version being kitted out with mainly ESSM, though a mix makes sense.  Only issue with that would be the radar system for the AAD is going to be more powerful and more optimized for longer SM engagement ranges.  

[quote author=Canadian Blackshirt]
Does the RFQ specify a number of "Strike Length" cells in the Mk.41 VLS?
[/quote]
The funny thing is no one who actually knows the specific requirements is talking about it due to a publication ban or security clearance.  So the best we can do is infer and discuss based upon images like the one posted and the odd company statement or town hall bit of info.

The VLS canisters are supposed to be large enough for the SM family of missiles and it was stated in a recent town hall that "significant land attack capability" is a requirement.  I would interpret that this means strike length VLS to accommodate land attack missiles whatever they may be, as the strike length VLS can be shortened with inserts should you need AFAIK.

It would also be a bit future proof for the VLS to be strike length as the in-development Long Range Anti Ship Missile is well underway.  

Added thought/edit: We are assuming that the radar is an APAR type, which means the missile family would be a semi-active group.  It could be something like the Sea Fire 500.  This radar works with active homing missiles like the Aster family.  So the loadout would be more like 32 Aster 15's for a GP frigate and 32 Aster 30's for an AAD frigate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Question: Does it save space to have individual missile cells or to have less cells that be fed from under deck by a magazine?


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> Question: Does it save space to have individual missile cells or to have less cells that be fed from under deck by a magazine?


Pretty sure it's better to have the cells, they really don't take up that much deck space and the big plus is rate of fire, as all missiles are available to fire at any time, no need to reload.


----------



## Kirkhill

On the other hand:

Having the missiles in single-shot cells means that the vessel needs to return to port to rearm.

With a reloadable launcher then replenishing the magazine below decks might be something that could be accomplished at sea.


----------



## MilEME09

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On the other hand:
> 
> Having the missiles in single-shot cells means that the vessel needs to return to port to rearm.
> 
> With a reloadable launcher then replenishing the magazine below decks might be something that could be accomplished at sea.



I think right there is a peacetime vs war time mind set. If you have the luxury of returning to port why plan to not be able to?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hmm or a combo of the two types. The big issue I guess is ensuring no gases or flames get out of the launcher into the magazine space and also ensuring the magazine space is protected in case of fire or penetration damage. I wonder from a damage control perceptive if the individual cells are safer than a magazine style system?


----------



## AlexanderM

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> I think right there is a peacetime vs war time mind set. If you have the luxury of returning to port why plan to not be able to?


That's why the Burke's have 90 to 96 cells each, so they can load up with missiles in case they get in a fight and can't reload for a while. It would take quite an effort to run them out of missiles. They could potentially carry up to 360 ESSM's. It's our mindset that is the problem with our 32 cells, thinking we're just there to have a presence and if anyone starts shooting call the Americans. If you look at the Spanish frigates they have 48 cells, that's 32 SM-2's plus 64 ESSM's, for a total of 96 missiles, to me that's the minimum. You don't need to worry about reloading in port if you've got 96 missiles ready to say hello.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Even if it starts as "fitted for but not with", limiting the design to 32 cells certainly appears to limit the design going into an unknown future.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.seaforces.org/wpnsys/SURFACE/Mk-26-missile-launcher.htm

Here's the launcher that preceded the Mk 41 VLS - the Mk 26.

I am going to guess that one of the major advantages of the vertical launch system was simplicity.  Fewer moving parts to fail.











Loading and Firing sequence video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuRvHV6_1eQ


----------



## Underway

See Falklands war where one of these jammed at the exact wrong time.  There is also the limitation that you can't fire all your missiles in quick succession as overwhelming the ships defences is an important tactic.  Those would be overwhelmed relatively quickly.


----------



## NavyShooter

Look at the moving bits in this video.

That's a LOT of stuff to keep working in order to launch missiles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTz5kL6gzSI

VLS please!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Relevant to possible missile defence role for CSCs:



> Could SM-3 Interceptor Take On Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles?
> _As Pentagon adds dollars for missile defense, Raytheon pitches SM-3s as ICBM killers_
> http://aviationweek.com/defense/could-sm-3-interceptor-take-intercontinental-ballistic-missiles



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Relevant to possible missile defence role for CSCs:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


I thought the SM-3 was specifically designed to take out ICBM's and that was pretty much its only function, so why would they have to pitch it? 

I guess long range verses short to medium range is the answer.


----------



## Underway

I think there might be other missiles available for this sort of thing from a ground launch perspective (Patriot variants??).

Edit:  Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system and missile which is currently deployed to South Korea....


----------



## MarkOttawa

How many ships will RCN get, at what cost, built by Irving?



> An Interview with Rod Story from the PBO on Costing for CSC
> 
> As part of its National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS), the Government of Canada has outlined a long-term project to renew Canada’s federal fleet of combat and non-combat vessels. One group of ships within this strategy is the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). This program consists of building up to 15 ships to replace Canada’s 12 Halifax-class frigates and three Iroquois-class destroyers.
> 
> The original budget to build these 15 ships was set in 2008 at a total of $26.2 billion. Given the factors of inflation, rising cost of material, labour and other expenses, the original budget is not enough to construct the planned number of ships by the anticipated start year of 2020.
> 
> With a mandate of providing independent analysis to Parliament on the state of the nation’s finances and to estimate the financial cost of any proposal for matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction, the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) prepared a report: The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants. This report which was released on June 1, 2017, was spearheaded by Rod Story, Financial Advisor – Analyst on the Expenditure and Revenue Analysis team at PBO.
> 
> Marcello Sukhdeo, editor of Vanguard spoke with Rod Story recently about this report and the methodologies used in arriving at an estimated cost for CSC../.
> 
> Q: The PBO report states that Canada would save 25 per cent, or $10.22 billion, if the ships are built at a foreign shipyard using an original ship design rather than in Canada. Can you elaborate further on that?
> 
> Just to be clear, the numbers we spoke about before are as-spent or nominal value. This one is based on 2017 dollars. If you spent all the money exactly today, the total budget for CSC would be $39.94 billion, not $61.82 billion. So, this $10.22 billion is in real numbers, or you can say 2017 dollars.
> 
> So two things are driving that cost difference. One, it’s built in a foreign shipyard that has already built at least nine of the ships. So they are no longer needing to go through a learning curve. In addition to that, the assumption is that there are no design changes; that is, we take the ship as it’s already scoped and designed and in operation. So, Canada is not going to go in and do a large number of changes. Basically, they’ve built nine ships, and we’re taking the 10th through the 24th ship.
> 
> You have two things driving the cost saving: one is the learning curve. When Irving starts to build in the Halifax shipyard, clearly they’re going to go on a learning curve. And they have two things affecting that learning curve. One is, any time any shipyard builds a new design, there’s a lot of churn in the first eight to nine ships. During that time, they learn how to build most efficiently.
> 
> The other aspect that’s driving this is: Irving has not built a surface combatant. Surface combatants are vastly different than what they’re building now in the case of the Arctic Offshore Patrol ships. They’re much denser, much more complicated, and again that also affects the learning curve. So, your first eight ships will be that much more expensive purely because you’ll have that much more to learn.
> 
> Q: So, it takes about nine ships to really get it right?
> 
> Well, to reach your maximum efficiency. Basically, theoretical analysis has shown that by the ninth ship, you’ve now reached that point. This is analysis done in the original 2006 RAND report. So yes, it takes nine ships before you get to that maximum efficiency...
> 
> Basically, learning curve is the primary challenge. We have not built surface combatants since the finishing of the Halifax frigates in 1996. All that knowledge has been lost; it has to be relearned.
> 
> The other challenge is the amount of changes that DND will want to make on the design. If they are to take a design from another country, how much are they going to change that design? It’s not like you change 5 per cent and expect the cost to increase by the same percentage. In fact, it multiplies. Once you’ve changed about 20 or 30 per cent, you may as well have redone the design from scratch. It’s one of those things – it’s very multiplicative. These ships are so dense in the sense of so many things are packed in so tightly and so dependent on each other. You make one change, it ends up propagating throughout the whole ship quite often. They have to be extremely careful. Managing those changes will be quite a challenge...
> https://vanguardcanada.com/2017/10/16/an-interview-with-rod-story-from-the-pbo-on-costing-for-csc/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Good flipping intellectual property grief!



> Sturgeon and Cairns: Warship procurement needs a course correction
> 
> Canada’s plan to replace its fleet of destroyers and patrol frigates with new vessels under the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project is the largest and most costly single procurement our country has launched since the Second World War. Unless the federal government makes significant changes to the process, however, it will become a textbook case of how not to conduct a competition that’s fair, open and transparent and that ensures the best value for Canadian taxpayers and the growth of Canadian jobs.
> 
> This shouldn’t be happening for a project the recent Defence Policy Review said would require a total of 15 ships and which the federal government acknowledges is likely to cost $60 billion – a figure supported by the Parliamentary Budget Office – and up considerably from the original budget of $26.2 billion.
> 
> When then-minister of Public Services and Procurement Judy Foote announced in June 2016 that the government wanted a “Military Off the Shelf” (MOTS) solution for the new ships, she said it would save taxpayer dollars and help reduce the production gap between CSC and the Arctic Patrol Ships  to be built by Irving Shipyard of Halifax. Since then, however, there have been a series of incremental changes to the competition that have made the current Request for Proposals (RFP) inconsistent with the original MOTS criteria and which now appear to accommodate solutions that are not yet operational.
> 
> In addition, serious concerns have arisen about intellectual property (IP), data transfer to third parties and foreign state-owned classified data.
> 
> The _government is in effect asking the key bidders – all of whom are paying their own very substantial costs of submitting proposals – to prepare exhaustingly complex bids and provide all of their IP data for only a three-ship contract, without any guarantee of follow-on work for the other 12 ships_ [emphasis added]. “Step in” provisions also create the possibility that Irving Shipyard would have the option of undertaking the winning bidder’s proposed work directly with the bidder’s subcontractors for the production phase.
> 
> Potential bidders are rightly concerned that, once IP data rights are provided, any additional surface combatants could be built without them. This would mean the successful bidder will have taken all of the risk in building the original three ships and exposed its IP to firms under contract to Canada (through Irving Shipbuilding) that would normally be seen as global competitors. This is a very difficult risk/reward scenario for many bidders to accept. (By contrast, a new plan by the U.S. Navy to acquire 20 small combat frigates offers much better risk/reward for potential bidders – including the same firms involved in Canada’s CSC requirement – who will not have to share their IP with their competitors.)
> 
> Additionally, _some foreign governments aligned with key international bidders for the CSC project are concerned that Canada has entangled state-owned classified data within this procurement, despite the general protocol of western nations and the NATO Standard that any requests for this sensitive data, and the handling of it, must be on a government-to-government basis_ [emphasis added].
> 
> It is time to get the CSC procurement back on track...
> 
> _Raymond Sturgeon is a former Senior Assistant Deputy Minister of Defence for Matériel; Vice-Admiral (Ret’d) Peter Cairns is a former Commander of the Royal Canadian Navy._
> http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/sturgeon-and-cairns-warship-procurement-needs-a-course-correction



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So key question:. Has anyone been fired yet?

Not re-assigned.

Not transferred.

Fired

If no one has, there is no real accountability and nothing will ever change.


----------



## Kirkhill

I would ask has anyone been in charge?

Since the inception of the program has there been continuity of command?

Or has it been a hall with revolving doors with an endless supply of politicians, bureaucrats, sailors, salesmen and engineers?

Two years and your next posting.


----------



## Underway

Its interesting that there are a few companies that have issues with IP.  And there are a few who don't have any issues with IP.  I would bet that those companies that are nationalized are more worried about this.  Those that are not are much more sanguine about the process.  The risk is far greater for say a DCNS in losing employment for their national shipyard then say BAE who would just set up shop in Canada partnered with Irving should Irving want to sell ships to someone else.


----------



## Monsoon

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> So key question:. Has anyone been fired yet?


On the basis of what? A couple of overheated op-eds? The NSPS procurements, like the F35, are huge-money contracts tendered out into a zero-sum business environment: every dollar that goes to one bidder is a dollar that doesn't go to another. These defence consortia have learned that the cost of a PR campaign waged through apparently disinterested third parties is trifling in comparison to the benefit of derailing a tender that didn't go their way. Certainly that's the lesson that the F35 saga has communicated very clearly.

Without impugning the motives of Sturgeon and Cairns, a former ADM Mat and a retired admiral are exactly the sort of guys a PR agency would approach to gin up some arguments supportive of their client's desired outcome. Until the last ship has been delivered and the last dollar paid out, we're going to continue to be subjected to the "best opinions money can buy". That shifty business has already cost us a serving admiral; we need to be critical of what we read.


----------



## Good2Golf

Monsoon said:
			
		

> ...Until the last ship has been delivered and the last dollar paid out, we're going to continue to be subjected to the "best opinions money can buy"...



Then transitions to "what we should have bought" for the decades to follow. :nod:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Monsoon said:
			
		

> On the basis of what? A couple of overheated op-eds? The NSPS procurements, like the F35, are huge-money contracts tendered out into a zero-sum business environment: every dollar that goes to one bidder is a dollar that doesn't go to another. These defence consortia have learned that the cost of a PR campaign waged through apparently disinterested third parties is trifling in comparison to the benefit of derailing a tender that didn't go their way. Certainly that's the lesson that the F35 saga has communicated very clearly.
> 
> Without impugning the motives of Sturgeon and Cairns, a former ADM Mat and a retired admiral are exactly the sort of guys a PR agency would approach to gin up some arguments supportive of their client's desired outcome. Until the last ship has been delivered and the last dollar paid out, we're going to continue to be subjected to the "best opinions money can buy". That shifty business has already cost us a serving admiral; we need to be critical of what we read.



On the basis that the program is roughly 10 years behind its original timeline and the industry partners basically laughed at the original RFQ spec's which means our team leaders didn't know what they were doing?


----------



## Monsoon

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> On the basis that the program is roughly 10 years behind its original timeline and the industry partners basically laughed at the original RFQ spec's which means our team leaders didn't know what they were doing?


We fired the last government and the one before it. How's that working out for us?


----------



## Kirkhill

US Army on IP rights....

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/11/1/army-eyes-ownership-of-technical-data-rights



> *Army Eyes Upfront Purchases of Technical Data Rights*
> 11/1/2017
> By Connie Lee
> 
> The Army is hoping to save money on repairs and upgrades to military systems by purchasing technical data rights up front. The concept is building momentum, the service’s top logistician said Nov. 1.
> 
> Having such rights will increase the efficiency and lower future sustainment costs by allowing the service to expand its options for developing or obtaining repair parts, Gen. ‘Gus’ Perna, commanding general of Army Materiel Command, said during a meeting with reporters in Washington D.C. His goal is to obtain technical data rights for equipment rather than “the entire intellectual property.”
> 
> Technical data rights refer to a category of intellectual property rights that includes "any recorded information of a scientific or technical nature," according to information provided by the Defense Information Systems Agency. That could include product design or computer databases, but exclude elements such as source and executable codes, design details or flow charts.
> 
> “We want multiple access and availability and we want to maintain good competition and relative prices for the repair parts,” he said. “So intellectual property is very important. This is not something that we’ve been used to doing.”
> 
> Companies have been reluctant to give up their technical data rights because it may mean the loss of valuable maintenance contracts. Perna, however, said the Army would pay vendors extra for these rights. Obtaining the desired technical data will increase costs up front, he noted, but will save the Army money in the long run.
> 
> AMC has been taking three steps to reach this goal, Perna said. These include engaging with industry; ensuring partnership with the office of the Army acquisition executive; and working with lawyers and contractors on the change. The general emphasized the importance of “breaking the paradigm” and removing attorneys and contractors “off the hamster wheel” of agreements that have not included owning intellectual property.
> 
> “It’s not [an] all or none. It’s a ‘let’s understand the cost, schedule and performance.’ Let’s make the operational risk assessment and then let the chief make the decisions,” Perna said. “We’re not on autopilot.”
> 
> However, Perna clarified that the strategy would only apply to future agreements rather than existing contracts. “Once it’s out of the barn door, it’s out of the barn door,” he said.
> 
> But obtaining technical data rights isn’t necessary for every single system, Perna said.
> 
> “Sometimes we don’t need it,” he said. “In my words . . . sometimes there’s equipment that won’t be forward on the battlefield and we can count on industry to maintain it and sustain it. And so is it worth paying all that money for the data rights? No. But if the equipment is going to be forward . . . and I need to reproduce it and control the supply chain, then it’s worth it to go after the tech data rights.”



Personally I think it is ludicrous to be planning to purchase kit for 40 years in the future when technology follows Moore's Law.

Buy now. Use it till it dies. Replace with what is available.  Then rely on the users to get the best out of what is available.  Might have trouble getting that past you Dogma Doctrine folks though.

Is there room for Howes and Rottenbergs in the modern force?


----------



## Uzlu

If Alion Science and Technology decides to submit a bid, what do you think it will be?  Based on the KDX-IIA?  Based on something else?


----------



## serger989

Uzlu said:
			
		

> If Alion Science and Technology decides to submit a bid, what do you think it will be?  Based on the KDX-IIA?  Based on something else?



I thought they did already? CDR mentioned when they visited CANSEC that they had a booth that went pretty unnoticed and what they are offering is a variant of the De Zeven Provincien from DAMEN. I hope I am thinking of Alion here...

Edit: I guess showcasing at a booth would be different than submitting a bid. But I guess it would be safe to assume that it would still be the De Zeven?


----------



## Uzlu

Is pressure building for a modular approach to ship construction?
  
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-calls-on-canadian-prime-minister-to-reform-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-656128313.html.

I would like to see all qualified Canadian shipyards get a piece of the action—not just Irving and Seaspan.  Final assembly, construction of some of the modules, and designation as prime contractor can still be with Irving and Seaspan.  If the Liberals keep insisting that Irving builds all fifteen surface combatants, there are going to be many unhappy Quebec voters in the next federal election.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Here's what the "neighbours"want,

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/navy-ships/news/a27258/navy-looking-for-a-new-frigate-replace-littoral-combat-ship/


Look at the "dark horses",lol.

"A number of foreign designs could end up being dark horse candidates in the FFG(X) competition as well. The Danish Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates are well-rounded, well-regarded ships, as well as the Danish Absalon-class support ships (really, frigate-class ships). Likewise, the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates are held in high esteem. Norway's Fritjof Nansen-class frigates manage to pack in the Aegis Combat System, complete with a version of the same phased array radar that equips the U.S. Navy's existing Arleigh Burke-class destroyers."

Btw,i heared/read something else:  "CDR mentioned when they visited CANSEC that they had a booth that went pretty unnoticed and what they are offering is a variant of the De Zeven Provincien from DAMEN."

it seems like Alion is offering this.(not sure)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Is pressure building for a modular approach to ship construction?
> 
> http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-calls-on-canadian-prime-minister-to-reform-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-656128313.html.
> 
> I would like to see all qualified Canadian shipyards get a piece of the action—not just Irving and Seaspan.  Final assembly, construction of some of the modules, and designation as prime contractor can still be with Irving and Seaspan.  If the Liberals keep insisting that Irving builds all fifteen surface combatants, there are going to be many unhappy Quebec voters in the next federal election.



I don't think that Quebec voters actually have clued at all on the shipbuilding strategy, so not much risk there IMHO.

On the other hand, if you wonder after reading the article what those two ships mentioned are (Excellence and Pride), here is a short Davie video made during their construction. They were built in the last three years, are 4200 tons, complex sea bed construction vessels that are, the largest vessels built in Canada in more than ten years (until the first AOPS hits the water) and the most complex vessels built in Canada since the last HAL hit the water (and that won't be beat by the AOPS, but only by the CSC's when they hit the water).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvfqhblMErQ


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just circling back to timeline, it looks like bids are all still due on November 17, 2017 (after third extension), but the official project website is still showing approval as June 2017.  

Anyone know what the updated approval target date is?


Cheers, Matthew.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Is pressure building for a modular approach to ship construction?
> 
> http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/quebecs-national-assembly-calls-on-canadian-prime-minister-to-reform-the-national-shipbuilding-strategy-656128313.html.
> 
> I would like to see all qualified Canadian shipyards get a piece of the action—not just Irving and Seaspan.  Final assembly, construction of some of the modules, and designation as prime contractor can still be with Irving and Seaspan.  If the Liberals keep insisting that Irving builds all fifteen surface combatants, there are going to be many unhappy Quebec voters in the next federal election.



Modular builds were how the Spirit Class ferries were built out here. Seaspan effectively has 2 yards in Vancouver and one in Victoria. Currently they don't need to farm work out as they have the 3 OFSV underway at 1 yard right now. They could sub-contract out the superstructure of the JSS similar to what Davie did, but it would likely be in one of the smaller yards here. That being said with the expertise that Davie gained, it's possible that Davie is subcontracted to build both JSS Superstructures and then ship them out here.


----------



## Patski

Hi there... new here!  Just an ordinary civilian interested in warships since childhood!  I've been reading this forum for quite a while, following the CSC program very closely as well as the AOR program as well.

I have a theory, and I'm far from being an expert... I think Canada might try to get a deal for type 26 or 31 and Typhoons at the same time?  Since that Boeing lawsuit, and now even more since Airbus bought the C Serie, it could be a good partnership between the 2 countries...

Bombardier have a factory in UK that might be affected by Boeing Lawsuit.  BAE Systems are involved in the Typhoons and the Type 26/31 as well...

I was looking at the Babcock Arrowhead 120 project...seems very interesting and modular as well, could be a good option for Canada as well I think!

Again, I'm no expert, just want to share my opinion on this!  Most people I know are not much interested in this..

Thanks!

Pat


----------



## Cloud Cover

I am becoming more convinced the central political plan is to build as few ships as possible, as far off in the distance as possible, while keeping the expenditure in line for the projected cost. That means, I fear, a the CSC will be a light frigate (by today's design standards) because even  the current specifications and requirements are beyond the boat loads of cash the taxpayers are already being asked to deliver to Irving. 

Tying a warship design  contract in with an aircraft purchase isn't something that has crossed this thread before. It would upset too many rice bowls, no?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I am becoming more convinced the central political plan is to build as few ships as possible, as far off in the distance as possible, while keeping the expenditure in line for the projected cost. That means, I fear, a the CSC will be a light frigate (by today's design standards) because even  the current specifications and requirements are beyond the boat loads of cash the taxpayers are already being asked to deliver to Irving.
> 
> Tying a warship design  contract in with an aircraft purchase isn't something that has crossed this thread before. It would upset too many rice bowls, no?



To me, it would depend on what was on offer and what the terms of the deal were.


----------



## Underway

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I am becoming more convinced the central political plan is to build as few ships as possible, as far off in the distance as possible, while keeping the expenditure in line for the projected cost. That means, I fear, a the CSC will be a light frigate (by today's design standards) because even  the current specifications and requirements are beyond the boat loads of cash the taxpayers are already being asked to deliver to Irving.
> 
> Tying a warship design  contract in with an aircraft purchase isn't something that has crossed this thread before. It would upset too many rice bowls, no?



A "light frigate" by today's standard would be similar tonnage to a Halifax class.  Most modern frigate designs are in the 5000+ ton category with many over 6000 tons.  If you are referring to a light frigate in capability that's a different matter.  I wouldn't be worried about capability.  More likely numbers are what will be cut.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I thought I had read they bumped the bid submission date again to Nov 30, 2017 and was checking in on updates.

Anyone?


----------



## kratz

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I thought I had read they bumped the bid submission date again to Nov 30, 2017 and was checking in on updates.
> 
> Anyone?



The date has been moved and is in the news, if you search for it. Due to the weekend and Remembrance Day, the news cycle has not allowed for independent confirmation to be published on this site.  :remembrance:


----------



## MarkOttawa

Official news release, note vague timing for start of actual construction:



> New extension to the closing date for the Canadian Surface Combatant Request for Proposals
> 
> OTTAWA, Nov. 10, 2017 /CNW/ - The Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. are extending the submission deadline for the Request for Proposals (RFP) for the design of the Canadian Surface Combatant fleet to November 30, 2017.
> 
> The Canadian Surface Combatant is the largest, most complex procurement undertaken by the Government of Canada, and the ships being built will form the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> Based on lessons learned from the voluntary review process conducted during the summer of 2017, the Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. recently amended the Request for Proposals, including the Evaluation Plan, to simplify the submission requirements and to allow bidders to demonstrate the full potential of their proposed solution to satisfy Canada's requirements. These amendments have maintained the requirements of the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> Following the amendments to the RFP, some bidders requested additional time to finalize their bids. Therefore, in accordance with established processes, the decision was made to extend the closing date so that bidders have every opportunity to submit compliant bids.
> 
> Targeted completion for the procurement process is scheduled for 2018 and the _start of ship construction remains scheduled for the early 2020s_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The Government is committed to ensuring an open, fair and transparent procurement process that will provide the Royal Canadian Navy with the vessels it needs to do its work protecting Canadians.
> 
> Given the magnitude and importance of this project, every effort is being made to ensure that this procurement is effectively executed and that bidders have the opportunity to submit high quality compliant bids that provide good value for money and maximize Canadian Content.
> 
> Canada and Irving Shipbuilding intend to hold a Technical Briefing on the next stages of procurement process prior to the bid closing.
> 
> Associated Links
> 
> Establishment of a closing date for the Canadian Surface Combatant Request for Proposals
> Further extension to the closing date for the Canadian Surface Combatant Requests for Proposals
> Extension to the closing date for the Canadian Surface Combatant Requests for Proposals
> Competitive process launched to select design of Canadian Surface Combatant
> Government announced streamlined procurement approach to accelerate delivery of the Canadian Surface Combatant vessels
> 
> Follow us on Twitter
> 
> Follow us on Facebook
> 
> SOURCE Public Services and Procurement Canada
> http://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/New-extension-to-the-closing-date-for-the-Canadian-Surface-Combatant-Request-for-Proposals-1007593557



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jollyjacktar

:trainwreck:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Subtleties of language as usual:

Early 2020s is not the same as early 2020. The later actually happens near the beginning of the year 2020, the former in any year between 2021 and 2024. 

Given that it takes easily two to three years, minimum, to build a ship of that size and complexity and another year, at least, to bring her to operational capability, we ain't seeing replacement for the IRO destroyers until at least 2025, more likely later.

That means the RCN will have gone without replacement fro the IRO's for 10 years, for ships that we *knew* as early as 2005 needed urgent replacements.


----------



## Uzlu

serger989 said:
			
		

> I thought they did already? CDR mentioned when they visited CANSEC that they had a booth that went pretty unnoticed and what they are offering is a variant of the De Zeven Provincien from DAMEN. I hope I am thinking of Alion here...
> 
> Edit: I guess showcasing at a booth would be different than submitting a bid. But I guess it would be safe to assume that it would still be the De Zeven?



Thank you.  Sorry for the late reply.  A bid based on the _De Zeven Provinciën_-class frigate, I think, might be a very strong bid.  It is an air-defence and command frigate unlike the _Baden-Württemberg_-class frigate. 

It has a speed of 30 knots—slightly slower than the _Halifax_-class frigate but faster than the _Álvaro de Bazán_-class frigate, faster than the _Baden-Württemberg_-class frigate, faster than the _Aquitaine_-class frigate, faster than the _Sachsen_-class frigate, and faster than the Type 26 frigate.  The Royal Canadian Navy is looking for something fast—presumably fast enough to keep up with American carrier strike groups.

It uses Active Phased Array Radar, which was developed by the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada.  The Liberals are looking for Canadian content.  It has a 127-millimeter gun—exactly what the Royal Canadian Navy wants.  Perhaps a consortium with Thales as lead partner, Alion, and Damen Group can put together an extremely strong bid.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Thank you.  Sorry for the late reply.  A bid based on the _De Zeven Provinciën_-class frigate, I think, might be a very strong bid.  It is an air-defence and command frigate unlike the _Baden-Württemberg_-class frigate.
> 
> It has a speed of 30 knots—slightly slower than the _Halifax_-class frigate but faster than the _Álvaro de Bazán_-class frigate, faster than the _Baden-Württemberg_-class frigate, faster than the _Aquitaine_-class frigate, faster than the _Sachsen_-class frigate, and faster than the Type 26 frigate.  The Royal Canadian Navy is looking for something fast—presumably fast enough to keep up with American carrier strike groups.
> 
> It uses Active Phased Array Radar, which was developed by the Netherlands, Germany, and Canada.  The Liberals are looking for Canadian content.  It has a 127-millimeter gun—exactly what the Royal Canadian Navy wants.  Perhaps a consortium with Thales as lead partner, Alion, and Damen Group can put together an extremely strong bid.



Well to be fair i completely agree(and think i'm not the only 1 here    )and suggested as much allready.But i don't see it happening.

But maybe there's a light at the end of the tunnel,because "de Zeven" is mentioned as a "dark horse"in the American programme,so that(if choosen)may launch it forward as the preferred design.(let's hope so for Canada,whatever will be chosen,it's time to start building replacements for the"Iroquois"

Btw,the "De Zevens"will get the new Smart-LMM radars starting from this year,and will go on next year.Also a replacement for the 127mm canons is in the starting phase(probably vulcano,127mm)OTO Melara 127 64 LW Vulcano Naval Gun System.


----------



## MarkOttawa

French and Italians join forces, also looking to pitch together for USN FFG(X)--note IP issue with Irving and see further link at end:



> ‘Naval Airbus’ progress: Italian-French frigate pitch for Canada moves forward
> 
> A senior manager at Fincantieri has given the first official confirmation that the Italian shipyard will jointly bid to sell the FREMM frigate to Canada in partnership with France’s Naval Group.
> 
> The team-up will be a first concrete step toward a possible merger, or joint venture, between Fincantieri and Naval Group, which is currently being discussed by the two firms and has been dubbed a “Naval Airbus“ for Europe.
> 
> Addressing analysts on Nov. 10, Fincantieri General Manager Alberto Maestrini said: “An example of this collaboration is the joint bid we intend to present to the Royal Canadian Navy for their [request for proposals] on the construction of 15 frigates.”
> 
> France and Italy jointly designed the FREMM frigate for use by their navies, but have hitherto marketed the vessel separately around the world. Fincantieri is currently shortlisted to sell the frigate to Australia, while France has sold one to Morocco and to Egypt.
> 
> Talks to unite France and Italy’s shipbuilding capacity grew out of Fincantieri’s takeover this autumn of French yard STX.
> 
> Fincantieri plans to create synergies between STX and its own yards in Italy in the civil cruise-ship sector. But the talks also spurred debate over naval tie-ups between Fincantieri and Naval Group, which would help reduce the fragmentation of Europe’s naval industry and allow it to compete more effectively around the world...
> 
> One obstacle to a joint Canadian bid is _Fincantieri’s objections to the way the tender has been organized. Canada has asked private firm Irving to coordinate the work of the ship’s designer, leading to fears that the winning bidder would be forced to hand over too much intellectual property to Irving_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Looking beyond the Canada bid, Maestrini said the _FREMM frigate would be well-suited for another pending program. “We think it will also match perfectly the requirements put forward by the U.S. Navy in their recent request for design proposals for the Future Frigate Program_ [emphasis added],” he said...
> https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/11/13/naval-airbus-progress-italian-french-frigate-pitch-moves-forward-for-canada/



From 2016:



> RCN Canadian Surface Combatant: Intellectual Property Brouhaha
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/07/28/mark-collins-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-intellectual-property-brouhaha/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

And now we are down to 6.  Interesting.  Naval Group (formerly DCNS) and Fincantieri were originally expected to bid on the project separately from everything I've read.

Fincantieri were the ones who were most concerned about the way the bidding system was set up.  They were also the ones who wanted the first three ships built in Italy to test them out.  Makes sense that they are essentially "pulling" their bid and reducing their risk by teaming up with the French who appear far more sanguine about the process.

Some info below on the potential FREMM Naval Group bid.

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/focus-analysis/naval-technology/3996-dcns-confident-its-fremm-is-the-right-solution-for-the-royal-canadian-navy-csc-program.html



> Two FREMM variants based on the same baseline vessel are being offered by DCNS as Olivier Casenave explains: "We are proposing two variants of our FREMM. A multi-mission variant and an air defense variant. Both will have strong ASW capabilities".
> 
> Asked about the likely differences between an Aquitaine-class FREMM and a Royal Canadian Navy FREMM, DCNS said "There are a few differences to be expected. For example, the French Navy FREMM accommodates the NH90 NFH helicopter. For CSC, our FREMM will be modified in order to accommodate the CH-148 Cyclone helicopter of the Canadian Forces”.
> 
> As a matter of fact, under the refined procurement process, Canada prompts bidders to integrate in their offer up to 24 Canadian equipment, systems and technologies. It is not a surprise to have on this list equipment such as helicopter handling system, underway replenishment at sea or integrated platform management system (IPMS). Such systems will have to be fitted onboard FREMM. However as far as missiles are concerned, shipbuilders may offer the system of their choice. Canada seems decided not to re-use the venerable Mk41 launchers currently fitted on its vessels. Therefore DCNS will probably offer missile solutions by MBDA. Regarding radars there no Canadian requirement for now. For the Air Defense variant DCNS is proposing a FREMM fitted with a 4 panel array radar (active electronically scanned) from Thales



And some more info from CANSEC it looks like the FREMM-ER that Naval Group were going to bid.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/dcns-la-nouvelle-fremm-er-devoilee-ottawa

In english:


> While the French group is competing for the Canadian Navy's Frigate and Destroyer Renewal Program, it took advantage of CANSEC, held May 25-26 in Ottawa, to unveil the new version of its FREMM ER. Revealed in October 2012 at Euronaval, the Extended Range multi-mission frigate has enhanced capabilities in area air defense and even ballistic missile defense thanks to the new Sea Fire 500 radar.Thales. Featuring four flat faces, providing 360-degree continuous monitoring, this new radar, which uses active antenna technology, is used for the detection, identification, tracking and conduct of fire on the high seas and in coastal areas. It is integrated into a single mast overlooking the bridge and accommodates most other sensors, communication systems and electronic warfare equipment. Compared to the first version of the FREMM ER, the new model, which DCNS revealed with the Canadian red maple leaf on the chimney, notably saw the positioning of the four antennas of the Sea Fire 500 evolve.
> 
> The FREMM ER is still based on the model of the multi-mission frigate ordered eight copies by the French Navy (the third was delivered in March, the last will be in 2022), DCNS having also sold two units of this type to Morocco and Egypt. With a length of 142 meters and a width of 20 meters, these buildings are equipped with an integrated SETIS combat system that manages all sensors and weapons. The French frigate, adaptable according to the needs of customers, is a formidable anti-submarine platform, with a bow sonar, a Captas 4 towed sonar, torpedo tubes and the possibility of shipping one or two helicopters.
> 
> The building can also use a 76mm or 127mm turret, light tele-operated artillery, 8 anti-ship missiles, and front-mounted vertical launchers totaling 32 cells. These can house surface-to-air missiles, such as Aster 15 and Aster 30, as well as cruise missiles. It is also possible, especially near the hangar, to install other vertical launchers for short-range surface-to-air missiles, such as VL Mica. For special operations, two niches on each side can house commando boats. The FREMMs, which have a hybrid propulsion (electric and therefore silent up to 16 knots and gas turbine for high speeds with a maximum speed of 27 knots), are finally very automated boats,


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> Fincantieri were the ones who were most concerned about the way the bidding system was set up.  They were also the ones who wanted the first three ships built in Italy to test them out.  Makes sense that they are essentially "pulling" their bid and reducing their risk by teaming up with the French who appear far more sanguine about the process.


I would not be surprised if Fincantieri was told that there will very likely be no more extensions.  I wonder what happened to the combat systems integrator that Fincantieri teamed up with.  It would be a pity to have spent about ten to twenty million dollars with nothing to show for it.


----------



## Karel Doorman

And as said another bid has come in,which is also a contender,i think.The "the Seven"put in by Alion and partners.(design is Damen/Dutch Navy)

Strong points,
-Proven design
-Partially Canadian radar.
-Full integration with US  missiles(the missiles that Canada wants)
-Can be brought in production very quickly.
-Not much adjustments needed("Canadiasing",hope i say it correct)

Out of Frontline Defense:

"The four front-runners, in no particular order, are the Odense Marine Technologies (OMT) Iver Huitfeldt class already in service with the Royal Danish Navy; the BAE Systems Type 26 Global Combat Ship; the DCNS FREMM already in service with France, Morocco and Egypt; and the Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems F125 design. Additionally, Vard, formerly STX Canada and now a Fincantieri subsidiary, is promoting the Italian FREMM design. Potential candidate number six is the Dutch Air Defence and Command Frigate built by Damen Schelde Shipyards for the Royal Netherlands Navy. Spain’s Navantia and possibly Daewoo round out the possible contender designs (if Daewoo can circumvent the NATO requirement)"

And a bit on the Damen/Alion bid.

Air Defence and Command Frigate
Damen Schelde Group
The Dutch Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding Group specializes in the design and construction of naval vessels and complex commercial vessels. With over 125 years of industrial and shipbuilding history, the Royal Schelde shipyard has been involved in many projects for the Royal Netherlands Navy’s new surface combatants and support ships. Damen promotes the idea of building vessels in local shipyards. From 2002 to 2005 they delivered 3 vessels to the Royal Netherlands Navy, including HNLMS Tromp. These frigates appear to meet the needs of the RCN in many areas. The hull form is 144.2 m LOA and can attain speeds up to 29 knots using a CODOG propulsion system – 2 Rolls Royce Spey SM1C Gas Turbines and 2 Wartsila Diesels. The ship has a flight deck and hangar capable of carrying an NH 90. Command Systems and APAR Radar are by Thales and the vessel is fitted with 40 VLS cells capable of launching the Evolved Sea Sparrow or Standard Missiles. Main armament also includes Harpoon and the 127 mm Oto Melara Gun. The Goalkeeper Close-in Weapons system and ASW torpedoes are also fitted. The standard crew size of 220 is in line with current RCN thinking.

Damen has kept a very low profile and little is known of their intentions for involvement in the CSC project. There are some who would put them in the list of top four contenders for WD. Reportedly they have good working relationships with Irving. If they are interested they can be expected to bid as a WD only


http://defence.frontline.online/article/2015/4/2143-Warship-Design

I know it's from 2015,but as said there's a bid.

PS,i think the design also has a chance in the "FFG-programme" for new frigates in the USN.(would love to see 20 US and 10?Canadian "derivatives" on the oceans,proud "Dutchie")


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> I would not be surprised if Fincantieri was told that there will very likely be no more extensions.  I wonder what happened to the combat systems integrator that Fincantieri teamed up with.  It would be a pity to have spent about ten to twenty million dollars with nothing to show for it.



Ficantieri's combat systems integrator was most likely Ficantieri or even DCNS.



			
				Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> And as said another bid has come in,which is also a contender,i think.The "the Seven"put in by Alion and partners.(design is Damen/Dutch Navy)



Confirmed through two other sources that are much more recent (CANSEC 2017 had a booth from Alion there with this bid).  Alion does work on the Arleigh Burkes and Tico's so it's got a bit of experience here.  They partnered with Damen Shipbuilding, Atlas Electronik, and Hendsoldt for the bid with Damen being the CSI.  I'm not going to say darkhorse, but Alion is very much a KISS design type company.  Low risk, evolutionary designs, attacks engineering problems with the proper focus on the operator, good attention to detail.  Corporate culture is very much quiet confidence.  Wouldn't be surprised if they won.

Their bid arguably has one of the best Air Warfare systems available (APAR 2 and SMART-L or S), but what would the low end GP variant look like?


----------



## Karel Doorman

Underway said:
			
		

> Ficantieri's combat systems integrator was most likely Ficantieri or even DCNS.
> 
> Confirmed through two other sources that are much more recent (CANSEC 2017 had a booth from Alion there with this bid).  Alion does work on the Arleigh Burkes and Tico's so it's got a bit of experience here.  They partnered with Damen Shipbuilding, Atlas Electronik, and Hendsoldt for the bid with Damen being the CSI.  I'm not going to say darkhorse, but Alion is very much a KISS design type company.  Low risk, evolutionary designs, attacks engineering problems with the proper focus on the operator, good attention to detail.  Corporate culture is very much quiet confidence.  Wouldn't be surprised if they won.
> 
> Their bid arguably has one of the best Air Warfare systems available (APAR 2 and SMART-L or S), but what would the low end GP variant look like?



Well to be fair it would be APAR2 and SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval,2000 kms reach,or SMART-L MK2 to give it a simpler name)what the low end variant would look like,well i'm as curious as you.  :nod:

And to be fair i've known of the more recent happenings,that's why i said the bid has come in as of today(official)longer unofficial,or "dark horse"so you will(or not widely known,played their cards close to their chest.(Damen,Alion,e.o.)


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> ...what would the low end GP variant look like?



Perhaps something like this?

http://products.damen.com/en/ranges/crossover/crossover-139cf

http://products.damen.com/-/media/Products/Images/Clusters-groups/Naval/Crossover/Documents/Product-Sheet_CrossOver_Range_02_2014.pdf


----------



## AlexanderM

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Well to be fair it would be APAR2 and SMART-MMN(Multi Mission Naval,2000 kms reach,or SMART-L MK2 to give it a simpler name)what the low end variant would look like,well i'm as curious as you.  :nod:
> 
> And to be fair i've known of the more recent happenings,that's why i said the bid has come in as of today(official)longer unofficial,or "dark horse"so you will(or not widely known,played their cards close to their chest.(Damen,Alion,e.o.)


I would imagine that other bids could include the APAR2/Smart MMN systems, yes?? I would think that these are the systems we would want to have, as the coverage is outstanding.


----------



## Karel Doorman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I would imagine that other bids could include the APAR2/Smart MMN systems, yes?? I would think that these are the systems we would want to have, as the coverage is outstanding.



Well to be fair Alexander,i'm not too sure about that since Thales Netherlands holds the patents or "key" so you will.To give an example to my knowledge the RNLN is launcing customer to the SMART-MMN(on the DZP-class),so i don't know what's Thales's feeling to adopt that to any other design as you put it,but hey i could be wrong.


----------



## AlexanderM

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Well to be fair Alexander,i'm not too sure about that since Thales Netherlands holds the patents or "key" so you will.To give an example to my knowledge the RNLN is launcing customer to the SMART-MMN(on the DZP-class),so i don't know what's Thales's feeling to adopt that to any other design as you put it,but hey i could be wrong.


It's already on multiple designs though, and by that I mean the Smart-L, that's the point. There would be a cost but that's to be expected. RNLN would have paid for the upgrade then if anyone else wants to use that upgrade they would have to pay.


----------



## Karel Doorman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> It's already on multiple designs though, that's the point. There would be a cost but that's to be expected.



well yeah the  SMART-L is as is APAR,but not the SMART-MMN and APAR2.that's my point.Those are brand new,complete systems,so you'll have to change you're "old" systems.To give an example to get to SMART-MMN,you'll have to change the rotating "bit"since the new one has way more panels with more capacity(if i may call them that),so it's not just a "chip"tune,hard ware is also involved.

And Chris btw,yeah that's APAR2 on the crossover design.(well it looks like that)more the "form"/outer structure on what we have on the "Hollands"

BTW i wish we had some of these ships,but the design is untill now never used,a pity.(there are several variants)In "other"news it looks like we're getting a new/extra tanker(AOR)not known what it will look like.(i'm sure Damen knows.)


----------



## AlexanderM

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> well yeah the  SMART-L is as is APAR,but not the SMART-MMN and APAR2.that's my point.


Well with APAR Canada is a partner so we would have access, at a cost and the same would likely be true of the upgraded Smart-L.

Here is something on the APAR, we have to pay no question, but that would all be worked out, as it would be with the Smart-L system I imagine, but we wouldn't have to use the specific hull design, that would be a separate issue. It's likely they would recover some of their development money which they would appreciate.

http://www.janes.com/article/71025/gan-radar-directed-at-csc-cansec17d2

Here is the information on the Smart-L MM. I think it can be assumed that the developing nation would be a partner and would benefit from any sales.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/defence/smart-l-ewc


----------



## Underway

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Well to be fair Alexander,i'm not too sure about that since Thales Netherlands holds the patents or "key" so you will.To give an example to my knowledge the RNLN is launcing customer to the SMART-MMN(on the DZP-class),so i don't know what's Thales's feeling to adopt that to any other design as you put it,but hey i could be wrong.



Thales will most likely be supplying radars to multiple bids.  They might not be the combat systems integrator but that doesn't mean their kit won't be on the ship.  They said as much in a CDR magazine interview a few years back.  Guaranteed the Sea Fire 500 is on the FREMM bid and the APAR 2 is on two or three bids.  A similar example would be the BAE 127/62 gun could be on multiple ships even though they are doing their own in house bid.

With APAR 2 it says in the glossy brochure that it does a multi beam volume search but its a multi function radar. APAR 2 is a high freq X band (maybe even Ku band) radar which is not normally used for search.  Concern here is that in an engagement you are moving some of your single radar to targeting/tracking functions and taking it away from search.  With two radars you get redundancy and workload sharing.

Perhaps the bid would pair an APAR 2 with a SMART-S for the GP frigate and a SMART-L for the AAW version, or you could just take the SMART radar off the GP version.  Also it's interesting to note that the APAR 2 does digital beamforming which up until recently was only on CEAFAR and the MF-STAR if I remember correctly.  True 4th gen active phased array if that's the case.

Another question... what is going on the Navinata bid?  I expect them to put in a variant of the F-100 but their normal F-100's have SPY1 radars.  Not sure if that's something that would/could be put into the bid and if it would be worth it on a GP frigate.


----------



## Underway

Article about Alion in Esprit de Corps.

http://espritdecorps.ca/eye-on-industry/alion-canada-locally-developed-globally-delivered



> November 15, 2017
> By Sandrine Murray
> 
> November 30, 2017 is the deadline for Alion Canada to submit its request for proposal (RFP) for the design of the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) contract. If anyone is [over]qualified for the job, it’s Alion.
> 
> What started as a Chicago-based technology research institute in the 1930s became Alion Science and Technology Corporation in 2002. Alion provides engineering and operational support to the U.S. government for national defence, intelligence and homeland security. They were the design agent for the DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and C-47 Ticonderoga-class guided missile cruisers in the U.S. Navy.
> 
> Canada offered an attractive market to invest and expand the operations of Alion, specifically in the National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy (NSPS, now called the National Shipbuilding Strategy or NSS).
> 
> Alion couldn’t simply import the U.S. expertise and capabilities to Canada, explained Chief Operating Officer Bruce E. Samuelsen. Instead, it would need to implant them within the country. To do so, they established Alion Canada in 2009.
> 
> Alion Canada has about 100 professionals, which includes engineers, naval architects and designers living and working in Canada. The company will leverage strength from the U.S. operations to support growth in Canada. American engineers trained Canadians.
> 
> “I’ve weaned myself of all the Americans, and now have implanted that skillset here,” Samuelsen says.
> 
> Alion Canada is committed to Canada for the long run. The investments made in Canada to date have already generated jobs and economic benefit, said Samuelsen. Alion has met with businesses across Canada to create opportunities for the Canadian industry and exports. Their proposition promises high-value work and sustainable economic benefits.
> 
> These include internships and work on various aspects of Alion, he says, including the CSC bid. Alion Canada’s goal is to lead the CSC design project and to export its ship design capabilities to the broader global market.
> 
> The Canadian government will invest in 15 CSC vessels, which will be Canada’s major surface component of maritime combat power. They need to be designed to be rapidly deployed anywhere in the world, either independently or as part of a Canadian international coalition. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, the entire CSC program is projected to cost roughly $60-billion, which include such costs as training and ammunition; this amount does not include costs for personnel, operations, maintenance and mid-life refurbishment of the vessels.
> 
> The CSC project, part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy to renew the Royal Canadian Navy’s fleet, will replace the Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class multi-role patrol frigates with one single class capable of meeting various threats on the open ocean and coastal environment.
> 
> This is the biggest shipbuilding project in Canada since the Second World War, and involves a lengthy five-stage acquisition process.
> 
> “It’s a massive procurement,” says Samuelsen. “I’ve been able to pull people out of retirement for this project.”
> 
> Designing a ship is like designing a small city, but with a twist, he explained. Pull a city out of its roots and look at all the services and components that allow it to run smoothly. Then make it whole, so it can become self-sustaining. Finally, place it in the world’s most hostile environment, the ocean … now the task seems even more challenging.
> 
> “The complexity of a ship, for me as a naval architect, is really cool,” said Samuelsen. “But to develop the response, it’s a very intensive, cautious, careful process.”
> 
> But Alion is ready, because they bring an off-the-shelf design with a proven combat system and ship platform, making the necessary changes to meet Canada’s requirement. The platform and system solutions are currently operational to reduce the risk and cost for the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian taxpayer.
> 
> _They selected the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate as a baseline for CSC, because it meets all the mandatory selection criteria without modification._ It will also accelerate the production process, because it requires substantially fewer changes and provides the lowest risk approach to fulfilling Canada’s needs.


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> Article about Alion in Esprit de Corps.
> 
> http://espritdecorps.ca/eye-on-industry/alion-canada-locally-developed-globally-delivered
> 
> They selected the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate as a baseline for CSC, because it meets all the mandatory selection criteria without modification.



This is why I thought that a bid based on this design could be a very strong bid.  Every one of the seven other designs appears to require more modifications.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The devil is always in the details.  

The Daring Class appears to be the poster child for 'new' designs that once constructed were found to have major design flaws which were not identified pre-build

That clean sheet risk (especially from BAE) makes me wary of the Type 26 baseline.

On the other hand it appears that all the other competitors are using proven hull-propulsion designs as a base which SHOULD improve the probability of solid reliability.

Ignoring the weapons-sensor fit, does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the other competitors hull-propulsion options? 

Thank you in advance....


----------



## Uzlu

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Ignoring the weapons-sensor fit, does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the other competitors hull-propulsion options?



Well, the _Halifax_-class frigate uses combined diesel or gas (CODOG).  I am assuming the Royal Canadian Navy likes the rapid acceleration that is possible with gas turbines.  Of the eight designs that might have had a chance of being used in a bid, only the _Iver Huitfeldt_-class frigate does not use gas turbines.


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The devil is always in the details.
> 
> The Daring Class appears to be the poster child for 'new' designs that once constructed were found to have major design flaws which were not identified pre-build
> 
> That clean sheet risk (especially from BAE) makes me wary of the Type 26 baseline.
> 
> On the other hand it appears that all the other competitors are using proven hull-propulsion designs as a base which SHOULD improve the probability of solid reliability.
> 
> Ignoring the weapons-sensor fit, does anyone have any thoughts or experience with the other competitors hull-propulsion options?
> 
> Thank you in advance....



If Naval Group/Ficianteri are using the FREMM-ER as their bid it's basically a new design.  The change to allowing advanced designs to bid was just as much a benefit for them IMHO as it was for BAE.  Kinda like saying iPhone 10 is the same as iPhone 2.

Reference your second questions the only system I can speak to is the Type 26 is using essentially the same propulsion as the Type 23 has.  Which is to say an extremely reliable design that has been proven, and popular with the RN brass.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Thanks Underway for correction on Type 26 propulsion....Matthew.


----------



## Kirkhill

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> And Chris btw,yeah that's APAR2 on the crossover design.(well it looks like that)more the "form"/outer structure on what we have on the "Hollands"
> 
> BTW i wish we had some of these ships,but the design is untill now never used,a pity.(there are several variants)In "other"news it looks like we're getting a new/extra tanker(AOR)not known what it will look like.(i'm sure Damen knows.)



Can't help but wonder if the Damen Crossover - built on Sigma model which has been purchased by Morocco, Indonesia and Mexico - is any more developmental than the T26.

Damen at least has experience building all of the individual modules for inclusion in ships ranging from FPBs to FFGs and LPDs.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Can't help but wonder if the Damen Crossover - built on Sigma model which has been purchased by Morocco, Indonesia and Mexico - is any more developmental than the T26.
> 
> Damen at least has experience building all of the individual modules for inclusion in ships ranging from FPBs to FFGs and LPDs.



Same thoughts for the FREMM-ER.  

In other news, big briefing Monday to public regarding the CSC program.  Supposed to involve senior officials from Procurement, DND, as well as staff from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Irving.  Bids are due on the 30th.  I expect a reveal of the bidders, the plan moving forward and some random terrible questions from the press regarding crap they don't understand.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:
			
		

> ...  I expect a reveal of the bidders, the plan moving forward and_ some random terrible questions from the press_ regarding crap they don't understand.



Including, perhaps some about why the TCN doesn't need another tanker from Davie?


----------



## Underway

That would definitely classify as a bad question as the entire point of the announcement is regarding the CSC project not the rental of an AOR project.  CSC is far more money and far more important.


----------



## AlexanderM

Underway said:
			
		

> Article about Alion in Esprit de Corps.
> 
> http://espritdecorps.ca/eye-on-industry/alion-canada-locally-developed-globally-delivered


I like the De Zeven Provinciën but what about the range? Is it 4000nm? The Iver has a range of 9000 miles but then likely would not have the quick acceleration of the gas turbines, something our naval brass would want.


----------



## Karel Doorman

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I like the De Zeven Provinciën but what about the range? Is it 4000nm?



"CODOG propulsion system and engines

The ship’s combined diesel or gas (CODOG) propulsion system has two independent propulsion lines. The two Rolls-Royce Spey SM1C gas turbine engines each provide 18.5MW. Two cruise diesel engines, Stork-Wartsila 16 V26, provide 8.4MW.

The two gearboxes are installed in a separate transmission room. The ship has two controllable-pitch propellers and two rudders with rudder roll stabilisation.

The maximum ship speed is 30kt and the cruise speed is 18kt. The range is 5,000 miles at 18kt."

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dezeven/

Hope this answers your question.


----------



## Cloud Cover

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Including, perhaps some about why the TCN doesn't need another tanker from Davie?



I suppose we should never discount one of the most enduring elements of Canadian defence equipment politics- surprise.


----------



## Underway

Underway said:
			
		

> Same thoughts for the FREMM-ER.
> 
> In other news, big briefing Monday to public regarding the CSC program.  Supposed to involve senior officials from Procurement, DND, as well as staff from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada and Irving.  Bids are due on the 30th.  I expect a reveal of the bidders, the plan moving forward and some random terrible questions from the press regarding crap they don't understand.



OK so I got zero out of three.  There is there is no reveal, there is no plan, and I have no idea about questions.  At least I'm consistant.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1524257-feds-hope-to-fill-irvings-scheduling-gap-between-patrol-ships-warships


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Did you expect anything less?


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:
			
		

> OK so I got zero out of three.  There is there is no reveal, there is no plan, and I have no idea about questions.  At least I'm consistant.
> 
> http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1524257-feds-hope-to-fill-irvings-scheduling-gap-between-patrol-ships-warships



What possible incentive would Irving have to produce 6 ships for $3.5B instead of 5?


----------



## sunrayRnfldR

There is at least one nation that has a requirement for a larger offshore patrol vessel with an ice capability. New Zealand requires such a ship for its Southern Ocean patrols where ice is encountered in some fishing and scientific exploration areas near Antarctica. The Royal New Zealand Navy have contracted with Canadian companies for the refit of its two Anzac frigates with a new combat management system based on that installed in the Halifax Class modernization. So, there is a naval connection with Canadian industry and there could could be an opportunity for one more AOPS to be built beyond the 5 or 6 for the RCN.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Did you expect anything less?



It's hard to expect less than zero....   ;D



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> What possible incentive would Irving have to produce 6 ships for $3.5B instead of 5?



Believe it or not Irving is heavily incentivized to make 6 ships.  They make more money in the AOPS contract (3.5 billion like you said) if they make 6 within that budget then if they make 5 within that budget.  I actually expect them to try and make the six ships if possible even with this "gap" as it's in the company's best interest.

As for other countries buying the AOPS I expect it not to happen unless there is a significant price cut.  I suppose one could argue that the development costs have been sunk so a sale of the ship would be cheaper to another buyer.  But I would expect a much cheaper bid to come in from a shipbuilder that is not in Canada for anyone else out there who needs a half icebreaker half patrol ship.  Which is also probably no one.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:
			
		

> It's hard to expect less than zero....   ;D
> 
> Believe it or not Irving is heavily incentivized to make 6 ships.  They make more money in the AOPS contract (3.5 billion like you said) if they make 6 within that budget then if they make 5 within that budget.  I actually expect them to try and make the six ships if possible even with this "gap" as it's in the company's best interest.
> 
> As for other countries buying the AOPS I expect it not to happen unless there is a significant price cut.  I suppose one could argue that the development costs have been sunk so a sale of the ship would be cheaper to another buyer.  But I would expect a much cheaper bid to come in from a shipbuilder that is not in Canada for anyone else out there who needs a half icebreaker half patrol ship.  Which is also probably no one.



Underway

I take it you mean they have actual incentives in the contract to pay out more money if they can produce 6 for $3.5B instead of 5 for $3.5B? Of course they wouldn't be doing it for $3.5B then.  

If they need a gap filler to the CSC the government should just contract for the 6th or 7th AOPS. As Mark says jobs,jobs,jobs


----------



## serger989

I really don't see a single nation buying any of Irvings ships let alone their AOPS. If it costs around half a billion to make 1 AOPS for Canada, I do not think it could be successfully pitched overseas. They say they are developing the skills necessary to be great builders, sure, but they can barely develop their bookkeeping skills and still don't know if they can deliver on the 6th vessel until next year? Good grief. As someone who has been learning about our procurement history only this year, this gives me a headache... Can anyone shed positive light on this situation that keeps getting delayed


----------



## Uzlu

> Lockheed Martin, BAE submit warship bid
> 
> Days before the bid submission deadline for the Canadian Surface Combatant request for proposals, Lockheed Martin Canada has announced it has teamed up with the UK-based BAE Systems to submit a proposal for Canada’s new fleet of warships.
> 
> The combined request for proposals is for an off-the-shelf ship design and combat systems integrator, and experts say the Lockheed Canada and BAE duo will be a powerhouse contender.
> 
> For the ship design, BAE Systems is offering its Type 26 Global Combat Ship — long rumoured to be a favourite of Royal Canadian Navy officials and arguably the newest and most advanced vessel of its kind in the world — and the only possible contender that has yet to actually be built. The Royal Navy is building six of their own Type 26 vessels.
> 
> For the combat systems, which is best described as the brain and nervous systems of the ship’s intelligence and combat operations, Lockheed Canada is offering its Canadian-designed CMS 330. This is a newer version of the combat management system Lockheed designed for the Royal Canadian Navy’s original Halifax-class ships and is present on Canada’s modernized frigates.
> 
> Both firms were identified among bidders prequalified to participate in the process, alongside other international industry giants like ThyssenKrupp, Navantia and DCNS.
> 
> Also part of the consortium participating in the Lockheed/BAE bid are CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA and Dartmouth-based marine tech firm Ultra Electronics.
> 
> Speaking with The Chronicle Herald on Monday, Gary Fudge, VP of Canadian naval systems programs with Lockheed, said an independent study completed by Lockheed Canada revealed the Type 26 as the best design in the running, and prompted their interest in teaming with BAE for preliminary work several years before Canada announced that it would be combining the ship design and combat systems integrator into a single bid.
> 
> He said BAE’s modern design and modern toolsets — for example their use of advanced digital blueprints that will make it easier to modify and modernize the design in the future — made the Type 26 the key contender for them.
> 
> “Given that Irving has just built the most modern shipyard, we wanted the designer to have toolsets and data that can migrate easily into Irving’s toolsets,” said Fudge.
> 
> Irving is the prime contractor for the combat portion of the government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy and will build a fleet of 15 Canadian Surface Combatants (CSCs) at its Halifax shipyard, with a budget of $56billion to $60 billion, starting in the 2020s. It will also have a say, alongside the federal government, in selecting the winning bidder.
> 
> Rosemary Chapdelaine, vice president and general manager with Lockheed Martin Canada Rotary and Mission Systems, on Monday touted job creation in Canada, including Nova Scotia, as a key component to their bid.
> 
> For example, Lockheed Canada’s combat systems and integration technology is built at a facility in Ottawa and tested at the the company’s Maritime Advanced Testing and Training Site in Dartmouth.
> 
> Chapdelaine said Lockheed Canada’s approach to the bid is to be seen as the Canadian team, even if it takes points from other parts of their bid.
> 
> “We want to provide the Canadian content, do the direct work in Canada using Canadian industry,” she said.
> 
> David Perry, a senior analyst with Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said Lockheed Canada’s long history with the Royal Canadian Navy via the Halifax-class frigates and the advantages of the Type 26 over other potential designs puts the consortium in a good spot in the competition.
> 
> “An advantage of the Type 26 would be that where the requirements for it overlap with CSC, the technology would be very new, without modifying the design at all. The other ships in the competition would be older technology, so they'd need to modify it to introduce more current technology,” he said.
> 
> But that doesn’t make it a shoo-in — in an RFP with thousands of different parts, Perry said the winning design will have to tick a lot of boxes.
> 
> Speed and accommodations for example, while adequate in the Type 26, Perry said are not necessarily the cream of the crop compared to other options out there.
> 
> Retired navy commander and defence analyst Ken Hansen agreed that Lockheed Canada’s extensive experience working with the Canadian Navy, as well as their edge on Canadian content, gives them an advantage over some parts of the competition.
> 
> But, he said, while extremely advanced technology, the Type 26 might not be the ship Canada needs due to its high price and extreme complexity.
> 
> “The (Type 26) is inordinately complex and it had a lot of teething pains — the ship has been described in the U.K. press as overpriced and a technical nightmare,” he said. “I have not gotten that warm feeling where the reassurances from the British design authorities say ‘Oh it’s solved and we’re back on track.’”
> 
> It is not known how many groups will submit bids for the CSC competition. At least one other has gone public — Alion Canada announced its bid with Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command frigate as its design last week.
> 
> The federal government says it expects to be able to select a winning bidder at the earliest in the spring of 2018, dependent on the number and quality of bids it receives.



http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1524306-lockheed-martin-bae-submit-warship-bid


----------



## Underway

I take issue with two parts of that article.  The first is the UK will be building eight Type 26.  Not six.  Secondly Cdr (Ret). Hansen stated that the Type 26 has teething pains.  It has none as it hasn't even been born yet!  So while it may still have teething pains that remains to be seen.

Otherwise it was good.

My god though,  Lockheed, BAE, CAE, Ultra, L-3 and Macdonald Dettwiler?  That's like the Canadian Olympic hockey team of bids.  Might not win the gold but are going to make the others earn their wins.

Interesting design though, Lockheed will be offering CMS 330 as their command control system.  That's the same system currently fitted on the CPF and will be fitted on the AOPS.  I expect that means ESSM and SM2 vice CAAMS etc... as the missile load, which of course informs the radar system they are going to chose.  But I don't see a "radar" expert on that list of companies so their probably going to outsource a radar type.

CBC article on the same announcement.



> British design first to be submitted in Canadian navy's warship contest
> By Murray Brewster, CBC News Posted: Nov 28, 2017 5:00 AM ET Last Updated: Nov 28, 2017 5:00 AM ET
> 
> Companies vying to design and help build the navy's new frigates began submitting their bids on Monday, as federal officials acknowledged there could be a production gap at the shipyard doing the construction.
> 
> British warship manufacturer BAE Systems — which is partnered with Lockheed Martin Canada, CAE, L-3 Technologies, Macdonald Dettwiler and Associates Ltd., and Ultra Electronics — pitched their Type 26 warship design.
> 
> They were first out of the gate on Monday, three days ahead of the revised deadline established by Public Services and Procurement Canada.
> 
> At least one other company among the 12 pre-qualified bidders is thought to have submitted its proposal for the program, which is estimated to be worth $60 billion over the next few decades.
> 
> "We're really excited," said Rosemary Chapdelaine, president and general manager of Lockheed Martin Canada, in an interview with CBC News.
> 
> Her company's pitch is the culmination of five years work and preparation.
> 
> More hurdles ahead
> 
> Senior public works and defence officials said the bids will pass through a series of hurdles over the next few months, but it will now be "later in 2018" before the federal cabinet has the chance to approve a winner.
> 
> The fuzzy timeline means the program is months behind schedule.
> 
> The design competition was launched over a year ago with the Liberal government saying the plan to select a foreign, off-the-shelf design would be cheaper and faster than building a warship from scratch.
> 
> The delay raises the spectre that there will be a gap between construction of the navy's Arctic offshore patrol ships and the frigate replacements, which are expected to begin construction in the early 2020s.
> 
> Such a pause between major projects would have a huge impact on the roughly 2,700 workers at Irving Shipyards Inc. in Halifax, and also flies in the face of the intention of the federal government's national shipbuilding strategy, which was to eliminate the "boom and bust" cycle in the industry.
> 
> Lisa Campbell, the assistant deputy minister of defence and marine procurement, said at the moment the start date for "cutting steel" on the surface combat ships is "highly speculative."
> 
> Kevin McCoy, the president of Irving Shipbuilding, said the company is exploring options to fill the gap by constructing more arctic ships, possibly for other nations.
> 
> "We're out there looking at what other interest is out there for the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships," he said. "We've had some other countries come to the shipyard over the last two years. So, I would say: Yes it's an issue. It's an issue that most nations that build ships go through."
> 
> McCoy said it is "way too early" to speculate on whether there will be layoffs.
> 
> It is a matter of not "losing the experience of a highly talented workforce," he said Monday during a technical briefing in Ottawa. "The good news is we're looking at this many years in advance."
> 
> Type 26 frigate
> 
> The federal government, in laying down the markers for the program, said it was interested in an existing warship design, something with a proven track record.
> 
> The Type 26 only began production in Britain earlier this year.
> 
> Gary Fudge, the vice president of Canadian Naval Systems Programs at Lockheed Martin Canada, said the exact wording of the government's request for proposals was that it wanted a "mature design."
> 
> He said his company conducted two studies before partnering with BAE to submit the bid — and the fact that it was a brand-new design brought a lot of benefits.
> 
> "That is the best ship for Canada," Fudge said. "Some of these other warship designs were built 10 years ago and you will not be able to buy one part for those ships today."
> 
> Having to produce specific parts in small quantities will, according to Fudge, make some of the other, older designs more expensive.
> 
> The federal government will not confirm how many bids it receives between now and the time the decision is made, Campbell said.


----------



## Underway

Heres the press release from L3 website.

It's a bit long and in PDF format so I didn't copy it here.  Format and length don't work well for the forum without significant edits on my part.


----------



## MarkOttawa

US defence media notice LockMart, BAESystems et al. bid (note costs near end):



> Canadian Navy Competition Previews US Frigate Fight
> 
> The contest to build Canada’s next warship just kicked into high gear, and it’s a preview of the US Navy’s own frigate competition, with many of the same players. Earlier today — ahead of other competitors and the official deadline — Lockheed Martin and BAE Systems officially submitted the Type 26 frigate, which BAE is already building for the British Royal Navy. The Franco-Italian FREMM, the Spanish Navantia F105, and the Danish Stanflex are all likely competitors for both the Canadian and the US frigate programs.
> 
> Previously, I’d downplayed the possibility of the US Navy buying the Type 26, because the first frigate hasn’t been built yet, whereas the French, Spanish, and Danish designs all have long track records at sea. Having a track record is particularly important because America’s on a tighter schedule than Canada and therefore has less time to work out kinks in an untested product. The US FFG(X) program plans to award a construction contract in 2020, while the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program won’t make that award until the unspecified “early 2020s,” a date that’s repeatedly slipped.
> 
> But the Type 26’s entry into the Canadian contest suggests it’s readier than I thought. Putting together an industry team and a proposal package for the Canadian competition is, at the very least, good practice for the American one. And if the Type 26 goes on to get a good reception in Ottawa, that can only help it in Washington.
> 
> Cost & Capability
> 
> On paper, the Type 26 seems in many ways a good match for the US frigate requirements. Its primary role is hunting submarines, particularly to protect aircraft carriers and friendly ballistic missile subs — all top priorities for the US Navy as well. It will also fire anti-aircraft, missile defense, and anti-ship missiles out of the Mk. 41 Vertical Launch System, which is standard on US and allied warships (although the UK hasn’t actually developed the requisite anti-ship missile yet).
> 
> The Type 26 will have wide flight deck, capable of accommodating helicopters as large as the US Army (or RAF) CH-47 Chinook. It will also have a “modular mission bay” to accommodate specialized equipment from small boats to drones to relief supplies. That’s the kind of flexibility the US was hoping for with its troubled Littoral Combat Ship.
> 
> Unlike the high-speed, short-range LCS, but in keeping with the US Navy’s requirements for a long-haul frigate, the Type 26 will make a modest 26 knots but have fuel for 7,000 nautical miles. Displacing 7,600 tons (6,900 metric tonnes), with a basic crew of 157 sailors and accommodations for 208, the Type 26 is also a lot larger than LCS, as are all the frigate contenders.
> 
> The _Type 26’s big problem may be the big price tag_ [emphasis added]. The Royal Navy is initially paying almost US$1.7 billion a frigate (it’s a £3.7 billion, three-ship contract). That’s nearly as much as the US Navy pays for a much larger and more powerful Arleigh Burke-class destroyer. While the Pentagon expects to pay more for a frigate than the approximately $568.1 million it’s currently shelling out for LCS, it probably won’t pay three times as much.
> 
> Now, the _Americans and Canadians can expect to pay significantly less for the Type 26 than the British_ [emphasis added--for RCN good flipping luck]. That initial UK contract covers the cost of developing an all-new warship, a huge expense that other navies won’t have to replicate. It also covers the cost of figuring out how to build the new design affordably. Even setting aside development costs, the first few ships of a class always cost more to build than later ones, since industry learns how to streamline construction over time. So the cost of the Type 26 will definitely drop.
> 
> But by how much? Lockheed and BAE can offer estimates, but with the first ship still unfinished in the UK, they can’t offer any hard numbers on what subsequent ships will cost. That’s in stark contrast to their competitors, who all have multiple ships built.
> 
> The unproven Type 26 definitely has some disadvantages in the competition for the US Navy frigate contract. But if BAE and Lockheed want to enter it, it’s also definitely worth considering.
> https://breakingdefense.com/2017/11/canadian-navy-competition-previews-us-frigate-fight/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Well they didn't waste any time getting their website up that's for sure...

http://www.canadascombatshipteam.com/


----------



## Kirkhill

> In January of the following year, it became apparent that 600 of these would be required urgently for Col. Brown’s Battalion of the Rifle Brigade and that the Enfield factory would not be able to supply them in time. Thus *the whole order was put out to the trade in London at a charge of 38s per rifle*.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brunswick_rifle

Radical procurement plan.  

Here's what I want.
Here's what I'll pay.
Who will bid?


----------



## Underway

Video up as well.  It's a essentially a rehash of other Type 26 video's with even the same music, however it doesn't say much about any weapons/sensors and has a very generic VDS in the picture.  Basically no new information.

I noticed the 25mm guns however were still on the hangar sides.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfMqfoMQTs0


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Not quite, Underway: They at least put in a Cyclone helicopter vice the Merlins in their original videos.  :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not quite, Underway: They at least put in a Cyclone helicopter vice the Merlins in their original videos.  :nod:



Should have had a Chinook land on, after the Cyclone departed...   ;D


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not quite, Underway: They at least put in a Cyclone helicopter vice the Merlins in their original videos.  :nod:



 ;D

I suppose if we are being picky, there are only 24 VLS on the foc'sle and the 24 CAAMS launchers have been removed.  The stern bay doors are different than the ones in the original video.  A number of antenna and radars are different the main one being a integrated mast with a fixed array and the ops room shown was completely different to the original.  It is essentially the CMS 330 Ops room with a different layout.


----------



## Underway

Articles popping up lots of places now.  Most of this is a rehash with some editorializing thrown in.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-lockheed-martin-build-canadas-navy-new-frigate-23410


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> Articles popping up lots of places now.  Most of this is a rehash with some editorializing thrown in.
> 
> http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-lockheed-martin-build-canadas-navy-new-frigate-23410





> Given Canada’s less than stellar defense procurement track record, it is hard to say at this point how smoothly the CSC program will proceed.



Never a truer word spoke.


----------



## Underway

News is the Fincantieri of Italy and Naval Group of France are offering a FREMM variant at a_ guaranteed_ price of $30 billion dollars.  

I don't know the details of the offer and I'm trying to find an alternative reference.  

I'm not a fan of the FREMM and don't think it will match the requirements for the AAW version of the frigate very well or the number of personnel the navy wants to embark, but a $32 billion dollar deal is... exceedingly tempting.  

Also with a guarantee like that my first instinct is "What's the catch?"  Too good to be true usually is. I expect they want to build some of the ships in their own yards, or at least parts of them there.  Are they that desperate to keep their nationalized shipbuilding industries afloat they would offer a money losing contract?  Or are they non-compliant in some of their bid and want to circumvent the process?

Irving is heavily involved with the design selection.  I expect they will put up a fight and try to get all the money themselves.  I also expect bureaucratic resistance.

This has the potential to be a political football of epic proportions.  I suppose we'll see a battle between the navies priorities, jobs in Canada's priorities, strategic industry priorities and saving taxpayers dollars priorities.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Read the same article in the news.

*DS edit: Due to site guidelines.

Unless the design is non-compliant, I'm not sure how you turn down $30 billion is savings.

That is a ton of money to address other gaps....

Even from the Navy's own viewpoint, if they didn't want to cut corners on the SCC to help the other branches,  the savings could easily fund Shortfin Barracuda submarines as well as a third Berlin-class.


----------



## Rifleman62

Savings of $32B.

One comment to the article was to build two fleets and save $64B. :rofl:


----------



## Czech_pivo

Isn't the total package of 62 billion the total cost to build/operate (incl. all staffing costs, etc) over the entire life span of the ships?  If so, then how can they be saying that the savings will be 32 billion? 
Pound for pound (or ton for ton if you prefer), the total weight of the new Harry DeWolf vs the Italian FREMM is pretty much the exact same, so from the amount of steel needed to produce these ships, the cost raw materials would be similar.  
The Australians are expecting to pay 35B AUS for 9 frigates, (which the final 3 designs are the Type 26, the FREMM and a Spanish design) which works out to be 58B for 15 doing a simple mathematical calculation .  Assuming that the cost per ship goes DOWN as you build more ships, I'm not seeing how our projected costs of 62B adds up, it should come under 58B.  
Wouldn't it be nice if they decided to use the savings to build 10 nice new 1,500t corvettes for patrol duty (and scrap the Kingston's) and add a fourth replenishment ship?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

This basically means that Fincantieri/Naval Group is bowing out of the NSPS process and taking its parting shot at Irving.

Everything I read so far is that this "offer" from them with guaranteed price is for building the vessels outside of the NSPS. Basically, they would build them in their yards (or perhaps a different Canadian yard, with them in charge - Davie anyone?), but definitely not at Irving. That is the only way they can guarantee cost.

So their parting shot is just there to remind Canadians how much money they are spewing just for the privilege of home built. They know, however, that no Canadian government will ever spend that much money offshore for something they actually can get here, even at inflated prices (which is not the case, for instance for fighter aircrafts).



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Savings of $32B.
> 
> One comment to the article was to build two fleets and save $64B. :rofl:



I see somebody knows my wife's logic when shopping, which explains why I am running out of storage in the house for all the stuff purchased years in advance of any needs (if it ever comes).


----------



## Kirkhill

There might be another side to the Fincantieri offer:  Industry is becoming concerned that ships will be perceived as unaffordable.

The US model of high priced vessels (and aircraft) serves US needs.

It allows the US to use defense spending to support US jobs and the US economy.
It permits the US to build very capable systems.
It discourages other countries from trying to compete with the US by building comparable systems
It encourages third countries to see the US offerings as top of the line.

The US model also serves Canadian needs.

It encourages the domestic belief that defense is unaffordable (and unnecessary due to us hanging on to the US by its belt buckle).

However it does not serve the needs of foreign industry that wants to sell ships.

They need to convince third countries that ships are affordable AND that their ships are capable of meeting national strategic requirements.  They can win even if forced to concede that the US may have technological edges in some areas.

They can't tolerate the impression being left that ships are unaffordable - And that is the impression left by US policy and the accounting practices adopted by Canada, Australia and the UK.

They can't leave the impression that ships cost $4,000,000,000 per hull (the Canadian Model).  They need to present ships at $400,000,000 per hull (the Danish Model).

A first effort would be to show the Canadian Model as being one designed by idiots.  A good start would be to say that they would be happy to supply and support a fleet for half the price while still making a profit for their share-holders. 

The odds of anybody buying anything from a Canadian yard just got longer.


----------



## Czech_pivo

http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21415/Navantia_Saab_Submits_Canadian_Surface_Combatant_Program_Bid#.WiF99v-nGM8


----------



## AlexanderM

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Isn't the total package of 62 billion the total cost to build/operate (incl. all staffing costs, etc) over the entire life span of the ships?  If so, then how can they be saying that the savings will be 32 billion?
> Pound for pound (or ton for ton if you prefer), the total weight of the new Harry DeWolf vs the Italian FREMM is pretty much the exact same, so from the amount of steel needed to produce these ships, the cost raw materials would be similar.
> The Australians are expecting to pay 35B AUS for 9 frigates, (which the final 3 designs are the Type 26, the FREMM and a Spanish design) which works out to be 58B for 15 doing a simple mathematical calculation .  Assuming that the cost per ship goes DOWN as you build more ships, I'm not seeing how our projected costs of 62B adds up, it should come under 58B.
> Wouldn't it be nice if they decided to use the savings to build 10 nice new 1,500t corvettes for patrol duty (and scrap the Kingston's) and add a fourth replenishment ship?


My understanding is that it does not include operating costs or maintenance for the life of the ships. It's just the cost of building the ships and we could likely get it down to $45B if we build them faster. In my mind anything more than $3B per ship is just nuts.


----------



## jmt18325

I thought the $62B was in service support and construction costs, but not life cycle costs.


----------



## Kirkhill

And thereby hangs the tale:

The lack of certainty on what constitutes the price and the scope.

It serves the needs of those who would do nothing.


----------



## Uzlu

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I thought the $62B was in service support and construction costs, but not life cycle costs.





> This estimate includes costs resulting from development, production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management and upgrades to existing facilities. It does not include costs associated with the operation, maintenance and mid-life refurbishment of the ships, other than the spare parts that will be purchased when the ships are built.


http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

If Naval Group and Fincantieri are offering to build the modules in France and Italy with final assembly in Canada, their proposal will probably be rejected by the Liberals.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Frankly the cost of all that support is the same whatever ship your going to have, the costing needs to be separate, as does the contracts. The only cost that should be different is if there is a radical departure from the estimated support costs. Such as using 16" shells instead of missiles or nuke reactor as opposed to fuel oil. Then we can honestly compare the true costs of the different ships.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Let's get factual here:

These are the figures taken straight out of the PBO report on the CSC's cost. They are found at table 1 of the summary of findings, page 2 of the report - which is available on line (I am not posting the link because I wish to abide by Scott's new system for long documents but I haven't quite figured it out yet):

The PBO gives two figures for the program cost: One is in FY2017 dollars (i.e. this is what it would cost if we were executing the whole program in that FY and paid for it in current dollars of that year), then he gives the figures in "Then-years" (meaning the cost with inflation/dollar devalued along the way so that it is the actual price paid in each of the years a payment will be made in the future).

It Breaks down as such:

Total cost of program: $40B$ FY2017; 62B$ Then-yr.

Cost of development: $4.5B$ FY2017; 5B$ Then-yr.

Cost of the production (actual cost of ships): $28B$ FY2017; 45B$ Then-yr.

The rest*: 7.5B$ FY2017; 12B$ Then-yr.

*: The rest includes the following: Spares for the first two years and then spares for the rest of the in-service years (why the breakdown for the first two years, I have no idea); ammunition (this is for actual ammunition expenditure for training/forecasted ops during the lifetime, not for the original set of ammunition, which is included in the cost of production) facilities, documentation, training and Government program management.

As I have indicated at the time these figures came out, using the Australian Adelaide destroyers as baseline for the command/AAW ships, a FY2017 cost of about 4B$ each is in line with current costs. So, for three, you get the first 12B$ knocked out of the figure. The reminder of 16B$ for the 12 GP/ASW version means about 1.3B$ each, which is also in line with current price for such ships.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> http://www.defenseworld.net/news/21415/Navantia_Saab_Submits_Canadian_Surface_Combatant_Program_Bid#.WiF99v-nGM8



I'm not going to lie, the Navinata/Saab bid is genius.  Ctrl-F replace Canada with Australia and submit for the SEA 5000 program.  Just saved Navinata a pile of dollars in bid development.  If they get the Canadian contract awesome, here is your exact ship you require for the SEA 5000 program, massively reducing risk for Australia.  Every other bid needs to rejig for the Saab CMS and the CEA radars which are requirements for the Australian program.

CEA makes the CEAMOUNT/CEAFAR radar system which is very good by all accounts, arguably the best medium AESA for ships available.  Saab CMS is also right up there with the industry standard, maybe is the industry standard.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Let's get factual here:
> 
> These are the figures taken straight out of the PBO report on the CSC's cost. They are found at table 1 of the summary of findings, page 2 of the report - which is available on line (I am not posting the link because I wish to abide by Scott's new system for long documents but I haven't quite figured it out yet):
> 
> The PBO gives two figures for the program cost: One is in FY2017 dollars (i.e. this is what it would cost if we were executing the whole program in that FY and paid for it in current dollars of that year), then he gives the figures in "Then-years" (meaning the cost with inflation/dollar devalued along the way so that it is the actual price paid in each of the years a payment will be made in the future).
> 
> It Breaks down as such:
> 
> Total cost of program: $40B$ FY2017; 62B$ Then-yr.
> 
> Cost of development: $4.5B$ FY2017; 5B$ Then-yr.
> 
> Cost of the production (actual cost of ships): $28B$ FY2017; 45B$ Then-yr.
> 
> The rest*: 7.5B$ FY2017; 12B$ Then-yr.
> 
> *: The rest includes the following: Spares for the first two years and then spares for the rest of the in-service years (why the breakdown for the first two years, I have no idea); ammunition (this is for actual ammunition expenditure for training/forecasted ops during the lifetime, not for the original set of ammunition, which is included in the cost of production) facilities, documentation, training and Government program management.
> 
> As I have indicated at the time these figures came out, using the Australian Adelaide destroyers as baseline for the command/AAW ships, a FY2017 cost of about 4B$ each is in line with current costs. So, for three, you get the first 12B$ knocked out of the figure. The reminder of 16B$ for the 12 GP/ASW version means about 1.3B$ each, which is also in line with current price for such ships.



Still OGBD those are ridiculous prices for such ships,to give an example the new vMFF(replacement M-class)which will be a pure ASW/GP frigate will be in the region of about 600-800 million from what i've heard,those are more "realistic"prices,not "driven up" prices by Government or a shipbuilder.(sorry that's my take on it)That's the "purchase"price don't know the through life costs.

Oh and here's what's known right now:


weight/size: 6000 ton
length : ca. 140 m
propulsion : diesel-electric => 26 knots
armament :
- 2x76mm sovraponte(which means DART and Vulcano ammo)
- VLS 8x4 in front of the bridge,AA(8x4 = totalling 32 rockets )
- VLS 8x4 midships/aft for ASROC/ possibly for TLAM or SM-3
- RAM on hangar
- 30mm marlin in front of the bridge
integrated sensormast ( I500 ) 
Hangar : 1x NH90
Multi mission bay midships.

Nothing known about torpedo's/launchers right now.(but should be there)For now 2 will be built for the Netherlands and 2 for Belgium,hopefully the Netherlands will go for 2 more.

About the I-500 integrated sensor mast.

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/2014-archive-naval-exhibitons/euronaval-2014/2143-thales-presents-its-new-integrated-mast-i-mast-500-at-euronaval-2014.html"


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Karel, I think you are using US$, not Canadian. 

1.3B$ Can is equal to about 870 million Euros. 

I am pretty sure that the M class replacements will be near that cost. And, BTW, the figures you quote for the vMFF only include half the VLS spots the Canadian CSC will have. Add those extra missiles and associated systems in and you are talking an extra 80 million Euros or 120 million $ Canadian increase in price just there.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Karel, I think you are using US$, not Canadian.
> 
> 1.3B$ Can is equal to about 870 million Euros.
> 
> I am pretty sure that the M class replacements will be near that cost. And, BTW, the figures you quote for the vMFF only include half the VLS spots the Canadian CSC will have. Add those extra missiles and associated systems in and you are talking an extra 80 million Euros or 120 million $ Canadian increase in price just there.



Yeah sorry i did use US currency,but for number of missiles it's 8x4x2(corrected that in my previous post,thanks to you mentioning that) so in total something like 64 missiles(in front and aft/mid)from what i've heared the ships will come in at about 700 million euros.(buying price)so yeah about a billion or so Canadian.(sorry for that)
Maybe an idea for Canada to join the building party/line maybe that means the ships will come in cheaper(number of ships).I know junior will never go for that(building abroad),but still a nice thought.The price i mentioned is with all the systems mentioned,at least it is for us.And offcourse the fact that these "to be build"ships are not existing yet(and not in the bidding process)

Then Canada could "end up" with 2 classes,the "The  Seven" and the new class then it would feel like home away from home,lol.(and to be fair have both our Navies have the best looking(and very capable) ships around,but hey i'm prejudiced.)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I believe you had it right the first time Karel.

The vMFF (from what I have seen) is two times eight VLS spots for total of 16. Half of them (so eight) will pack the ESSM in quad packs, so thirty-two, but the second eight cells will pack only one missile each, including the surface to surface missiles, for a total onboard of 40 missiles.

The plans (so far) for CSC calls for 32 VLS spots (with three "blanks" used for servicing/electronics/etc. like we had on the IRO's - so total actual spots 29), 16 of which should pack quad ESSMs, plus eight independent SSM (Harpoons or follow-on), for total on the CSC's of 85 missiles.


----------



## MarkOttawa

RFP closed:
https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/11/canadian_surfacecombatantrequestforproposalscloses.html

So appear to be only four bids (if Fincantieri/Naval Group is actually accepted), nothing from Odense Maritime, ThyssenKrupp:

https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/12/01/naval-group-fincantieri-join-forces-in-canada-warship-tender/

https://vanguardcanada.com/2017/11/30/navantia-led-team-submits-proposal-for-csc/

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-lockheed-martin-build-canadas-navy-new-frigate-23410

Plus:



> ...
> Alion Canada, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based Alion Science and Technology, is offering Canada the Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command frigate design. Alion, the prime design agent for the U.S. Navy’s DDG 51 Arleigh Burke-class destroyers and Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser, has partnered with Damen Shipbuilding, Atlas Electronik and Hendsoldt on the Canadian program...
> http://seapowermagazine.org/stories/20171201-csc.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

What Fincantieri says, ships to be built at/at (but not by?) Irving:



> *Canadian Surface Combatant: Naval Group and Fincantieri propose to Canada a joint-offer based on the FREMM frigate design 01 December 2017*
> 
> The Government of Canada has declared its intention to acquire an existing and proven NATO warship design that could be readily modified to best meet the Royal Canadian Navy requirements. French and Italian world-class shipbuilders Naval Group and Fincantieri, with the strong support of both French and Italian governments, will combine their expertise and present to the Government of Canada an “off-the-shelf”, sea-proven solution based on the FREMM frigate design for the supply of 15 surface combatant ships to the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> Should the offer be accepted, the future frigates would be built in Canada at Irving Shipbuilding in a very short time, maximizing Canadian Industrial participation and job creation locally through a dedicated and comprehensive transfer of technology, as well as integrating Canadian suppliers into the two companies’ global supply chains.
> 
> Naval Group and Fincantieri have previously collaborated on several major naval projects, including the joint development of the FREMM frigate.
> 
> Considered as a world leader in her class, the FREMM frigate is a versatile vessel able to execute any type of missions encompassing all warfare domains (AAW, ASW, ASuW, Land Attack, Command Ship, etc.). Both the general purpose and anti-submarine warfare variants are already in service in two leading NATO navies.
> https://www.fincantieri.com/en/media/press-releases/2017/canadian-surface-combatant-naval-group-e-fincantieri-propongono-in-canada-unofferta-congiunta-basata-sul-progetto-della-fregata-fremm/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AlexanderM

I think it is absolutely absurd that we are building brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The range of the ESSM's is quite limited.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

That's the whole friggin' point of ESSM's: It's a short range, super fast, anti-missile/aircraft self-defence (also known as point defence) system.

Not all 32 cells will have them in either versions. You are likely to find four to eight of them with the ESSM quad packs in the AAW version, so that 21 to 25 cells will be filled with SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 as the case may require for Area air defence.

In the ASW/GP version, you are likely to have 12 to 16 cells filled with quad packs of ESSM, so that only 16 to 20 cells will be used for SM-2 or more likely SM-6. Would be surprised to ever see SM-3 on the GP/ASW version - it likely won't have the combat system and sensors required for the AAW job planned for such missiles.

As for the Netherland's vMFF, they are planned as ASW frigates and the 16 cells VLS they will ship is exactly the same number of cells as were on the M-Class they are replacing. The missiles are there purely for self defence.


----------



## AlexanderM

There is no explanation that makes it ok. You don't build brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The Frigates should have 32 the Destroyers 48, nothing less. It's laughable.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> That's the whole friggin' point of ESSM's: It's a short range, super fast, anti-missile/aircraft self-defence (also known as point defence) system.
> 
> Not all 32 cells will have them in either versions. You are likely to find four to eight of them with the ESSM quad packs in the AAW version, so that 21 to 25 cells will be filled with SM-2, SM-3 or SM-6 as the case may require for Area air defence.
> 
> In the ASW/GP version, you are likely to have 12 to 16 cells filled with quad packs of ESSM, so that only 16 to 20 cells will be used for SM-2 or more likely SM-6. Would be surprised to ever see SM-3 on the GP/ASW version - it likely won't have the combat system and sensors required for the AAW job planned for such missiles.
> 
> As for the Netherland's vMFF, they are planned as ASW frigates and the 16 cells VLS they will ship is exactly the same number of cells as were on the M-Class they are replacing. The missiles are there purely for self defence.



the "self defence " missiles will probably be nsm's,that's what i heared.As for the total number of missiles,i will ask,1 moment.As i got it the total will be 32 missiles.


----------



## Underway

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> There is no explanation that makes it ok. You don't build brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The Frigates should have 32 the Destroyers 48, nothing less. It's laughable.



I'm going to back OGBD up here with a bit of open source doctrine.  ESSM are ship self defence missiles.  The horizon is 25nm away so likely a modern sea skimming anti-ship missile will be detected at around 25nm by radar.  If it's emitting you might get a bearing on it from its own sensor head but no targeting solution.

When you have a fire control solution you shoot TWO ESSM at the target to get a high probability of kill.  Aster missiles only need one missile because of their different design and higher individual kill probability.  If the ESSMs miss you only (_might_) have time for one more salvo of TWO ESSM at the hostile missile, because you will only have somewhere between 30 and 120 seconds before the missile hits you from the horizon range.

Then you switch to your closer in defensive hard kill systems (RAM, CIWS, guns etc...).  That's the general doctrine for most NATO navies (not including soft kill systems).

One missile will take 2-4 ESSM to kill it.  4 ESSM fit into a single strike length VLS.  That means you can engage a single hostile missile with the entire contents of a single VLS.  If someone is shooting 16 ship killing missiles at you, well you are probably dead before you can even get off all 64 ESSM, as your pers and combat management system is going to be overwhelmed.  The rest of your unfired missiles are now an explosive liability.

Hence for light ASW/GP frigates 16 VLS are more then enough self defense capability.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

You seem to be mixing many things here, Alexander.

First of all, there will be no CSC's with only 16 VLS cells. It is the Dutch replacement for the M-Class frigates that are planned that way. And in their case, it is perfectly appropriate as they are (by current scale) on the smallish size of frigate, with ASW in or near Dutch waters as primary concern, which provides them with shore based air cover when truly necessary. I'd like to point out that 16 VLS cells is also the figures contemplated by the RN for it's type 31 frigates and the French for their FTI (Intermediate Size Frigates), two projected types of vessels that are close in size to the HALIFAX.

As for the Canadian vessels, there is no more distinction between Destroyers and Frigates. The "single-class" combatant will be both or neither, depending how you look at them. But one thing is sure: the various variants will be same hull, general layout and power plant. The main differences will be in sensors, their integration into the combat system and the actual weapons mix.

They will all have 32 VLS cells plus eight deck launchers mounted SSMs. The 32 VLS cells will have 3 "blanks" leaving 29 active cells, which is exactly what the IROQUOIS had, but their mix of missiles will be more potent, and a lot more than the 16 cells currently found on the HALIFAX.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> There is no explanation that makes it ok. You don't build brand new warships with 16 and 32 vls cells. The Frigates should have 32 the Destroyers 48, nothing less. It's laughable.



Considering the talk about potential adversaries focusing on swarm attacks, I agree with you.  It seems very short-sighted.


----------



## AlexanderM

Just to point out the Frigate verses Destroyers is simply a classification, regardless of the hulls. I've made my opinion clear and it won't change.


----------



## AlexanderM

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Considering the talk about potential adversaries focusing on swarm attacks, I agree with you.  It seems very short-sighted.


No Kidding! I read Putin's comments about swarm attacks and over-saturation, obviously we are the only one's who are listening. This isn't even a debate here, this is those who are looking clearly at the bigger picture verses those who don't seem to be paying attention.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cdn Blackshirt, what makes you think, even for a moment, that a frigate/destroyer level of warship will find herself, all by her lonesome self, in a swarm attack environment?

Swarm attacks can only be expected in a near-peer conflict situation. At that point, no warship will find herself fighting alone and the whole of allied navies and their supporting air forces work together in an interlocked system of defence in depth, with no ship likely to find herself overwhelmed locally.

Look at Underway's post below: he is talking of 16 ship killing missiles strike. That requires either a large bomber type aircraft or a flight of eight fighters, trained in the specific art of naval strike, dedicated to shooting only at you, a mere little destroyer/frigate. Which nations do you know can muster such air power and throw it at a single destroyer/frigate instead of using it against other high value targets?

And Alexander before commenting on "people who haven't a clue", feel free to look up Underway or my qualifications to talk, unlike your profile - ours is plain to see and it does not consist on merely passing basic.


----------



## AlexanderM

It is a complete assumption that a ship could never find itself in that situation and it's an assumption that should never be made. Furthermore, even in groups, the more capable the better.


----------



## KawarthaCruiser

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They will all have 32 VLS cells plus eight deck launchers mounted SSMs. The 32 VLS cells will have 3 "blanks" leaving 29 active cells, which is exactly what the IROQUOIS had, but their mix of missiles will be more potent, and a lot more than the 16 cells currently found on the HALIFAX.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OGBD, what was the reason for having 3 blank VLS cells on the Iroquois class?
Click to expand...


----------



## Underway

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> No Kidding! I read Putin's comments about swarm attacks and over-saturation, obviously we are the only one's who are listening. This isn't even a debate here, this is those who are looking clearly at the bigger picture verses those who don't seem to be paying attention.



It's pretty clear that you don't have much of a clue how actual ship combat works, the workload, the combat management systems, the fire control.  How many enemy missiles do you think an Arleigh Burke can shoot down at one time?  Three.  Just three.  They have 96 VLS cells and can only illuminate three targets at a time.  With good engagement planning they can deal with multiple more targets using threat queuing but that's all.  Number of missiles can't help you if the sensors can't deal with them.  

If you were to argue for a type of radar/CMS/Fire control system then we can talk.  But number of missiles just one small aspect of survivability.



> Look at Underway's post below: he is talking of 16 ship killing missiles strike. That requires either a large bomber type aircraft or a flight of eight fighters, trained in the specific art of naval strike, dedicated to shooting only at you, a mere little destroyer/frigate. Which nations do you know can muster such air power and throw it at a single destroyer/frigate instead of using it against other high value targets?



Just to be clear, if someone shot 3-6  modern ship killing missiles at a frigate, you would probably be dead.  My point was that you would still have lots of ammo left while you were sinking.


----------



## AlexanderM

Underway said:
			
		

> It's pretty clear that you don't have much of a clue how actual ship combat works, the workload, the combat management systems, the fire control.  How many enemy missiles do you think an Arleigh Burke can shoot down at one time?  Three.  Just three.  They have 96 VLS cells and can only illuminate three targets at a time.  With good engagement planning they can deal with multiple more targets using threat queuing but that's all.  Number of missiles can't help you if the sensors can't deal with them.
> 
> If you were to argue for a type of radar/CMS/Fire control system then we can talk.  But number of missiles just one small aspect of survivability.


Actually I have been aware of the limitation of the Arleigh Burke fire control channels for quite some time, if one goes back through my early posts it is right there. The original APAR could lock onto 32 targets at one time with 16 in the terminal phase at once, my understanding is that the APAR block II is only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers. This is the reason for not going with the Aegis system.

Here is the source.

https://www.thalesgroup.com/sites/default/files/asset/document/apar_blk2-v01.pdf

Here is the quote.

APAR Blk2 defends against saturation attacks in the highest
threat scenarios by supporting many simultaneous AAW
and ASuW engagements with both active and semi-active
guidance using ICWI. *Firepower is limited only by the rate
of fire by the launcher*. ESSM and SM-2 are supported as
well as ESSM Block2 and the future Standard Missile family
using the JUWL datalink.


----------



## FSTO

KawarthaCruiser said:
			
		

> OGBD, what was the reason for having 3 blank VLS cells on the Iroquois class?



That is where the crane is located. Which I never saw in action.


----------



## Underway

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Actually I have been aware of the limitation of the Arleigh Burke fire control channels for quite some time, if one goes back through my early posts it is right there. The original APAR could lock onto 32 targets at one time with 16 in the terminal phase at once, my understanding is that the APAR block II is only limited by the number of missiles in the launchers. This is the reason for not going with the Aegis system.



Yah the new Burkes are going with the SPY 6 radar to fix this.

It doesn't change the fact that it would require 16 enemy missiles to run dry your quad packed ESSM's no matter the FC system.  As OGBD pointed out not many enemies out there can get that kind of volume of fire to attack a warship.  At the end of the day you try to engage the launch platform before the attack (SM family of missiles) assuming they have to launch high or that another sensor detects the enemy missiles further out then the horizon, giving you more options (and time!) to engage with defensive hard/soft kill methods.


----------



## AlexanderM

Underway said:
			
		

> Yah the new Burkes are going with the SPY 6 radar to fix this.
> 
> It doesn't change the fact that it would require 16 enemy missiles to run dry your quad packed ESSM's no matter the FC system.  As OGBD pointed out not many enemies out there can get that kind of volume of fire to attack a warship.  At the end of the day you try to engage the launch platform before the attack (SM family of missiles) assuming they have to launch high or that another sensor detects the enemy missiles further out then the horizon, giving you more options (and time!) to engage with defensive hard/soft kill methods.


Agree, but this is my argument, not yours. I'm saying that by only using the 16 cells it limits what the ship can deal with and this is even more an issue if a ship has to go through multiple engagements before it can reload. It's better to have additional missiles so that you have more options, this is the whole point.


----------



## Czech_pivo

So if we assume that the FREMM bid is disallowed, that leaves only 3 bidders. It shouldn’t be so difficult to whittle it down to two and then move forward from there. Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Cdn Blackshirt, what makes you think, even for a moment, that a frigate/destroyer level of warship will find herself, all by her lonesome self, in a swarm attack environment?
> 
> Swarm attacks can only be expected in a near-peer conflict situation. At that point, no warship will find herself fighting alone and the whole of allied navies and their supporting air forces work together in an interlocked system of defence in depth, with no ship likely to find herself overwhelmed locally.
> 
> Look at Underway's post below: he is talking of 16 ship killing missiles strike. That requires either a large bomber type aircraft or a flight of eight fighters, trained in the specific art of naval strike, dedicated to shooting only at you, a mere little destroyer/frigate. Which nations do you know can muster such air power and throw it at a single destroyer/frigate instead of using it against other high value targets?



The Chinese are preparing for just that tactic and it's likely other potential threats from Russia to Iran to Turkey will develop similar tactics.  

Even if you're going to.go.with the FFBNW route, with the dollars being invested, the  maximum number of cells that could be installed should take that into account.

To invest in an entire class of naval assets that doesn't future-proof the design against large scale adoption of that tactic, seems incredibly short-sighted.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Czech_pivo:



> So if we assume that the FREMM bid is disallowed, that leaves only 3 bidders. It shouldn’t be so difficult to whittle it down to two and then move forward from there. Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.



One wonders if some people might, reasonably, think fix is effectively in for LockMart/BAESystems/CAE/MDA/L3:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/canadas-combat-ship-team-bae-systems-cae-lockheed-martin-canada-l3-technologies-mda-and-ultra-electronics-join-forces-to-deliver-canadian-surface-combatant-proposal-300562323.html

This is Canada after all.  Sigh.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> The Chinese are preparing for just that tactic and it's likely other potential threats from Russia to Iran to Turkey will develop similar tactics.
> 
> Even if you're going to.go.with the FFBNW route, with the dollars being invested, the  maximum number of cells that could be installed should take that into account.
> 
> To invest in an entire class of naval assets that doesn't future-proof the design against large scale adoption of that tactic, seems incredibly short-sighted.



I am not getting where you and AM are coming from on this.

If we applied your apparent logic to an infanteer, the poor guy would have to carry simultaneously, on top of his normal equipment, MANPADS with multiple rockets, an anti-tank portable weapon with large stock of ammunition and a fifty cal. machine gun with full belts in case he has to face an enemy Brigade all by himself.

It is ridiculous. Infantry works in platoons, companies and battalions, supported by air, armour, artillery assets, etc.

What makes you think it is not the same thing of  ships? In my 24 years in the Navy - other than working up our individual ship in the approaches of Halifax or on the Victoria waterfront - here is the number of times I have sailed in ships that were not part of a group: Zero, Nada, None! Warships sail, train, fight and work together as groups. We sail and work with our squadron, we deploy as part of Task Groups or Task forces, with other warships, submarines and air assets in support as required.

And you seem excited at the prospect of "swarming".

It's not new. In my early days in the Navy - mid 1970's - our big concern was what was known as Badger Regimental Attacks: Soviet Badgers and Backfires rushing down from the North over Greenland to sweep in and lose 100-150 anti ship missiles at once at trans-Atlantic convoys to saturate their air defences. 

We coped with it through layers of defence, and we still do that.

You can't look at a single ship in isolation having to fight the whole world and service anymore than you can look at individual an soldier to win the war by himself.

As to what constitute the appropriate number of missiles to be carried and what type, it's not a guessing game. NATO and individual member nations such as Canada have Operational research cells that game these scenarios, including attempts at saturation attacks, and develop parameters for the minimum, maximum and most useful numbers of "bullets" to be carried. The specs for  new builds are based on such research.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.



Well technically they could have delivered a bid and just not announced it yet ....however i would not be surprised if they had decided not to bid at all.

I think there is a good chance that they have really been out of the running for years.....It was always questionable whether OMT would be able to compete with the government supported "big guns" like DCNS,Navantia ,BAE, Fincantieri etc. The fact that Odense have not, at least officially, been able to team up with a major Combat Systems integrator , is also an indicator of their disadvantage in this competition. Thales(Netherlands) decision to bid the DZP*
 is not likely to have helped either , since they are in a position to deny the competing OMT the use of the dutch AAW sensor package, thus weakening their bid.

*Surprising, since the De Zeven Provinciën design is going to be a quarter century old when the first CSC is planned to hit water.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Underway said:
			
		

> Just to be clear, if someone shot 3-6  modern ship killing missiles at a frigate, you would probably be dead.  My point was that you would still have lots of ammo left while you were sinking.



IF that was true , it begs the question whether these advanced air defense systems is actually worth the obscene amount of money invested in them. If all it takes to overwhelm these systems is a few $1-2M missiles, then it puts the viability and utility of surface warships seriously into question. When we pay anywhere from 100-300 million dollars for the radar;CMS and AD missiles to protect our warships, i think we are entitled to expect that they be able to engage more than a small handful of targets, and with a suitably large probability of success.

Fortunately , i am not so pessimistic , having seen with my own eyes what the APAR/ESSM/SM-2 combo can do. As far as i understand it (which might not be far, me being a stoker and all ;D)....the biggest issue is with the engagement procedures and ROEs ....with available response times being as little as 20-30 seconds the traditional engagement loop takes to long and involves too many people(that is what our tactical officers tells me anyway)....In our new tactical doctrine....when in combat,  only one person is needed to perform an engagement and he/she needs no authorization from TAO/XO/CO etc.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The specs for  new builds are* based on such research*.



And maybe to a greater extent the budget available .... AD missiles are expensive and very few nations have inventories large enough to fill all available launchers anyway.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> So if we assume that the FREMM bid is disallowed, that leaves only 3 bidders. It shouldn’t be so difficult to whittle it down to two and then move forward from there. Must say that I’m a bit surprised that the Danish group dropped out of the running.



I'm not entirely sure the FREMM bid is disallowed.  I think they might be submitting a bid through the current rules AND offering this side deal.  Oh what's that?  Don't want the amazing deal?  Ok we'll do it your way.

I'm not at all surprised the Danish group is out.  Guaranteed their bid was not compliant.  Their ships cut plenty of corners with their Mil/Civ standard combinations.  All our ships are moving towards Lloyds Naval Standards for building/maintenance.  Also there is the fact that their system is fairly close to the DZP one, such that it wasn't worth the bid.



			
				MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> IF that was true , it begs the question whether these advanced air defense systems is actually worth the obscene amount of money invested in them. If all it takes to overwhelm these systems is a few $1-2M missiles, then it puts the viability and utility of surface warships seriously into question. When we pay anywhere from 100-300 million dollars for the radar;CMS and AD missiles to protect our warships, i think we are entitled to expect that they be able to engage more than a small handful of targets, and with a suitably large probability of success.
> 
> Fortunately , i am not so pessimistic , having seen with my own eyes what the APAR/ESSM/SM-2 combo can do. As far as i understand it (which might not be far, me being a stoker and all ;D)....the biggest issue is with the engagement procedures and ROEs ....with available response times being as little as 20-30 seconds the traditional engagement loop takes to long and involves too many people(that is what our tactical officers tells me anyway)....In our new tactical doctrine....when in combat,  only one person is needed to perform an engagement and he/she needs no authorization from TAO/XO/CO etc.



Few things.  If you can find a modern ASuW missile for $2M you buy it as that's half price (in US dollars) for a Block 3 Exocet.  Secondly I have no doubt that most modern frigates can easily take 6 ASuW missiles if they are spaced out in time enough.  But 6 simultaneously will seriously strain many systems.  And it only takes one squeaker to ruin your day.

Lastly I was referring to light frigates with a loadout of about 16 VLS.  The APAR system is on what is essentially AAW destroyers called frigates for political purposes.  I have no doubt that they can really do some damage with multiple targets in auto engage mode, justifying their costs. Thats where the real AAD is located, not in a light GP frigate (which is essentially what the Halfiax class is now).


----------



## Czech_pivo

Anyone have any ideas why the new German frigates aren’t in the mix for the bidding?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Anyone have any ideas why the new German frigates aren’t in the mix for the bidding?



They don't have a compliant vessel.  _Sachesen_ is old, small (can't carry our helo) and not future proof(ie: no grow margins in the ship, lack of flexibility).  It has significant overlap in sensors with the DZP.  The _Baden-Württemberg_ don't have VLS and would require a significant redesign to get it installed if it would fit at all.  The MKS 180 is still in the early design phase.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway hit it on the nose first.

But it's even worse. The type 125 have been derided as "Large Colonial Corvettes" by some  ;D

They have no ASW capability at all, and very limited last ditch self defence capability only for AAW. They are very heavy in ASuW with SSM, one heavy gun and tons of small caliber ones that give you good all-around coverage against "irregular" surface small raiders.

The German themselves have described the vessels as being developed to serve as command ships/participants for anti-piracy, embargo enforcement, peacemaking or peacekeeping ops.

They are not a type of ship the Canada wants, nor needs.


----------



## Infanteer

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If we applied your apparent logic to an infanteer, the poor guy would have to carry simultaneously, on top of his normal equipment, MANPADS with multiple rockets, an anti-tank portable weapon with large stock of ammunition and a fifty cal. machine gun with full belts in case he has to face an enemy Brigade all by himself.



That's actually what the average candidate infantry officer on Phase III(IODP1.1) looks like near the end of course after the attrition has set in....



> It's not new. In my early days in the Navy - mid 1970's - our big concern was what was known as Badger Regimental Attacks: Soviet Badgers and Backfires rushing down from the North over Greenland to sweep in and lose 100-150 anti ship missiles at once at trans-Atlantic convoys to saturate their air defences.



I used to play a Naval Sim game called Harpoon and I remember hunting 1 x French and 2 x US Carrier Strike Groups down for those kinds of attacks.  The fact that a teenager playing a commercial naval sim figured it out tells me that (1) swarming ain't that novel and (2) professionals are likely looking at it a bit more closely than the teenager.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The reason you remember it from the board game Harpoon, Infanteer, is that the game itself was developed by retired US naval officers who used as its basis the simulations/command post scenarios in use by the US Navy to train its officers in advance of actual NATO exercises. Those scenarios were also heavily used with cadets at Annapolis.

You were playing a dumbed down version of CPX.  :nod:


----------



## Underway

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I used to play a Naval Sim game called Harpoon ...





			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The reason you remember it from the board game Harpoon, Infanteer, is that the game itself was developed by retired US naval officers who used as its basis the simulations/command post scenarios in use by the US Navy to train its officers in advance of actual NATO exercises. Those scenarios were also heavily used with cadets at Annapolis.
> 
> You were playing a dumbed down version of CPX.  :nod:



An upgraded version of Harpoon is still used as an open source simulator for Defence research at many institutions, it's open source at this point and can be modified as needed to trial scenarios.  I read somewhere that the LCS concept came out of one of these sims (you know from a guy who knows a guy).

Also loved that game as a kid.  That's how I learned the words to the Soviet (now Russian) national anthem.  Played every time you won the game as the Soviets.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> An upgraded version of Harpoon is still used as an open source simulator for Defence research at many institutions, it's open source at this point and can be modified as needed to trial scenarios.  I read somewhere that the LCS concept came out of one of these sims (you know from a guy who knows a guy).
> 
> Also loved that game as a kid.  That's how I learned the words to the Soviet (now Russian) national anthem.  Played every time you won the game as the Soviets.



I still play it.


----------



## Kirkhill

IIRC - the counter to Swarming was a combination of Early Warning from the AWACS (Positioned as far forward as possible)  and maintaining a steady supply of 4-ship fighters in the air engaging the swarm at long range.  And don't hang around to get into gun range.

Get back on the ground, re-arm, and back in the air as quickly as possible.

In fact.....precisely the tactics that would result in an aircraft like the F-35.


----------



## serger989

So in one corner we've got Alion-Canada working with DAMEN to bring us the De Zeven Provincien largely unchanged. Then there is the F105 from Navantia teamed with SAAB Australia with again not many changes. Then the Type 26 with Lockheed Canada paired with BAE and the Canada A-Team, definitely involves the most risk for us. Lastly Naval Group/Fincantieri consortium apparently backing out of the bid and offering a fixed procurement offer of 15 built in Halifax with a full transfer of technology and access to their global supply chain at $30bn, thing is even fitted with 2x RAM launchers which surprised me but it also did not say if it had VLS? 

The FREMM looks like a tasty deal... $32bn savings, holy smokes. Heck if they wanted to continue to put that into the military budget that is... That's a lot of capability (and fat checks). They could decide to do nothing with it, save money, and call it a day while still looking good for reelection. I bet $5 (lol) that BAE will be selected no matter what. The Type 26 does look really good, we will just be absorbing a ton of that risk by building 15 of them when steel was only cut this year for the Royal Navy.


----------



## Kirkhill

Serger, the key to the puzzle lies here 



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Let's get factual here:
> 
> These are the figures taken straight out of the PBO report on the CSC's cost. They are found at table 1 of the summary of findings, page 2 of the report - which is available on line (I am not posting the link because I wish to abide by Scott's new system for long documents but I haven't quite figured it out yet):
> 
> The PBO gives two figures for the program cost: One is in FY2017 dollars (i.e. this is what it would cost if we were executing the whole program in that FY and paid for it in current dollars of that year), then he gives the figures in "Then-years" (meaning the cost with inflation/dollar devalued along the way so that it is the actual price paid in each of the years a payment will be made in the future).
> 
> It Breaks down as such:
> 
> *Total cost of program: $40B$ FY2017; 62B$ Then-yr.*
> 
> Cost of development: $4.5B$ FY2017; 5B$ Then-yr.
> 
> *Cost of the production (actual cost of ships): $28B$ FY2017; 45B$ Then-yr.*
> 
> *The rest*: 7.5B$ FY2017; 12B$ Then-yr.*
> 
> *: The rest includes the following: Spares for the first two years and then spares for the rest of the in-service years (why the breakdown for the first two years, I have no idea); ammunition (this is for actual ammunition expenditure for training/forecasted ops during the lifetime, not for the original set of ammunition, which is included in the cost of production) facilities, documentation, training and Government program management.
> 
> As I have indicated at the time these figures came out, using the Australian Adelaide destroyers as baseline for the command/AAW ships, a FY2017 cost of about 4B$ each is in line with current costs. So, for three, you get the first 12B$ knocked out of the figure. The reminder of 16B$ for the 12 GP/ASW version means about 1.3B$ each, which is also in line with current price for such ships.



The "problem" lies in the procurement time line and the intention to keep yards open for decades to supply jobs.

If all the hulls required by the NSPS were to be procured in a 5 to 10 year time period then we would end up with a precisely costed fleet, with current capabilites and a solid basis for current operations and future planning.

On the other hand we wouldn't be guaranteeing jobs in perpetuity.

When accountants and politicians talk about "then year" dollars they are playing a game of fancy.  Nobody knows how much things will cost 20 to 40 years down the line, what will be needed and how much money will be available.  

If governments were at all serious about the situation then they would be adopting something like this:

A rapid replacement programme to renew the existing fleet by any and all means in the near term.

A long range plan for maintaining the refurbished fleet based on keeping all the yards open with a steady trickle of work.

This plays into the Davie/Federal school but also allows for the purchase of hulls from offshore because the initial volume of work would overwhelm the Canadian yards.

It would also permit the immediate acquisition of second hand hulls that are only anticipated to be in service for 5 to 10 years prior to being replaced by locally built vessels.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> I still play it.



I love Harpoon. I still have my paper copy of the game.

It does an excellent job of teaching Naval Warfare.


----------



## Cloud Cover

What are the chances the government of the day will select a ship that is known to the world and will always be known as the 'Global Combat Ship".


----------



## MarkOttawa

And now this at Irving, note timeline at end for A/OPS:



> Unionized Halifax Shipyard workers to vote on strike mandate
> _Collective agreement between Unifor Marine Workers Local 1 and the Halifax Shipyard expires Dec. 31_
> 
> Unionized employees of the Halifax Shipyard are voting Sunday afternoon on whether to give their negotiating team a strike mandate.
> 
> The current collective agreement between Unifor Marine Workers Local 1 and the Halifax Shipyard expires at the end of the month. About 800 of the union's members, ranging from electricians to metal fabricators, work at the shipyard.
> 
> Irving employees are in the middle of constructing Arctic and offshore patrol vessels. A large centre section of the first one, HMCS Harry DeWolf, is now visible outside the massive assembly hall on the Halifax waterfront.
> 
> Formal bargaining started a month ago and the two sides say they've spent four days at the table so far.
> 
> Sean Lewis, Irving Shipbuilding's director of communications, said the two sides are still working on scheduling talks with a conciliator. The province appointed one after the company's Nov. 23 request, he said...
> 
> There have been delays with construction and Irving is now planning to _build five or six patrol vessels. The shipyard is supposed to finish the first ship in 2018. The last one is expected to be complete in 2022_ [emphasis added].
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/halifax-shipyard-unifor-local-1-contract-negotiations-1.4430271



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

And thus the construction gap is managed......  :rofl:


----------



## Underway

serger989 said:
			
		

> So in one corner we've got Alion-Canada working with DAMEN to bring us the De Zeven Provincien largely unchanged. Then there is the F105 from Navantia teamed with SAAB Australia with again not many changes. Then the Type 26 with Lockheed Canada paired with BAE and the Canada A-Team, definitely involves the most risk for us. Lastly Naval Group/Fincantieri consortium apparently backing out of the bid and offering a fixed procurement offer of 15 built in Halifax with a full transfer of technology and access to their global supply chain at $30bn, thing is even fitted with 2x RAM launchers which surprised me but it also did not say if it had VLS?
> 
> The FREMM looks like a tasty deal... $32bn savings, holy smokes. Heck if they wanted to continue to put that into the military budget that is... That's a lot of capability (and fat checks). They could decide to do nothing with it, save money, and call it a day while still looking good for reelection. I bet $5 (lol) that BAE will be selected no matter what. The Type 26 does look really good, we will just be absorbing a ton of that risk by building 15 of them when steel was only cut this year for the Royal Navy.



There is risk inherent in all of the projects in different ways.  The FREMM, F-105 and DZP all require changes to operate a Cyclone (really big helo).  This is a big deal for the F-105 and the FREMM.  The FREMM needs more VLS, needs to operate a the Mk-46 torp to meet the minimum requirement, the F-105 is installing a new radar system mast, the FREMM is probably doing the same (SEAFIRE 500 is rumoured).  DZP is looking to install the APAR 2 instead of the APAR is the oldest design with the least proven foreign build credentials of all the companies and the second least flexibility of the ships.  It could be argued from a "get exactly what we need" perspective the Type 26 is the least risk as it's right in the money spot where changes can easily be introduced to the design at this point.

I think I'll do an analysis post later of the general bids and technical specs of the ships with potential pros/cons.  Could do a mini analysis of the bids for fun. 

Tangent:
Can someone help me identify the potential radar/sensors is the Type 26 bid coming in with?  The pics show what I can only interpret as a non-rotating phased array with two parts, a large panel probably S-Band area search and a small panel probably X-Band FC type system.  But try as I might I can't find a system Lockheed or MDA use that matches that setup.  Perhaps they are going outside their group to grab Thales stuff??

Lockheed does make the SPY-1 radar so we could be looking at a SPY-1F or F(V), with a different illuminator type then the old standby Fire Control Directors (as none are shown on the ship pic).  I don't expect a SPY-1D would look that small.  Then again its a picture and video for promotional purposes so it might not be perfectly accurate.


----------



## RDBZ

Underway said:
			
		

> Tangent:
> Can someone help me identify the potential radar/sensors is the Type 26 bid coming in with?  The pics show what I can only interpret as a non-rotating phased array with two parts, a large panel probably S-Band area search and a small panel probably X-Band FC type system.  But try as I might I can't find a system Lockheed or MDA use that matches that setup.  Perhaps they are going outside their group to grab Thales stuff??



Possibly the CEA radar suite that's a required fitment for the RAN future frigate program.  The RANs ANZAC frigates are being fitted with a variant of if, with the upcoming removal of SPS-49 and its replacement with the phased array long range search radar.


----------



## Underway

I thought that as well but CEA are integral to the Navinata bid.  Not that it stops the various companies from selling parts to other bids.  An office of Lockheed is in on the Navinata bid.  CMS-330 has parts of Saab's command control system in it.  Thales will have a radar on the FREMM and the DZP bids.

Normally though the CEA emitters are placed in a diamond shape, not square to the waterline.... curiouser and curiouser.


----------



## Infanteer

So, straw poll from the naval officers here on what they think the best option is?


----------



## Underway

How about all Naval Pers, I sure want to hear opinions from people like Chief Stoker too!

Well for various aspects:

*ASW* - FREMM and Type 26 are tops, hands down.  Both have very quiet engines with the option for Diesel Electric propulsion and were designed initially to be ASW frigates.  Type 26 wins though because it's able to easily take the Cyclone and Mk 46 Torps with no modification.  Also Ultra Electronics sonar systems are impressive.

*ASuW* - They are all pretty much the same really.  With the attachment of Harpoons, Exocets and all have to have a 127mm manditory it doesn't really matter.  I suppose one could give the edge to the Type 26 and the F-105 as they are designed to be fitted with these guns.

*AAW* - The DZP wins easy.  It's the only ship that is originally designed for this mission.  It also carries 40 VLS vice the 32 (or 29 OGBD) required.  APAR 2 is the best sensor out there for AAW that we know about.  Even if the Type 26 has a similar radar its just not going to have as much firepower.  The CEA radars on the F-105 are really good as well but are currently designed with self defence in mind.  FREMM Aster missile system is new to the navy but are very good.  I keep going around in circles for the last three here.

*Modifications and risk:*  Type 26 is probably the highest risk from a certain perspective right now.  However from when it's being built to when we are going to get ours on the water the British will have three of them floating before we even start cutting steel.  It only needs less then 10% of it modified to meet requirements.  Flex deck is a nice addition and its definately future proof.

FREMM probably needs the most modifications, the hangar and flight deck are not big enough, depending on the mod it doesn't carry enough missiles, and its equipment needs the most changes to meet Canadian requirements.  Not much room to future proof the ship.

DZP is essentially off the shelf but my concern is its ASW capability.  AAW variant it will be fine but using an APAR 2 and SMART-L for a GP frigate is overkill and expensive.  It's not designed for ASW and will not be as effective in that role.

F-105 is again an AAW based design and won't be as effective in ASW.  It's radar however is perfect for a GP frigate design, and leading edge without being over the top.  Some Cyclone modifications are required.

Winner:  F-105.  Really its radar is top of the line, it's ASW is good enough considering our best ASW asset is the Cyclone.  There's a large family of F-105 variants out there in the world to look at for supply and engineering solutions.  I want the Type 26 to win, it's new and cool,  but I can't give it the medal without more sensor information and more information on technology risk.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> In my early days in the Navy - mid 1970's - our big concern was what was known as Badger Regimental Attacks: Soviet Badgers and Backfires rushing down from the North over Greenland to sweep in and lose 100-150 anti ship missiles at once at trans-Atlantic convoys to saturate their air defences.
> 
> We coped with it through layers of defence, and we still do that.
> 
> You can't look at a single ship in isolation having to fight the whole world and service anymore than you can look at individual an soldier to win the war by himself.



No real valuable voice in this one, but just wanted to add - Red Storm Rising.  Decent book at playing out how that Battle of the Atlantic might look during Rounds 1, 2, 3 etc.

Good discussion, I am learning stuff.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Underway said:
			
		

> How about all Naval Pers, I sure want to hear opinions from people like Chief Stoker too!
> 
> Well for various aspects:
> 
> *ASW* - FREMM and Type 26 are tops, hands down.  Both have very quiet engines with the option for Diesel Electric propulsion and were designed initially to be ASW frigates.  Type 26 wins though because it's able to easily take the Cyclone and Mk 46 Torps with no modification.  Also Ultra Electronics sonar systems are impressive.
> 
> *ASuW* - They are all pretty much the same really.  With the attachment of Harpoons, Exocets and all have to have a 127mm manditory it doesn't really matter.  I suppose one could give the edge to the Type 26 and the F-105 as they are designed to be fitted with these guns.
> 
> *AAW* - The DZP wins easy.  It's the only ship that is originally designed for this mission.  It also carries 40 VLS vice the 32 (or 29 OGBD) required.  APAR 2 is the best sensor out there for AAW that we know about.  Even if the Type 26 has a similar radar its just not going to have as much firepower.  The CEA radars on the F-105 are really good as well but are currently designed with self defence in mind.  FREMM Aster missile system is new to the navy but are very good.  I keep going around in circles for the last three here.
> 
> *Modifications and risk:*  Type 26 is probably the highest risk from a certain perspective right now.  However from when it's being built to when we are going to get ours on the water the British will have three of them floating before we even start cutting steel.  It only needs less then 10% of it modified to meet requirements.  Flex deck is a nice addition and its definately future proof.
> 
> FREMM probably needs the most modifications, the hangar and flight deck are not big enough, depending on the mod it doesn't carry enough missiles, and its equipment needs the most changes to meet Canadian requirements.  Not much room to future proof the ship.
> 
> DZP is essentially off the shelf but my concern is its ASW capability.  AAW variant it will be fine but using an APAR 2 and SMART-L for a GP frigate is overkill and expensive.  It's not designed for ASW and will not be as effective in that role.
> 
> F-105 is again an AAW based design and won't be as effective in ASW.  It's radar however is perfect for a GP frigate design, and leading edge without being over the top.  Some Cyclone modifications are required.
> 
> Winner:  F-105.  Really its radar is top of the line, it's ASW is good enough considering our best ASW asset is the Cyclone.  There's a large family of F-105 variants out there in the world to look at for supply and engineering solutions.  I want the Type 26 to win, it's new and cool,  but I can't give it the medal without more sensor information and more information on technology risk.



Not a Navy man myself,i think there's another option,if i may call it that.  ;D

For the AAW version stick to APAR2 and the Smart-L MMN combo(BMD capable,as shown in exercises)and for the GP/ASW version get the I-500 integrated mast,like we are going to get on our replacements for the M-class.(idea?)

I also like the City class,but it's going to cost Canada,but primarily designed as an ASW ship.(as are our new to be build ships)

BTW OGBD you were right(i checked)it seems to be 40 missiles total.I will try and keep you'll updated.(new class of ships)


----------



## Underway

For those of you who read french.  The FREMM bid.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/fregates-canadiennes-naval-group-et-fincantieri-devoilent-leur-offre-commune

For those of you who don't a bad google translate!



> Posted on 04/12/2017 by Vincent Groizeleau
> 
> As we wrote last September, Naval Group and Fincantieri have chosen to stand together for the call for bids on future Canadian frigates. Outgoing officially timber, the two companies unveiled the 1 stDecember the proposed design in Ottawa. This is a mix of multi-mission frigates built by France and Italy, responding to Canadian needs. This design is based on the Italian platform of the FREMM, the electronics being French, however, especially the combat system (Naval Group) and the radar faces Sea Fire plane (Thales). Armament side, we observe on the presented visual a turret of 127mm, two systems surface-air RAM and light artillery. To this will be added a vertical missile for surface-to-air missiles, probably Aster, which would be preferred by many Canadian servicemen given their performance, but the American missile option would still be possible. Like its French and Italian cousins, the Canadian FREMM would have first-class air defenses, but also equally robust capabilities in the fields of anti-ship and especially anti-submarine warfare, with hull sonar and towed sonar (Captas). To this will be added the action towards the earth.
> 
> This decision by Naval Group (formerly DCNS) and Fincantieri to join forces in this market enables French and Italian manufacturers, on a project where competition is fierce, to reduce competition and maximize their chances of success. "The Canadian government has announced its intention to acquire a NATO standard combat vessel, based on an existing and proven design that can be modified to meet the requirements of the Canadian Navy. Naval Group and Fincantieri, with the full support of the French and Italian governments, will combine their know-how to present to the Canadian government an off-the-shelf solution already proven at sea based on the design of the FREMM frigate, for the supply of 15 surface combatants in the Canadian Navy. In the event that this offer is accepted, future frigates would be built in Canada at the Irving Shipbuilding shipyard in a very short time frame, ensuring maximum participation of Canadian industry and local job creation through technology transfer complete and dedicated. Canadian suppliers would also be integrated into the global supply chain of both companies, "explain Naval Group and Fincantieri.
> 
> For the record, the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program aims to replace, over the next decade, the 12 City frigates, commissioned between 1992 and 1996, as well as the three tribal destroyers, now all retired. They will succeed a new fleet of up to 15 buildings for an estimated budget of 26 billion Canadian dollars, or nearly 18 billion euros. The construction of the seed must be launched in the early 2020s in a site imposed by the Canadian government and with which international groups competing for design and combat system will collaborate. This is Halifax Shipyards, a subsidiary of the Irwing Group, designated in 2011 to carry out CHCs as part of the national shipbuilding strategy,
> 
> The selection process initially put in place by Canada, with a double call for tenders, one for the platform and the other for the combat system, proved to be very complex, the interested industry believing that presented too high risks and different problems, including intellectual property issues. After being alerted by several major players in the sector that they might not submit an offer in these conditions, the Canadian government has overhauled and simplified the procedure last year. Finally, 12 companies were shortlisted in the summer of 2017 to continue the competition and submit an offer.
> 
> Apart from Naval Group and Fincantieri, were selected (in alphabetical order) the American engineering company Alion Science and Technology, the German Atlas Elektronik, the British BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin Canada, the Navantia Spaniard, the Danish Odense Maritime Technology, Saab Australia, Italian Leonardo, Thales Nederland and German TKMS.
> 
> These different manufacturers came together to submit joint offers on November 30th. Among them, there is the solution, considered by many observers as a favorite starter, of an adaptation of the future British frigate type 26, with a consortium of Lockheed Martin Canada, BAE Systems, CAE, L3 Technologies, MDA and Ultra Electronics. Alion Canada, for its part, presents an offer based on the design of the Dutch frigates of the LCF type, while Navantia, allied notably with Saab, submits a variant of the F100 model, built for the Spanish and Australian navies. Odense shares an evolution of the Danish Iver Huitfeldt and TKMS probably on a declination of the new German frigates type F125



So the big Italian FREMM as a baseline.  Can't lie, it's a pretty ship.


----------



## Baz

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> IIRC - the counter to Swarming was a combination of Early Warning from the AWACS (Positioned as far forward as possible)  and maintaining a steady supply of 4-ship fighters in the air engaging the swarm at long range.  And don't hang around to get into gun range.
> 
> Get back on the ground, re-arm, and back in the air as quickly as possible.
> 
> In fact.....precisely the tactics that would result in an aircraft like the F-35.



Don't forget that the F-14 was specifically designed to carry the AIM-54 Phoenix, which was itself specifically designed for the long range air intercept mission to protect the Carrier Battle Groups.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Underway said:
			
		

> For those of you who read french.  The FREMM bid.
> 
> https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/fregates-canadiennes-naval-group-et-fincantieri-devoilent-leur-offre-commune
> 
> For those of you who don't a bad google translate!
> 
> So the big Italian FREMM as a baseline.  Can't lie, it's a pretty ship.



Thanks for the link, what does the RCN consider to be more important?  ASW or AAW?  I know historically it's been ASW but is there a cultural change?

I've heard certain circles in the RCN want to get in to the land attack business?  I was intrigued with the recent test of the Block II Harpoon Missile test against a land target.  This capability would have been very useful in Libya.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link, what does the RCN consider to be more important?  ASW or AAW?  I know historically it's been ASW but is there a cultural change?
> 
> I've heard certain circles in the RCN want to get in to the land attack business?  I was intrigued with the recent test of the Block II Harpoon Missile test against a land target.  This capability would have been very useful in Libya.



Not Canadian,but from what i understand it will be a combination of both.
So a number of AAW/Command frigates and ASW/GP orientated frigates.(Same as here in the Netherlands and offcourse many others)

That means for example that a number of ships will get the APAR2 and Smart-L MMN combo(AAW/Command),or something like that and the other will get an I-mast(ASW/GP),for example(cheaper radar sets,not so extensive but nevertheless very good ones.)
That's how i understand it.(could be wrong) 

BTW that Fremm looks like it's got APAR2 on it which is completely possible since Thales is French.(the Radar factory is in the Netherlands though,for APAR,Smart-L,I-masts,etc wich used to be HSA )


----------



## Colin Parkinson

2 questions:

1. What is the strike about at Irving?

2. Would we be selling/transferring the Halifax's to another country?


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Colin P said:
			
		

> 1. What is the strike about at Irving?



From a quick read, it seems to be primarily about benefits i.e. vacation time, breaks and seniority, etc.

Irving hates Unions, the Halifax Shipyard has to be one of the few parts of the Irving Family that actually has a Union.  Irving doesn't care and will bring in scabs to do the work if it has to.  They've been subcontracting certain portions of the work on the AOPS to foreign companies much to the dismay of the Union.

see:

"Irving contract with Spanish firm brings overseas carpenters, others to Halifax shipyard"
ANDREA GUNN OTTAWA BUREAU 
Published February 22, 2017 - 7:23pm 

http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1444142-irving-contract-with-spanish-firm-brings-overseas-carpenters-others-to-halifax-sh


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> 2 questions:
> 
> 1. What is the strike about at Irving?
> 
> 2. Would we be selling/transferring the Halifax's to another country?



1. What else, money. (just my guess though)
2. No. We run our ships into the ground and then get another dozen years out of them because we can't plan ship replacement to save our arse. (once again, just my humble opinion)


----------



## Underway

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link, what does the RCN consider to be more important?  ASW or AAW?  I know historically it's been ASW but is there a cultural change?



It's all about the task group.  Task group doctrine currently is a four ship group with helo's embarked (up from a three ship group, this is a new change in the last two years).  One ship is the Command Control AAW variant.  The other three are the GP variants.  You can see this with how the CSC build is structured (4 GP for every AAW).

Task groups can also include AOR, submarine, and LRP aircraft.  This is also why we need 3-4 AOR.  One AOR for each task group.  It also matches the submarine numbers, one sub for each task group.  That leaves 3 GP frigates left over for non-task group related stuff.

The task group will be (by the bids so far) biased towards ASW mainly because of the nature of our helo's.  They are going to the best in the business when completed according to some of the RAF folks I've been talking too (side benefit of taking so damn long to make them).  But AAW isn't ignored at all.   There are plenty of defensive AAW capabilities on the current frigates and I expect the same to be from the future fleet.



			
				Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I've heard certain circles in the RCN want to get in to the land attack business?  I was intrigued with the recent test of the Block II Harpoon Missile test against a land target.  This capability would have been very useful in Libya.



Support to forces ashore is back. Straight from the CRCN.  The new frigates all require a 127mm gun to do land attack, and also require the capability to embark land attack missile.  Harpoon Block II is just the tip of the iceberg here.  Problem currently is that we (until recently) couldn't really attack land targets with the 57mm or any missiles.



			
				Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> BTW that Fremm looks like it's got APAR2 on it which is completely possible since Thales is French.(the Radar factory is in the Netherlands though,for APAR,Smart-L,I-masts,etc wich used to be HSA )



SEAFIRE 500 is what I think it is.  Video link here.  First the article states that is probably the SEAFIRE and secondly because the SEAFIRE works with the Aster missile system, where as APAR needs a change to the ESSM/SM family.  It's got perfect modularity to modify for the AAW variant many panels to increase search/range and less number of panels for GP variant.  Swap out missiles and panels and in 2 months your GP variant is now an AAW variant with no changes to ships internal structure.  Aster missile does its own fire control so no fire control system is needed.  Genious.  Its a strong bid with that radar.


----------



## Fabius

So if land attack is back will all or at least some of these ships have A70 or MK 41 Strike length VLS so we can run dedicated land attack missiles vice dual purpose anti shipping missiles? Having only 8 dual purpose ASMs seems to me to be more of an inextrimse capability than an actual support to forces ashore dedicated capability.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:
			
		

> Support to forces ashore is back. Straight from the CRCN.  The new frigates all require a 127mm gun to do land attack, and also require the capability to embark land attack missile.  Harpoon Block II is just the tip of the iceberg here.  Problem currently is that we (until recently) couldn't really attack land targets with the 57mm or any missiles.



Is there any possibility of recycling the 76mm and 57mm guns from the current fleet as a secondary armament. I am thinking in particular with respect to the swarming discussion


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Move the 57mm to the AOP's


----------



## Underway

Fabius said:
			
		

> So if land attack is back will all or at least some of these ships have A70 or MK 41 Strike length VLS so we can run dedicated land attack missiles vice dual purpose anti shipping missiles? Having only 8 dual purpose ASMs seems to me to be more of an inextrimse capability than an actual support to forces ashore dedicated capability.



Strike length VLS are only a requirement if you want to use Tomahawks (or the French MdCN).  The RCN is missile agnostic.  If a tactical length VLS can shoot a land attack missile then that might be the design chosen.  Future proofing is the name of the game.   Harpoon is working on a VLS version.  Naval Strike Missile from norway might be able to be launched from VLS. (_edit:_  the Joint Strike Missile is able to be launched from VLS, its a derivative of the NSM and is fired from a Tactical length Mk 41)



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Is there any possibility of recycling the 76mm and 57mm guns from the current fleet as a secondary armament. I am thinking in particular with respect to the swarming discussion



Some of the 76mm were already sold to the Dutch for their DZP AFAIK.  By the time the all Halifax are replaced some of those 57mm guns are going to be 20 years old.  So probably not.


----------



## AlexanderM

Underway said:
			
		

> Harpoon is working on a VLS version.


Are you talking the VLS mk41 and if so do you have a source for that?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Harpoon is a TLS* system and is not currently planned to become fireable from the Mk 41 VLS.

When Boeing developed the Harpoon Block III's, some "pre-planning and adaptors" were considered for future development making it possible to fit in Tactical length VLS. That was in 2008. The USN has not asked Boeing for any further development in that direction as it is exploring new missiles for long range surface attack at this time. Besides, one of the advantages of the current Harpoon canister system is that it is one of the easiest missile to replace or resupply, even at sea.

*: TLS: Tilted Launch System  ;D 

P.s: I think the Trudeau government will go with Exocets missiles just so Canada doesn't buy from Boeing.  ;D


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Harpoon is a TLS* system and is not currently planned to become fireable from the Mk 41 VLS.
> 
> When Boeing developed the Harpoon Block III's, some "pre-planning and adaptors" were considered for future development making it possible to fit in Tactical length VLS. That was in 2008. The USN has not asked Boeing for any further development in that direction as it is exploring new missiles for long range surface attack at this time. Besides, one of the advantages of the current Harpoon canister system is that it is one of the easiest missile to replace or resupply, even at sea.
> 
> *: TLS: Tilted Launch System  ;D
> 
> P.s: I think the Trudeau government will go with Exocets missiles just so Canada doesn't buy from Boeing.  ;D



This is what I get for not double checking my missile tech info on the one missile I thought I was familiar with.  :-[

If you look at the missiles in the Type 26 video they are in square canisters.  NSM are launched from square TLS's.  Just saying....


----------



## AlexanderM

Or we could go with either the SCALP missile, should we use the A70 launchers or with the JSM for the MK 41, rather than the Exocet I mean.


----------



## dapaterson

Getting the impression that all may not be rosy in Halifax.

Unionized workers at Irving Shipyard vote overwhelmingly in favour of strike mandate


----------



## SeaKingTacco

If this does not play straight into Davie's hand, I do not know what does.

Is the Union leadership at Irving daft? They virtually have a lock on shipbuilding in Canada for the next 3 decades and they are going to give a Federal Govt (yes, even this one) an opening to spread the work around?

 :facepalm:


----------



## Karel Doorman

Underway said:
			
		

> Strike length VLS are only a requirement if you want to use Tomahawks (or the French MdCN).  The RCN is missile agnostic.  If a tactical length VLS can shoot a land attack missile then that might be the design chosen.  Future proofing is the name of the game.   Harpoon is working on a VLS version.  Naval Strike Missile from norway might be able to be launched from VLS. (_edit:_  the Joint Strike Missile is able to be launched from VLS, its a derivative of the NSM and is fired from a Tactical length Mk 41)
> 
> Some of the 76mm were already sold to the Dutch for their DZP AFAIK.  By the time the all Halifax are replaced some of those 57mm guns are going to be 20 years old.  So probably not.



For the canon part,euhm no we bought your 127mm to place them on the DZP.Witch will be replaced for 127mm vulcano shortly,due to a lot of problems with them(they're are just old)We wanted to buy cheap and now have to buy new ones(typical Dutch)so now it will cost us more then  if we bought new ones in the first place.


----------



## Uzlu

> European firms jointly offer frigate to Canadian government, skipping shipbuilder
> 
> PARIS — Franco-Italian partners Naval Group and Fincantieri filed their joint offer in a frigate tender directly to Canada‘s defense ministry, rather than submitting the bid to prime contractor Irving Shipbuilding, a spokesman for the French company said Monday.
> 
> “The bid was outside the competition procedure, it was a spontaneous offer,” the spokesman told Defense News. The competition rules called for offers to be submitted to Irving.
> 
> The two companies submitted their Nov. 30 offer of the FREMM multimission frigate to the ministry, part of a strategy to protect intellectual property rights on the technology, the spokesman said.
> 
> That unusual approach included an offer of fast delivery, with the first ship handed over in fall 2019 if the joint bid were accepted next year, the spokesman said.
> 
> Fincantieri and Naval Group have offered a fixed price of CAD$30 billion (U.S. $24 billion) for the 15 vessels in the Canadian Surface Combatant program, compared to CAN$62 billion estimated by the Canadian Parliamentary Budget Officer, National Post reported.
> 
> That direct offer to the government was the two European companies’ attempt to overcome a perceived preference by Irving for BAE Systems’ offer of the Type 26 frigate, business website La Tribune reported.
> 
> BAE has partnered with Lockheed Martin for an offer of the Type 26, which is being built for the British Navy.
> 
> The concerns over intellectual property protection stem from the competition rules requiring bidders to submit sensitive information on technology to Irving, which draws heavily on American and British advisers, La Tribune reported.


https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2017/12/04/european-firms-jointly-offer-frigate-to-canadian-government-skipping-shipbuilder/


----------



## Czech_pivo

So, again, if we assume that the FREMM is considered not valid for not following the process/procedures laid out - we then have only 3 valid bids. The process to whittle it down to 2 bids and then make the final bid should be pretty straight forward and shouldn't take a long time to do so - but then again based on prior track records I'm sure that the timelines will be pushed back again and again and the final decision will occur sometime in the next 10-12 months. 
What should happen, is that they move things along quicker, thus closing the so called 'gap' in timelines when the current AOPS ships  are completed and when the CSC's are to begin.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If this does not play straight into Davie's hand, I do not know what does.
> 
> Is the Union leadership at Irving daft? They virtually have a lock on shipbuilding in Canada for the next 3 decades and they are going to give a Federal Govt (yes, even this one) an opening to spread the work around?
> 
> :facepalm:




Union Leadership is nothing but entertaining. However it could also be Irving playing hardball thinking it has the union by the short and curlies


----------



## Lumber

Do you think there is any possibility, _at all_, of scrapping the single class idea?

GP Variant: Go with the Type-26. It looks exactly like what we need for a GP Frigate.

AAW: Go with the F100 (it's basically an Arleigh Burke with a hat instead of fat cheeks), or the DZP.

My preference would be the DZP, as its sensor suite is more akin to what were using today, vice the F100 which is basically the same suite as an Arleigh Burke (with a hat).

Mind you, I haven't actually looked at any the submissions. Is the F100 being proposed with the same suite as what Spain is using, or something completely different?


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> Union Leadership is nothing but entertaining. However it could also be Irving playing hardball thinking it has the union by the short and curlies



Gutsy move, Mav!

To be followed shortly with, "Here, hold my beer...watch this..."


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

My understanding is that the F-105 being proposed is actually closer to the Australian AAD's than the original Spanish F-100's.

As for scraping the "single class", I don't believe there is much chance of this. This constant single classing of ships seem to be a RCN fixation that originates in the  Saint-Laurent class era. The idea is single set of spare parts, single stream of training, etc., etc. Yet, the Navy made co-habitation of the St-L. and 280's work, so there is no real impediment to operating two classes of ships with differing functions.

I too would like to see two different types of ships, which I believe would make more sense in the end than trying to fit different functions in the same hull/powerplant.

In fact, it could be the government redeeming factor: Increase the plan slightly to the level proposed by the Senate defence committee, i.e. 18 surface ships. Get 14 ASW/GP variants and four AAD/Command variants. Leave the GP at Irving (that shortchanges them by one ship over 24 years  - I am sure some sop could be found for that) and get Davie in for the four AAD's.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Way to much sense in that post OGBD


----------



## Kirkhill

OGBD

While you're at it - how about adjusting the Irving buy to 3 pre-planned flights?  To permit controlled modification required to meet future, unforeseen requirements.


----------



## Uzlu

> Shipbuilder appeals directly to Sajjan in warship design contest then doesn't deliver formal bid
> 
> French-Italian warship design was expected to be among leading contenders in Canadian contest
> 
> Just weeks before the competition to design Canada's next warship closed, a French and Italian consortium tossed what amounts to a political Hail Mary into the bidding process for the proposed $60 billion program.
> 
> Naval Group and Fincantieri delivered its now highly-publicised, eye-popping, proposal to Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The pitch, which suggested Canada could save tens of billions of dollars, appears to be a frustrating parting shot for a consortium which had been considered one of the leading contenders in the highly-anticipated program.
> 
> It was a parting shot because CBC News has learned the French and Italian consortium did not submit a formal bid by the Nov. 30 deadline to make its FREMM-class frigates Canada's new surface warships.
> 
> "Fincantieri and Naval Group have made a business decision not to submit a bid under the current Request For Proposal (RFP) issued by Irving Shipbuilding Industry," said Alix Donnelly, a spokesman for Naval Group, in an email Tuesday morning.
> 
> The decision, he added, was made after a careful evaluation.
> 
> "We have finally developed a global proposal outside the terms of the official RFP to the Ministry of Defence to meet the Canadian needs on the long term, based on our FREMM program," Donnelly said.
> 
> What the French and Italian consortium was trying to achieve by making an informal pitch to Sajjan outside of the structured bidding process, remains unclear.
> 
> In a story quoting unnamed sources, The National Post reported last week that Naval Group and Fincantieri had pitched  a frigate replacement plan that would be $32 billion cheaper than the existing project estimate and involve building three of the 15 warships in Europe.
> 
> The informal proposal given to Sajjan, a copy of which was obtained by CBC News, also pledges a "fix price guarantee" and — significantly — promises to start construction of the first FREMM at the Irving Shipyard in Halifax in 2019.
> 
> It says it would charge $1.3 billion per ship, but "the final contract price will have to be defined by Irving Shipbuilding Inc.," which is the federal government's go-to yard for warship construction.
> 
> What the minister did with the pitch, dated Nov. 6, 2017, is unclear.
> 
> Sajjan's office would not answer questions on Monday and referred all queries to Public Services and Procurement Canada, which also declined to talk about the unusual proposal.
> 
> The federal government received at least three bids for warship design by the time the over 13 month competition closed, said several sources with knowledge of the file.
> 
> Among the acknowledged bidders is the Spanish-led Navantia-Saab team, which is offering its F-105 frigate design. As well, Lockheed-Martin Canada and British-based BAE Systems Inc. made headlines last week with the submission of their proposal. The third bidder remains unknown.
> 
> Federal officials made it clear previously they will not identify bidders until the process is over and a winner is declared.
> 
> Dave Perry, a defence analyst at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he wasn't surprised with the latest development because the "French and Italians had been the most vocal about the problems they had with the process."
> 
> Bidders have complained Canada was asking for too much intellectual property data in its submission and there were also concerns about the transfer of top secret government-to-government information on systems such as radar and combat management equipment.
> 
> Officials close to the project, who spoke on background because of the sensitivity of the file, said dropping a proposal on the defence's minister's desk was an attempt to undermine the national shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> Perry was not prepared to go that far.
> 
> "I can't tell how much of it was a knock against the formal process; a suggestion that the current process is going to end in tears and this is a backup plan; or an acknowledgement that they [Naval Group and Fincantieri] weren't going to be successful," he said.
> 
> Industry sources have repeatedly suggested that the bidders were unhappy because they believed the process has been tilted in favour the BAE bid, which offers the Type 26 frigate, a warship that has only just entered production and has yet to establish a service history.
> 
> The Pentagon has indicated it is ready to open up its own much bigger program to replace U.S. Navy frigates to foreign warship designers.
> 
> Perry said he doesn't believe that, by itself, would have been enough to scuttle the FREMM bid.


http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-french-designer-1.4432705

We know the identities of the third bidders.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> OGBD
> 
> While you're at it - how about adjusting the Irving buy to 3 pre-planned flights?  To permit controlled modification required to meet future, unforeseen requirements.



Considering the current plan is for construction to take place over the next 24 years, I would already expect (hope they are smart enough for this is more like it) it to be the case. To have the exact same thing built in the last three years as was built in the first three, for sensors, combat systems, communications and weapons, makes no sense. You have to take in the lessons of the earlier versions of the ships and keep up with advancements in the fields I just specified.

To me, it's more like mid-way through the process, you have to bring the earlier models up to the level of the most recent ones through mid-life upgrades.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> Do you think there is any possibility, _at all_, of scrapping the single class idea?
> 
> My preference would be the DZP, as its sensor suite is more akin to what were using today, vice the F100 which is basically the same suite as an Arleigh Burke (with a hat).
> 
> Mind you, I haven't actually looked at any the submissions. Is the F100 being proposed with the same suite as what Spain is using, or something completely different?





			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> My understanding is that the F-105 being proposed is actually closer to the Australian AAD's than the original Spanish F-100's.
> 
> I too would like to see two different types of ships, which I believe would make more sense in the end than trying to fit different functions in the same hull/powerplant.



There is currently no possibility of not fitting it into the same hull.  The RCN solution for the future is to be able to easily convert a GP frigate into an AAD version so we will never have a capability gap again, and never lose the ability to operate in a Task Group again.  Whether this comes from gov't stupidity (not replacing ships), or accidents (ie: HMCS Winnipeg...) the plan is to either "add more/different radars and switch out missiles" to a GP version that you have removed from the old or damaged the AAD version.  This is to be done with relatively no fuss (say a 2 month refit), because all the platforms have the space to embark the Commodores staff and can do C&C stuff.

As for the F-100 bid the difference is the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radar systems.  They are completely different radar type to the SPY-1D which is the current mount.  They are active search S band and active fire control X band radars.  The SPY-1 is a passive S-band and requires a FC director of some sort.  The CEA radars are much more advanced and efficient then the SPY-1 but don't have the same power.  The currently operating CEA radars are perfect for frigates.  Doesn't mean that the AAW CEA radars aren't potentially bigger and better, with the simple expediency of adding more Tx/Rx groups.  They are pretty new to the radar ecosystem.


----------



## Kirkhill

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Considering the current plan is for construction to take place over the next 24 years, I would already expect (*hope they are smart enough for this is more like it*) it to be the case. To have the exact same thing built in the last three years as was built in the first three, for sensors, combat systems, communications and weapons, makes no sense. You have to take in the lessons of the earlier versions of the ships and keep up with advancements in the fields I just specified.
> 
> To me, it's more like mid-way through the process, you have to bring the earlier models up to the level of the most recent ones through mid-life upgrades.



Hope as a course of action? How about the past as a predictor of future action?

I'm afraid that my cynicism is at an extremely high level these days.


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:
			
		

> There is currently no possibility of not fitting it into the same hull.  The RCN solution for the future is to be able to easily convert a GP frigate into an AAD version so we will never have a capability gap again, and never lose the ability to operate in a Task Group again.  Whether this comes from gov't stupidity (not replacing ships), or accidents (ie: HMCS Winnipeg...) the plan is to either "add more/different radars and switch out missiles" to a GP version that you have removed from the old or damaged the AAD version.  This is to be done with relatively no fuss (say a 2 month refit), because all the platforms have the space to embark the Commodores staff and can do C&C stuff.
> 
> As for the F-100 bid the difference is the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radar systems.  They are completely different radar type to the SPY-1D which is the current mount.  They are active search S band and active fire control X band radars.  The SPY-1 is a passive S-band and requires a FC director of some sort.  The CEA radars are much more advanced and efficient then the SPY-1 but don't have the same power.  The currently operating CEA radars are perfect for frigates.  Doesn't mean that the AAW CEA radars aren't potentially bigger and better, with the simple expediency of adding more Tx/Rx groups.  They are pretty new to the radar ecosystem.



Well, in this case I recommend going with the DZP or F100. 

It's better to have a destroyer acting like a frigate, than a frigate (type-26) acting like a destroyer.


----------



## RDBZ

Underway said:
			
		

> As for the F-100 bid the difference is the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radar systems.  They are completely different radar type to the SPY-1D which is the current mount.  *They are active search S band and active fire control X band radars. * The SPY-1 is a passive S-band and requires a FC director of some sort.  The CEA radars are much more advanced and efficient then the SPY-1 but don't have the same power.  The currently operating CEA radars are perfect for frigates.  Doesn't mean that the AAW CEA radars aren't potentially bigger and better, with the simple expediency of adding more Tx/Rx groups.  They are pretty new to the radar ecosystem.



I would assume the CSC bid would also include the CEAFAR2-L long range L-band radar.  The fist ships to be fitted with this will be the RANs Anzacs class, where it will supplement the in-place CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT, and replace the SPS-49.    https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/minister/christopher-pyne/media-releases/148-million-radar-upgrade-anzac-class-frigates

The CEAMOUNT + CEAFAR + CEAFAR2-L suite will be fitted to the RANs future frigates irrespective of which designer is selected.


----------



## MTShaw

Navy Recognition


----------



## Czech_pivo

According to CTV (the only news source reporting this story), the Feds have rejected the FREMM bid outright.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> Well, in this case I recommend going with the DZP or F100.
> 
> It's better to have a destroyer acting like a frigate, than a frigate (type-26) acting like a destroyer.



What's the difference?  Size and engineering spaces sure aren't.  Sensors and Weapons.  If the Type 26 comes in with a SPY-1F radar and the Aegis system what is it?  A GP frigate or a AAW destroyer?  At what point does the hull matter.  We took four ASW destroyers in the Tribals and converted them to AAW (yes major refit however you get my point).  We are at a place now where electronics are so small and powerful.  Sensors are being designed with scalability.  Weapons are interchangeable in the VLS launchers.



			
				Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> According to CTV (the only news source reporting this story), the Feds have rejected the FREMM bid outright.



No surprise there.

And that F-100/105 looks ugly AF.  Wow...


----------



## GR66

Underway said:
			
		

> There is currently no possibility of not fitting it into the same hull.  The RCN solution for the future is to be able to easily convert a GP frigate into an AAD version so we will never have a capability gap again, and never lose the ability to operate in a Task Group again.  Whether this comes from gov't stupidity (not replacing ships), or accidents (ie: HMCS Winnipeg...) the plan is to either "add more/different radars and switch out missiles" to a GP version that you have removed from the old or damaged the AAD version.  This is to be done with relatively no fuss (say a 2 month refit), because all the platforms have the space to embark the Commodores staff and can do C&C stuff.
> 
> As for the F-100 bid the difference is the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radar systems.  They are completely different radar type to the SPY-1D which is the current mount.  They are active search S band and active fire control X band radars.  The SPY-1 is a passive S-band and requires a FC director of some sort.  The CEA radars are much more advanced and efficient then the SPY-1 but don't have the same power.  The currently operating CEA radars are perfect for frigates.  Doesn't mean that the AAW CEA radars aren't potentially bigger and better, with the simple expediency of adding more Tx/Rx groups.  They are pretty new to the radar ecosystem.



Could you do the reverse and "downgrade" the same GP hull to become a Kingston-Class replacement?  Less powerful sensor suite and combat system.  Drop the towed-array sonar and instead have capability of deploying a modular towed-array when required.  Mount the 57mm guns from the Halifax's instead of a new 127mm gun.  Eliminate the gas turbine and just have the diesel engines.  Don't mount with VLS launchers (equip for, but not with) so that if necessary you could drop in a missile like the Sea Ceptor that can be fired using the ship's surveillance radar rather than needing a fire control radar to provide a self defence capability.

You'd end up with a ship with a great deal of physical and mechanical commonality to the rest of the fleet, has great range and humanitarian/constabulary capabilities and in time of war can greatly increase our ASW capabilities by being able to embark an ASW helicopter.  The extra hulls, built over a stretch of years would go a long way to keeping the shipyards busy until we're ready to replace the original AAW/GP ships.


----------



## Kirkhill

Those hulls, with the extra space, could even be used for transporting and supporting self-loading cargo......


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

To GR66,

I wonder if you skip most of the development costs and see if you could drop an Absolon superstructure onto that hull?

Not sure on how the beams compare as I know the Absalons are pretty wide ships.

Anyone know that level of detail on the contenders?


----------



## GR66

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> To GR66,
> 
> I wonder if you skip most of the development costs and see if you could drop an Absolon superstructure onto that hull?
> 
> Not sure on how the beams compare as I know the Absalons are pretty wide ships.
> 
> Anyone know that level of detail on the contenders?



I'd think that in order to sell it you'd want to absolutely minimize the changes and maximize the commonality.  Stick with a single hull.  Change only the very specific and limited things that you need to in order to upgrade to AAW or downgrade to Frigate-Light.  In my opinion you'd over complicate it (and greatly increase the cost) once you start mixing and matching elements from other ships.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Here we go again with Army people trying to tell us how to do ships!



			
				GR66 said:
			
		

> Could you do the reverse and "downgrade" the same GP hull to become a Kingston-Class replacement?



... ... ... ... NO!!!!!!

Why on earth would you want to pay the fuel cost of dragging 7000 tons of bloody steel around to do the job of a 900 tons ship?

And to do what? What do you people think that the MCDV's do for us?

They are mine warfare vessels. Not only do you not need 7000 tons of displacement to do mine warfare, it's actually counter-productive to do so.

If you want to improve the MCDV's "constabulary" duties instead, again, why drag 7000 tons around at 18 knots (above which you need the  gas turbine), when you can get a 1500 tons ship that will do 25 knots on diesel at a quarter of the fuel expenditure!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Gov't statement rejecting Fincantieri/NavalGroup FREMM offer (not formal bid) for CSC:



> Update on the Canadian Surface Combatant Request for Proposals
> 
> *Proposals submitted outside of the established competitive process will not be considered*
> 
> December 5, 2017, Ottawa – The Government of Canada is committed to open, fair and transparent procurement processes.
> 
> The Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Project is the largest and most complex of the projects launched through the National Shipbuilding Strategy due to the volume of ships being built and the need to carefully integrate required weapons and technologies.This procurement has been underway for several years, and the Government and its prime contractor, Irving Shipbuilding, have undertaken significant efforts to engage with industry to ensure this procurement is effectively managed.
> 
> The selection of  pre-qualified potential bidders began in August 2015 with an open and competitive prequalification process, and was re-opened in July 2016 to provide a second opportunity for additional interested firms to participate when the procurement strategy was streamlined. This pre-qualification ensured that potential bidders had the experience necessary to successfully complete a large, complex warship design project.  Finalized in October 2016, this process resulted in 12 prequalified bidders. Since then, the Government and Irving Shipbuilding have engaged with the pre-qualified bidders and developed a request for proposals (RFP), which includes a detailed evaluation plan, evaluation critieria and the process for submitting bids. On this basis, potential bidders worked for over a year to prepare their proposals.  The bidding period for the RFP closed on November 30, 2017, at which time multiple bids were properly submitted. Ultimately, the submission of a bid is a commercial decision which must be made by each potential bidder.
> 
> Recent media coverage referenced a proposal submitted outside of the established competitive process  alleging the ability to deliver CSC ships at a reduced cost. Establishing and respecting a bid and evaluation process that is consistently applied to all potential bidders is fundamental to a fair, open and transparent procurement. Without common requirements and criteria, it is impossible to consistently and effectively evaluate proposals. The submission of an unsolicited proposal at  the final hour undermines the fair and competitive nature of this  procurement suggesting a sole source contracting arrangement.  Acceptance of such a proposal would break faith with the bidders who invested time and effort to participate in  the competitive process, put at risk the Government’s ability to properly equip the Royal Canadian Navy and would establish a harmful precedent for future competitive procurements.  To be clear, any proposals submitted outside of the established competitive process will not be considered. It should be noted that a fairness monitor has been engaged to oversee the procurement process, and agrees with this approach.
> 
> With respect to suggestions that significant savings could be realized through this alternative process, this is far from evident.  It is important to note that a warship project budget must cover more than just delivering the ships. It must also include the costs associated with design and definition work, infrastructure, spare parts, training, ammunition, contingencies and project management. Typically, the acquisition of the ships themselves only represents about 50-60% of the project’s overall budget. As well, any prices cited without the context of applicable terms and conditions as indicated in the RFP (such as scope of work, divisions of responsibilities, intellectual property rights, warranties, limitations of liability, indemnities, etc.) are effectively meaningless.
> 
> _The Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. will work together to evaluate the proposals in accordance with the published evaluation plan_ [emphasis added].
> https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/12/update_on_the_canadiansurfacecombatantrequestforproposals.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If you want to improve the MCDV's "constabulary" duties instead, again, why drag 7000 tons around at 18 knots (above which you need the  gas turbine), when you can get a 1500 tons ship that will do 25 knots on diesel at a quarter of the fuel expenditure!



We are paying the toll to drag a 6500 ton ship around at 18 knots to do constabulary work.  Its called the Harry DeWolf Class.   :rofl:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I know, Underway. I was only addressing the view of doing it in a"dumbed-down" frigate version. Doing it in a HDW doesn't make it any smarter.  ;D

And , BTW, leave it to the Navy to manage to build a 6500 tons ship with a crew of 65 and still not provide the seamen with 2-persons or at max 3-persons cabins as a living standard.  :facepalm:


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I know, Underway. I was only addressing the view of doing it in a"dumbed-down" frigate version. Doing it in a HDW doesn't make it any smarter.  ;D
> 
> And , BTW, leave it to the Navy to manage to build a 6500 tons ship with a crew of 65 and still not provide the seamen with 2-persons or at max 3-persons cabins as a living standard.  :facepalm:



Everywhere I go the 280 vets always talk about the "amazing" camaraderie of the 50 pers mess deck.  "That's the problem with those frigates, no camaraderie or loyalty to your ship blah blah blah".   

The AOPS do have the capacity to have more people embarked then just 65 so I wouldn't be surprised if a 6 pers mess turned into a 3 pers mess when there are no extra riders.  Or more likely a random storage room...

I have really no issues with the HDW.  Assuming it rides ok in patrol it will do exactly what its designed for.  Maybe I'm optimistic, but given the role it has and the large amount of naval input into the design I expect it to be surprisingly useful.  Lots of space available in that ship for the future.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Underway said:
			
		

> Everywhere I go the 280 vets always talk about the "amazing" camaraderie of the 50 pers mess deck.



I do have to say, l have sailed mostly on Tankers (90%) but have sailed 280 and CPF.  12 Mess on ATH was great, there was amazing camaraderie within the MSE world and something l did not experience elsewhere.  That being said, it's time for much better messing in future ships.  Asterix has it right.  Thumbs up to Davies.


----------



## GR66

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Here we go again with Army people trying to tell us how to do ships!
> 
> ... ... ... ... NO!!!!!!



Which is why, Jeopardy-style, it was posed as a question as opposed to a recommendation.

A "non-Army person" explained the reason that the GP and AAW versions of the CSC needed to be the same hull with a design that allowed us to have a "base" GP version with sensors, etc. that could be upgraded fairly easily to the "expensive" AAW version.

I simply asked the question if this could be taken to another level by going the opposite direction as well and having an even "cheaper" version.  My mistake was in specifically referencing the Kingston-Class...my intention was to ask if it made sense to add an additional 12 x Frigate-light hulls (which can be upgraded if needed) to the fleet as opposed to using them specifically take over the current MCDV role.  I'm assuming that such a ship would take on different roles which suit its capabilities.  

Despite the tone of your answer I do appreciate an educated response to my question and clearly one of the items I questioned the feasibility of (diesel only vs CODLAG) wouldn't make sense.


----------



## Uzlu

GR66 said:
			
		

> I simply asked the question if this could be taken to another level by going the opposite direction as well and having an even "cheaper" version.


This has actually been done already with the _Spruance_-class destroyer, the _Kidd_-class destroyer, and the _Ticonderoga_-class cruiser—a common or similar hull with different levels of equipment.  The Italians appear to be doing something similar with the Pattugliatori Polivalenti d'Altura.  I like the idea of the Royal Canadian Navy having some large and fast offshore patrol vessels.  

Perhaps something like 4 000 tonnes full-load displacement and 25 knots.  They could be used for anti-piracy and anti-smuggling patrols.  Secondary roles may include things like disaster relief and search and rescue.  A few of them can also sometimes act as training ships.  And perhaps also build a few for the coast guard.  Irving wants a new contract after steel has been cut for the last frigate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I know, Underway. I was only addressing the view of doing it in a"dumbed-down" frigate version. Doing it in a HDW doesn't make it any smarter.  ;D
> 
> And , BTW, leave it to the Navy to manage to build a 6500 tons ship with a crew of 65 and still not provide the seamen with 2-persons or at max 3-persons cabins as a living standard.  :facepalm:




Seriously? sigh........


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:
			
		

> What's the difference?  Size and engineering spaces sure aren't.  Sensors and Weapons.  If the Type 26 comes in with a SPY-1F radar and the Aegis system what is it?  A GP frigate or a AAW destroyer?  At what point does the hull matter.  We took four ASW destroyers in the Tribals and converted them to AAW (yes major refit however you get my point).  We are at a place now where electronics are so small and powerful.  Sensors are being designed with scalability.  Weapons are interchangeable in the VLS launchers.
> 
> No surprise there.
> 
> And that F-100/105 looks ugly AF.  Wow...



Underway,

My apologies. I didn't do enough research. I had thought based on the name and look that the Type 26 would be small of the group, more akin to a Halifax Class. However, having now done the research, looking at Length, Breadth, and displacement, it appears that the Type 26 is even larger than the DZP, F100, the FREMM and the Iver Huitfeldt.

Why are all these destroyers called Frigates?! Youd think that with the same systems and roughly the same look as an Arleigh the F100 would be a bit bigger than it is, and be considered a destroyer. Alas, naming apparently means nothing.

Lets strike fear in to the eyes of our enemies, buy some Visbys, and call them Tactical Assault Cruisers.


----------



## MilEME09

Lumber said:
			
		

> Underway,
> 
> My apologies. I didn't do enough research. I had thought based on the name and look that the Type 26 would be small of the group, more akin to a Halifax Class. However, having now done the research, looking at Length, Breadth, and displacement, it appears that the Type 26 is even larger than the DZP, F100, the FREMM and the Iver Huitfeldt.
> 
> Why are all these destroyers called Frigates?! Youd think that with the same systems and roughly the same look as an Arleigh the F100 would be a bit bigger than it is, and be considered a destroyer. Alas, naming apparently means nothing.
> 
> Lets strike fear in to the eyes of our enemies, buy some Visbys, and call them Tactical Assault Cruisers.



Frigate sounds less scary then destroyer, I'll bet $5 its about public perception


----------



## Cloud Cover

Profile comparison between Type 23 and Type 26.

Much, much larger in all directions.


----------



## Underway

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Profile comparison between Type 23 and Type 26.
> 
> Much, much larger in all directions.



Good catch.  The Type 23 is only slightly larger than the Halifax class.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Please stop imagining that there is some sort of "naming" conspiracy here.

As usual, there is simple, historical explanation.

Frigates have been around for a long long time, from the glory days of sail ships of the line. They were the fast fourth, and fifth class vessels that scouted ahead of the fleet and reported back, or were sent on solo missions in support of commerce and exploration, or in wartime, to raid the opponent's commerce. they sort of disappeared when steamships came on the scene.

By that time, multiple types of steamships evolved and two of them became of note: the cruisers took over the role of commerce raiding, scouting and solo mission from the frigates of old, and a small high speed vessel developed to take advantage of a new weapon in the destruction of the opponent's main fleet - composed of battleships and battlecruisers: the Torpedo boat.

To counter these torpedo boats, a specific escort for the main fleet was created: the Torpedo Boat Destroyer. It became the destroyer we have known since the end of WWI. In the always different continental forces of Europe, however, the "Torpedo Boat Destroyer" did not bear that name. It was called the "contre-torpilleur", i.e. the "counter torpedo boats". So the term "destroyer" was only really used by English societies.

During WWII, the "Anti-submarine vessel Whaler type" came on the scene for protection of trade. But that didn't sound very sexy, so  Winnie decided they should have a more appropriate name: the name that was used of the very small colonial defence vessels of the sail age, the sixth class ship called corvettes. Later, they grew in size and highly specialized weaponry so they needed a name to set them apart from the corvettes, even though they were not quite destroyers. Winnie had a horrible name (can't recall what it was) but was persuaded by the Canadian admiralty to reinstate instead the term frigate for such escort vessel.

In the continental European navies, this terminology stuck ever since, which is why ALL escort vessels of any type (which for us anglo nations includes "destroyers") are ALL called Frigates and have been so from WWII on. The only time Continental navies refer to some of their ships as "destroyers" is in documents they put out in English, for the benefit of their English audiences, or when they actually purchase "destroyers" from English countries (meaning the US), something they have not done of  a long time now. Otherwise, they are always and all called frigates.

All this to say, all we and the Brits are doing is catching up to generalized world practices outside the US and the other five eyes nations by calling all our escort-type ships frigates.

/PEDANT OFF


----------



## Czech_pivo

Anyone want to take bets that between today and Christmas some sort of new announcement is made about Davie winning or being able to bid for (thus winning since no one else has any capacity left), some new shipbuilding contracts - be it net new ships or rebuilding/refurbishing old ones.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Hope that is ok that I'm posting this link (and I don't get another warning).  I think that its a great article and holds many solid takeaways for what we are attempting to do.
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/Opinion-carrier-commissioning-beginning-of/


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks for the link pivo.

So Canada has become militarily noticeable..... as a cautionary tale?  

I guess it is good to be ahead of the pack somewhere at least.


----------



## MTShaw

This is my take on the BAE/LM choice of radar:

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/amdr/


----------



## jollyjacktar

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Thanks for the link pivo.
> 
> So Canada has become militarily noticeable..... as a cautionary tale?
> 
> I guess it is good to be ahead of the pack somewhere at least.



We're a good example of a bad example.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Then again, they're going to have a hard time manning their new ships.  Perhaps this will be our fate too?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/chronic-shortage-of-navy-engineers-as-mps-warn-over-shrinking-of-fleets-a3400701.html

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/chronic-shortage-of-navy-engineers-as-mps-warn-over-shrinking-of-fleets-a3400701.html


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:
			
		

> This is my take on the BAE/LM choice of radar:
> 
> https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/amdr/



That's the basic plan.  Smaller number of RMA's for the GP frigates and a larger number for the AAW versions.


----------



## MTShaw

Hi Underway,

Where did the notion of GP and AAW frigates for CSC. My impression of Single Surface Combatant is the only thing you'd have to change is the weapons in the VLS.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Hi Underway,
> 
> Where did the notion of GP and AAW frigates for CSC. My impression of Single Surface Combatant is the only thing you'd have to change is the weapons in the VLS.



Single canadian surface combatant died a long time ago.  It's child is the CSC.  

What you say might be the exact case.  It really depends on the bids and how creative the bidders are with their pitches.  The requirement is for an appropriate Air search and targeting radar for AAW.  The requirement for self defence radars is different. There is also a requirement for Command and Control variants.   If you can all those things in one platform without modification for the different variants at a good price and only swap out weapons then that bid has a good chance of winning (IMHO).

However long range air search and targeting radars are expensive.  What if you could just have the same radar and scale it down, like in the link for the SPY-6.  Then the GP frigate wouldn't need the big expensive air search radars because it doesn't do air search, it needs only a self defence capability.  That might be much cheaper.  Then maybe your bid wins instead on cost being better while still meeting the min requirements.


----------



## MTShaw

Alion reveals it's frigate design to the public.

http://mapleleafnavy.com/2017/12/08/alion-finally-announced-csc-bid/


----------



## Czech_pivo

The speed of these looks to be higher than what I’ve read on the Type 26’s, though the overall range of them looks to be fairly less. I’d think we’d be looking for both, speed and range, since the Halifax’s have nicely both.


----------



## MTShaw

I would assume that Alion would modify it for greater range.


----------



## jmt18325

Is there a bad choice between the 3 bids?  It really doesn't seem so.


----------



## MTShaw

Any one frigate would do.  Except Navantia's and Alion's have been built and sailed before.


----------



## Chester

As an Army officer, the Type 26 seems to be the best interarm choice. It can accommodate the Cyclone without issue, but the Chinook can also operate from the flight deck. It has the stern mission bay that can launch RHIB, but also the integrated mission bay. This mission bay offers so much flexibility that I am salivating. The interarms operations between the Army and the Navy is currently a joke. Getting down nets into assault boat is not amphibious operations...

Personally, I think that we missed the boat on the 2 Mistral (pun intented). That would have been a great capability for the CAF. Anyhow, my 2 cents as an Army Officer.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Any one frigate would do.  Except Navantia's and Alion's have been built and sailed before.



Navantia is only bidder to have not yet released a rendering publicly, correct?


----------



## MTShaw

repost:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Thank you MTShaw....  :cheers:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just looking at the renderings it appears both the Alison and Navantia include (2) RAM launchers each while the BAE submission has none.

Can we assume the renderings match the bids to that level of detail?


----------



## Karel Doorman

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The speed of these looks to be higher than what I’ve read on the Type 26’s, though the overall range of them looks to be fairly less. I’d think we’d be looking for both, speed and range, since the Halifax’s have nicely both.



if they use the same or simular output it will be 30 knots max(at least that's what the LCF/DZP is capable of.(If you're talking about the Alion bid.)


----------



## Czech_pivo

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I would assume that Alion would modify it for greater range.


As OGBD has correctly guessed, I'm not a sailor... nor am I a tinker, tailor or a soldier. 
In order to modify it for a greater range, one would have to either; a) lengthen the boat in order to increase the size of its fuel capacity, b) remove some other internal compartments or storage areas to again increase its fuel capacity, c) option A plus add additional capacity for food/water to compensate the added range, or d) options A or C plus increase the size of the engines (due to a longer, heavier ship), in order to maintain the 30kn speed.
Now, if this is correct, I would assume that lengthening a ship (and its design) is no easier feat, for whatever added space/capacity occurs below deck must have something in turn placed over it above deck.  Now, this might be great if added capability is what is needed above decks because the existing design is lacking, but if that's the case are we not getting into the realm of a redesign and not an 'off the shelf' design? The DZP frigate is only 5m shorter than the Type 26 - how many more meters would we have to lengthen the boat in order to accommodate the larger fuel capacity?


----------



## MTShaw

@Czech_pivo

The problem with the range comparison between the GCS, HALIFAX and DZP is that, according to wikipedia, the DZP qualifies it's range with a speed. HALIFAX and the GCS do not.

Apples and Oranges.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MTShaw said:
			
		

> @Czech_pivo
> 
> The problem with the range comparison between the GCS, HALIFAX and DZP is that, according to wikipedia, the DZP qualifies it's range with a speed. HALIFAX and the GCS do not.
> 
> Apples and Oranges.


Got ya - Cheers - Learning lot's.


----------



## MTShaw

Me too!


----------



## Kirkhill

Does the Alion DZP design incorporate a mission bay/flex deck?


----------



## Uzlu

MTShaw said:
			
		

> The problem with the range comparison between the GCS, HALIFAX and DZP is that, according to wikipedia, the DZP qualifies it's range with a speed. HALIFAX and the GCS do not.


The first edition of _Jane’s Fighting Ships Recognition Handbook_ says that the _Halifax_-class frigate had a range of 7 100 miles at 15 knots.  This was before the big refits.  Incidentally, I am against stretching the Alion design.  If the Royal Canadian Navy wants range, I would rather have the design with the best range be chosen than stretch the Alion design.  The more modifications, the greater the risk of delays.  The more these surface combatants are delayed, the higher the cost.


----------



## Edward Campbell

The _*Globe and Mail*_ is reporting that "*The French and Italian governments are officially backing an unsolicited proposal to supply 15 military vessels to the Royal Canada Navy outside of the ongoing competition for the $60-billion contract, documents show* ... [and] ... *The French and Italian ministers of defence submitted a letter last month to their Canadian counterpart, Harjit Sajjan, stating that they "fully support" the joint bid by Naval Group and Fincantieri to replace the RCN's existing frigates and retired destroyers. The support from the French and Italian governments could give additional weight to the long-shot proposal, which aims to bypass the official procurement process for new Canadian Surface Combatants*."

The MND is, of course, also being pressured, with equal vigour, by the ministers representing the other bidders.

The article suggests that Naval Group and Fincantieri "_hail mary_" bid can work only if none of the other three bids, submitted through the proper channels, are fully compliant.

Any guesses on how "good" the others bids will be?


----------



## Underway

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Any guesses on how "good" the others bids will be?



They will be fully compliant.  The process allowed for pre-bid submission compliance checks. I believe this is why the deadline for the bid was extended at least one of the times. There is also the option of a one off "fix your error" option if there is something not compliant that is found in a bid.  I _assume_ this isn't there to hold up the process just ensure that a bid isn't rejected for a dumb submission error or the overlook of a minor compliancy (Damn it Bloggins, what do you mean you forgot to submit the pump specs for the fire main!).


----------



## Edward Campbell

So it would seem that those who said that the "_hail mary_" is, in reality, just a "parting shot" are right ... the French and Italians will focus, now, on the Australian and US projects?


----------



## Kirkhill

This bit from Nov 27 is interesting....



> Speaking notes for National Shipbuilding Strategy technical briefing on Canadian Surface Combatant request for proposal





> The evaluation of the bids will be multi-staged.
> 
> *The first stage is a completeness check* where bids will be reviewed to ensure that they are complete and nothing has been missed. Bidders will be given an opportunity to replace any missing elements.
> 
> *The first pass of true evaluation comes in Stage 2*.
> 
> In this Stage bids will be *evaluated with respect to the Technical (how well the proposals meet Canada’s technical requirements) and Value Proposition (the quality of the bidder’s commitments to bring benefits to Canada and to incorporate Canadian content into the CSC design) elements of their bids.*
> 
> During this evaluation bidders will need to demonstrate compliance with the identified Mandatory Compliance criteria and conformance with the other required criteria. Bids will be scored in accordance with the Evaluation Plan.
> 
> Again in the interests of maximizing the competition we will give any bidder that has not demonstrated compliance or conformance an opportunity to fix their proposal, a process we refer to as the Cure Process. This Cure process will be conducted in the following manner:
> 
> As evaluation teams complete each section of evaluation, feedback will be provided to each of the bidders regarding their bid. This feedback will explain what areas of the bid were found to be non-compliant or non-conformant and why. Bidders will be able to ask questions regarding the feedback they receive
> 
> Once all the sections of Technical and Value Proposition evaluation are completed and the final feedback has been provided to bidders the Final Submission Deadline will be established and communicated to bidders This date will be at least 4 weeks after the final feedback. During this period Canada and Irving Shipbuilding will respond to any questions asked regarding the bid feedback provided
> 
> On the Final Submission Deadline bidders will need to resubmit the affected portions of their bids and will need submit their financial proposals
> The evaluation teams will then do the required re-evaluations based on the updated bids
> 
> There will only be one pass through the Cure Process
> Any bidder that is still deemed non-compliant with any of the identified Mandatory Compliance criteria after the Cure Period will be eliminated from the competition.
> 
> If at least one bidder is compliant and has demonstrated conformance with all the other required criteria then those bidders’ scores will be considered final and the evaluation process will continue with Stage 2 score weighting using these scores. In this scenario any non-conforming bid will be set aside.
> 
> However, if after the Cure Process none of the compliant bidders have demonstrated full conformance with all the required criteria then non-conformance adjustments will be made to each of the compliant bids’ corresponding technical risk scores and the evaluation process will continue with Stage 2 score weighting using these adjusted scores.
> 
> The resultant *Stage 2 scores of compliant bids will be weighted 75% Technical /25% Value Proposition (the highest Value Proposition weighting to date) and the top 2 bids (plus any that are very close) will move on to the next stage of evaluation.*
> 
> The other bids will be set aside.
> 
> Those bids that have passed through will be scored for the remaining evaluation elements of Design Maturity, Software Capability and Financial.
> Each bid’s raw scores for Technical and Value Proposition from the earlier stage will be retained and reweighted.
> 
> All the *Stage 3 scores will be weighted and added together to get the bidder’s Total score. The final weightings will be Technical 42%, Value Proposition 15%, Design Maturity 19%, Software 1%, and Financial 23%.*



http://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/nouvelles-news/2017-11-27-eng.html


----------



## Underway

Ah yes the "Cure process" is what I was thinking of.  Thanks for that Chris.

Going over the Alion bid here are a few things I noted.  Points line up the attached photo.

1.  APAR radar with the addition of what looks like a fixed array volume search radar.  Based on who's in the bid group anticipate its probably the TRS-4D Fixed Panel from Hensoldt.  They are found on the F125 Baden-Württemberg-class currently.  The mast appears to be larger to accommodate this change.

2.  Replacement of the goalkeepers with Rolling Airframe Missiles.  That's going to save space for sure and probably some power.  It will increase probability of kill on a missile and increase engagement range of missile defence.  But it does reduce the ability of the ship to defend itself against surface attack from small boats.  Despite this change, lets be honest. It does lose some cool factor without the 30mm Avenger gatling guns.

3.   Speaking of surface engagement, looks like 20-25mm guns. One forward stbd and other aft port.

4.  Harpoon missiles fit in behind the forward superstructure.  They are behind a partial bulkhead to reduce radar signature and they fire over it.  Can’t see in this image so just labeled them for completeness.

5.  Platform for 20-25mm gun.  Not in the older design.  This is gun position is new to the CSC.

6.  40 cell VLS with strike length VLS integrated.  Space for another 8 pack.

7.  127mm Oto Melara  dual purpose gun.  Most likely it’s the 127/64 version.

8.  What is this thing? Assuming it’s EW of some sort.  Whether electronic support or attack I have no idea.

9.  Note, no rotating SMART-L radar.  It's been removed and replaced by the flat panel arrays in the larger mast.

This is a well thought out and proven ship.  There is isn't much new on here just a single radar modification and a few weapons swaps.  This actually might lead to a better radar signature as you no longer have a large rotating array.
Largest issue with the ship is the amount of modification that it’s going to require for the underwater warfare suite.  The DZP doesn’t appear to have a towed array of any sort that I can find a reference for.  That’s where the real engineering changes for her are going to be and most likely her weakest point in the bid.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway:

Looks to me that all the EW stuff is on top of the volume search radar at the top of the mast.

Difficult to tell exactly what your label 8 is. There is one main HF transmitter antenna on that sponsoon and the funny looking contraption looks to me to be a EO/IR device of some sort for volume surface surveillance. Looks a bit to me like the Thales Naval Nederland found on the German Braunschweig class corvettes.


----------



## Kirkhill

The "Radar" Mast.

Is that a variant of the Thales Integrated Mast?

http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/euronaval-2014/2143-thales-presents-its-new-integrated-mast-i-mast-500-at-euronaval-2014.html









> Thales I-Mast 500 combines a I-Mast 400 (the bottom and upper part) and a APAR Radar (middle part)





> In a tentative to combine its different existing products, Thales proposes its new integrated mast I-MAST 500. I-Mast 500 integrates a I-Mast 400, already installed on Dutch OPV Holland class, and an APAR Active Phased Array Radar. Thales I-Mast 500 offers all the necessary capacities needed by modern ships.
> 
> Thales presents its new integrated mast I-Mast 500 at EURONAVAL 2014
> Thales I-Mast 500 combines a I-Mast 400 (the bottom and upper part) and a APAR Radar (middle part)
> 
> With the growing number of electronic systems that must be installed on ships today (Radar, communication, ISR, guidance systems, etc...) arises the problem of electronic interferences. Thales find a solution at this problem by gathering the different systems in an unique integrated mast. The two gathered main systems are the I-Mast 400 and the APAR radar.
> 
> The I-Mast 400 was already an integrated naval sensor & communications suite packed into an advanced mast structure. By resolving the electromagnetic conflicts and line-of-sight obstructions inherent in traditional topside arrangements, it provides remarkable advantages in terms of operational performance and shipbuilding risk. Being built and tested in parallel with the construction of the ship, the IM400 solution reduces risk and time for the entire ship-building program.
> 
> APAR is the world’s first naval AESA radar providing at hemispheric coverage out to 150 km. This system is capable of searching, tracking and supporting many ESSM and SM-2 engagements simultaneously, using the ICWI guidance mode. Any type of AAW engagement, including super-sonic high-divers, super-sonic sea skimmers and stealth targets is supported. APAR has proven its system performance in more than 40 live firings. APAR is already installed on Dutch De Zeven Provinciën, German F124 Sachsen and Danish Ivar Huitfeldt class frigates.
> 
> The new I-Mast 500 combines so:
> - an AESA 3D search radar,
> - a non-rotating IFF system,
> - an Radar ESM,
> - a communication system (V/UHF, AIS, Tactical Datalink, Link 16, GSM/UMTS, Iridium, SATCOM),
> - an X-band Active Electronic Scanning Array
> 
> I-Mast 500 also includes a Gatekeeper optronic sensor that provides the user with a 360° panoramic view for surveillance and awareness around the ship using staring IR and colour TV cameras, thereby relieving the need to have crew on deck. Automatic tracking reduces the operator workload and can be used to integrate with other shipboard systems.
> 
> The I-Mast 500 is larger (10x10 m) than the I-Mast 400 (8x8 m) and 30 m high. I-Mast 500 is really esay to integrated to ships. It only needs 2 days of work. Only bolts are required to assemble the mast to the ship and connexions must be make only for data, power and cooling systems.
> 
> Thales presents its new integrated mast I-Mast 500 at EURONAVAL 2014
> Thales SMART-L EWC radar can be linked with I-Mast 500
> 
> I-Mast 500 can be linked with a SMART-L EWC radar for ballistic missile defence. SMART-L EWC is a naval, 3-dimensional long-range air surveillance radar operating in the D-band. The system performs long-range detection of conventional air targets and medium range detection of small “stealth” type air targets such as the newest generation of missiles and supports target identification by interfacing with an IFF system.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Underway:
> 
> Looks to me that all the EW stuff is on top of the volume search radar at the top of the mast.
> 
> Difficult to tell exactly what your label 8 is. There is one main HF transmitter antenna on that sponsoon and the funny looking contraption looks to me to be a EO/IR device of some sort for volume surface surveillance. Looks a bit to me like the Thales Naval Nederland found on the German Braunschweig class corvettes.



It could be an EO/IR camera but that's a bad place for it.  Losing out on on 100 degrees of visibility.  Unless of course you have another one aft stbd. I agree most of the EW stuff is on the mast.  Both detection systems and some electronic attack.  However if that thing is a chaff/flare/laser blinder of some sort then it counts as EW.  No idea.

_Edit:_  might be a version of an NGDS decoy launcher.  Has a similar outline.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The "Radar" Mast.
> 
> Is that a variant of the Thales Integrated Mast?
> 
> http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/naval-exhibitions/euronaval-2014/2143-thales-presents-its-new-integrated-mast-i-mast-500-at-euronaval-2014.html



I thought that originally but after perusing the Thales website the I500 doesn't have APAR currently.  It's a beefed up I400.  So I looked at the expertise of the bidders and the TRS-4D popped up.  I thought that it was only a rotating array (used on the LCS) but it appears the german frigates have a fixed panel version fitted.  Its a C-band radar (L-band NATO) which is good for volume search and just finding contacts out there.  Especially stealthed contacts.  APAR gives you the fire control solution.  Its a pretty good combo.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just re: the 127mm potential capabilities I thought the following was interesting.



> In his speech yesterday on the 2017 Defense Budget, U.S. Secretary of Defense Ash Carter  mentioned a second, previously unknown program meant to keep America's technological edge on the battlefield. The program would "turn past offense into future defense," using long-range guns already fielded in large numbers to shoot down ballistic missiles capable of carrying chemical or nuclear warheads.
> 
> Carter revealed the Pentagon was experimenting with hypervelocity projectiles developed for electromagnetic railguns—currently under development—and adapting them to conventional artillery to shoot down ballistic missiles. The secretary mentioned the Army's 155-millimeter Paladin howitzers as one platform for the artillery projectile, and the Navy's 5-inch guns (or 127-mm) as the other.
> 
> ....




Link for full article: 
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19285/the-pentagon-wants-to-use-big-guns-to-shoot-down-big-missiles/


----------



## Lumber

Underway,

For the swap from goalkeeper to RAM, I don't think you're going to be sacrificing much anti surface capability if you're simultaneously adding in a  trio (or foursome) of 25mm bushmasters. They, from what I've seen and read, are far superior in anti surface than the point defence AA systems in Anti Surface mode.

For spots 3 and 5, it doesn't seem to make sense to put a 25mm on only one side. Could it be that they are just showing you that the platforms could have either of 2 options? 

My bet on number 5 is a MASS launcher.


----------



## Kirkhill

Re: the lack of APAR on the Thales mast.

Did the APAR referenced in the article above never actually make it into the Thales IMM catalogue?

I understood from the 2014 article and some other commentary that the I-500  was the I-400 of the Holland OPV with an APAR added.











https://youtu.be/5YgxCTd1pyo  

The video shows some of the technical aspects of the IMM group starting at about 1:15 with the layering of sensors shown at about 1:50

Just wondering if that information has been updated since release.


----------



## Stoker

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just re: the 127mm potential capabilities I thought the following was interesting.
> 
> 
> Link for full article:
> http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a19285/the-pentagon-wants-to-use-big-guns-to-shoot-down-big-missiles/



Project HARP anyone?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway said:
			
		

> It could be an EO/IR camera but that's a bad place for it.  Losing out on on 100 degrees of visibility.  Unless of course you have another one aft stbd. I agree most of the EW stuff is on the mast.  Both detection systems and some electronic attack.  However if that thing is a chaff/flare/laser blinder of some sort then it counts as EW.  No idea.
> 
> _Edit:_  might be a version of an NGDS decoy launcher.  Has a similar outline.



I agree it could be an NGDS launcher. Again, hard to tell from that picture. But wether a decoy launcher or an EO/IR, you'd need a second one aft and starboard for full coverage. And I think there may be one (though we do not have any aft view or all around view yet). If  you look at the after Sea-RAM, going left, there's another HF transmitter antenna, then a dome for one of the satellite systems but then, left of all that you have a little squarish structure sticking out from a position that would be on the starboard lower corner of the hangar in the corresponding spot of the second 25-30 mm bushmaster on the port side.

BTW, those two sponsoon mounted items at the front: if the second one is a decoy launcher, that and the bushmaster are in one hell of an interesting location for servicing and re-loading in action. That last one would be a bit*h, especially if someone decides its time to launch something from the VLS  ;D.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Quick question...wouldn't you want (prefer) an EO/IR ball up higher and somewhere you'd get the best coverage possible of your 360?


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> Underway,
> 
> For the swap from goalkeeper to RAM, I don't think you're going to be sacrificing much anti surface capability if you're simultaneously adding in a  trio (or foursome) of 25mm bushmasters. They, from what I've seen and read, are far superior in anti surface than the point defence AA systems in Anti Surface mode.
> 
> For spots 3 and 5, it doesn't seem to make sense to put a 25mm on only one side. Could it be that they are just showing you that the platforms could have either of 2 options?
> 
> My bet on number 5 is a MASS launcher.



I agree with everything you've said here Lumber.  I just like LOVE Avenger 30mm.  It's a failing.  I accept it.  

As for a 25mm only on one side, the original DZP has 20mm Oerlikon positions just below the harpoons on the boat deck on either side.  They also have 2-4x50 cal positions.  If those are still in the design (even though we can't see them in this 3D model) then that's a pretty good coverage.  If there were say only 2x50 cal positions per side and a 25mm on each side even if the 25mm didn't cover the entire arc that's still a significant upgrade from what we have now.  If the new 50 cal positions are the Remote Weapons Stations versions they keep talking about getting us then its a real increase, as gyro stabilized AP 50 cal rounds are not fun for bad guys in small boats.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Re: the lack of APAR on the Thales mast.
> 
> Did the APAR referenced in the article above never actually make it into the Thales IMM catalogue?
> 
> I understood from the 2014 article and some other commentary that the I-500  was the I-400 of the Holland OPV with an APAR added.



Doesn't look like it.  I-500 is a more powerful version of the I-400 apparently.  They are really only selling the I-400 by the looks of things.



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I agree it could be an NGDS launcher. Again, hard to tell from that picture. But wether a decoy launcher or an EO/IR, you'd need a second one aft and starboard for full coverage. And I think there may be one (though we do not have any aft view or all around view yet).


Seen.  I'm glad to see I'm not the only obsessive compulsive for these 3D models.   ;D



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> BTW, those two sponsoon mounted items at the front: if the second one is a decoy launcher, that and the bushmaster are in one hell of an interesting location for servicing and re-loading in action. That last one would be a bit*h, especially if someone decides its time to launch something from the VLS  ;D.



I would assume there was a door along the superstructure somewhere to provide easy access to them.  Still would need a harness as there is no railing but at least you could walk out.  And yes a VLS launch while reloading would be irritating and dangerous.



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Quick question...wouldn't you want (prefer) an EO/IR ball up higher and somewhere you'd get the best coverage possible of your 360?



Yes.  The SEOSS system gets mounted just forward of the SMART-S radar on the secondary mast.  This gives it about 200-230 degree arc from port to stbd.  This makes sense as usually when you want to look at someone you are sailing towards them.

The SIRIUS IR system which is used for missile detection, surveillance and kill assessment is placed on the forward part of the main mast.  It spins constantly like a radar looking for IR signatures.  It has a much better LOS than the SEOSS because of its importance in ship defence and thus its placement.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Thanks!


----------



## Underway

So this worked for the Alion bid.  Lets compare with the Lockheed bid.

1.	5”/62 BAE main gun.  Different from the Otomarletta 127/64  by a whole two calibers.  Functionally the exact same thing with perhaps the Otomarletta having a faster muzzle velocity.

2.	24 VLS that I could count, also the same number of VLS as indicated by the Type 26 plans for the UK version not including the single CAAMS launchers.  Assuming the requirement for an AAW version is available then there should be another 8 VLS around here somewhere.  Perhaps they are added to the same spot in the AAW version.  Or perhaps they are added at area 7.  Also if I'm correct on that radar system then these are going to be SYLVER VLS as they will be holding and shooting Aster and hopefully SCALP missiles.

3.	50 cal mount by the looks of things, though it could be Big Eyes.

4.	After some extensive google-fu this might be the Kronos Dual Band system from Leonardo (used to be Selex).  It operates with two panel types, with a C-band (the big square) and X-band (the little square).  Now Kronos normally work with the PAAMS system (Aster missile family). If the gloss brochure is to be believed you can do just about everything with this system including electronic attack.  I'm a bit skeptical but its ancestor is the EMPAR (on the Horizon class) and the MFRA (on the Italian FREMM) which are well regarded ships. 

5.	Looks like a Link 16 antenna with an ECM system on top of it.

6.	Oh wow.  One of the bidders took the time to look up what a naval ensign looks like.  Who woulda thunk… /sarcasmoff

7.	On previous models of the Type 26 the extra missiles would be placed here.  However there are two big Satcom domes here instead.  Also in the video they zoom in to the plans for the flex deck and I don’t see where any VLS would fit, where the old UK video it clearly shows that the VLS fit just there.

8.	Flex deck.  An amazing idea that will most likely make this an extremely valuable ship in the future.

9.	Not Harpoons.  Look like the Naval Strike Missile or Joint Strike Missile launchers.

10.	Whats this door for?  Launching the Zodiac?  Seems a bit short for that.  Also it’s only on the port side with no matching door on the stbd.  

11.	25mm gun position.  There is an identical one on the other side of the hangar.

12.	Fancy new helicopter.

13.	There are two stern doors.  One most likely for launching a variable depth active sonar.  Other is for maybe a stern launch boat but it seems rather high out of the water for that.
This might be the GP variant we are looking at.  I expect there to be more missiles somewhere in the AAW variant.  The radar on the AAW variant might be more substantial as well.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

10.  UUV or USV bay?


----------



## MTShaw

The Mk. 38 Mod 3 is a 30mm gun. You can use Mk. 38s has a CIWS. However I'm wondering what is there for the bow.


----------



## MTShaw

The Type 26 is lacking in the VLS. I thought the minimum was 32 mk41 VLS. It only 24 VLS. I'm betting the lack of VLS has Britain angling to sell their Sea Ceptor is very small VLS. So they're not compliant in several ways, including the ship has never floated.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:
			
		

> The Mk. 38 Mod 3 is a 30mm gun. You can use Mk. 38s has a CIWS. However I'm wondering what is there for the bow.



Might be 30mm.  Or might be 25mm to match what's on the AOPS and have commonality across the fleet.  The bow has a 127mm so no worries about that end of the ship.   :nod:



			
				MTShaw said:
			
		

> The Type 26 is lacking in the VLS. I thought the minimum was 32 mk41 VLS. It only 24 VLS. I'm betting the lack of VLS has Britain angling to sell their Sea Ceptor is very small VLS. So they're not compliant in several ways, including the ship has never floated.



Two things.  One they are compliant.  Ship that has never floated was NEVER the requirement despite what many were saying.  It was a mature design.  This allowed for all the bidders to modify their designs to meet Canadian requirements.  Otherwise we would be getting a completely unmodified F-105 or FREMM for the bid which just won't do.  There is no way that Lockheed/BAE would overlook a compliance issue as obvious as the number of VLS.

Secondly I thought the 32 VLS is a min requirement as well, but I might be wrong.  I'm beginning to wonder if the 3D model is missing stuff.  The 24 VLS might be a requirement for the GP version and the 32 for the AAW version.  There is still plenty of space to add more VLS for the AAW version forward.  That is where the CAAMS VLS are going in the UK Type 26.  The other thing is that there is perhaps a requirement for a min of 24 strike length VLS and then the remainder need to be for ship self defence.  If that's the case then you can probably put the remaining ones located in position 7 as ESSM and CAAMS single launchers can be very short in comparison.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I think you may be right about the rendering not being complete or exact, Underway

For instance, the garage door on the port side of the hangar. In all other Type 26 renderings, be it the UK or the one offered to Australia, that door has one more panel  and is where the rescue boat is located. I am attaching another rendering which I took from the Lockheed Martin web site. It is not as clear, but seem to show full size door almost two decks high in that location - which would be sufficient of a Rhib.

As for the larger door at the stern, the Type 26 has two mission bays: one mid-ship in front of the hangar, which has the large doors on both side and can be used for large assault Rhibs. But there is a second one under the landing pad. That's the one accessed through the larger aft door. In the UK version, it has an extendable boom crane to lower an hoist other boasts or UUV's, or it can be accessed alongside using a ramp to load vehicles or containers, etc.


----------



## MikeKiloPapa

Underway said:
			
		

> Guaranteed their bid was not compliant.


  

Really ....care to elaborate on that ? ...For what its worth i doubt there even was a bid.



> Their ships cut plenty of corners with their Mil/Civ standard combinations.



Do they now....well why dont you tell me what those corners might be instead of that tired old nebulous "commercial spec" (false)argument. 
I know there are a couple of details of the Huitfeldt design which the RCN might not agree with,  BUT i am also certain that its not what YOU think it is....none of it is related to build standard or survivability.



> All our ships are moving towards Lloyds Naval Standards for building/maintenance.



Yes and all RDN ships are built/maintained to Det Norske Veritas-Germanischer Lloyds (DNV-GL) Naval standards....i fail to see the difference.



> If you can find a modern ASuW missile for $2M you buy it as that's half price (in US dollars) for a Block 3 Exocet.



Well ....we got our Harpoon block IIs for less than $2M....but granted that was 15 years ago ;D......
But Exocet and Harpoon and other western anti ship missiles are not a likely threat......their Chinese and Russian counterparts however are and those tend to be a lot cheaper , hence the low cost i quoted.

" Its a C-band radar (L-band NATO" 

C-band is not Nato L but G-band.....it operates at a frequency band between X and S-band......and however good the TRS-4D may be it is NOT remotely in the same capability bracket as SMART-L when it comes to 3D volume search...old or new version. TRS-4D is a medium range (250km) multi-function radar like Thales Sea Master 400 meant for OPVs and light frigates.


----------



## Underway

MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> Really ....care to elaborate on that ? ...For what its worth i doubt there even was a bid.



I thought I was insinuating a non-bid however...  why bid if you can't be compliant? I don't think they bid because of two issues. Firstly I don't _believe_ the Iver Hudfield (as it currently stands) can comply to RCN damage control standards without significant modification.  That relates to build standards, damage control equipment, personnel numbers on board to do damage control etc... we do things too differently to make it work easily.  Just my opinion from observation which I realize in retrospect I presented as fact.

Secondly, when you have the DZP with almost the exact same loadout in sensors, a closer aligned DC,  added to the effort to redesign the ship, then why bother competing?  Save your money and carry on happily. 

Or perhaps I'm entirely wrong again and what really happened was that after working with Irving and the Canadian procurement process once before on the AOPS the Danes decided that they wouldn't do that again to their people no matter how much money was involved.   :nod:



			
				MikeKiloPapa said:
			
		

> C-band is not Nato L but G-band.....it operates at a frequency band between X and S-band......and however good the TRS-4D may be it is NOT remotely in the same capability bracket as SMART-L when it comes to 3D volume search...old or new version. TRS-4D is a medium range (250km) multi-function radar like Thales Sea Master 400 meant for OPVs and light frigates.



I was going from the current NATO nomenclatures not the old nomenclatures and may have gotten them backwards (and looking at my link it's written right there in black and white...  :-[  so yah backwards). 
Mea culpa MikeKiloPapa.

As for the SMART-L I agree it is much better for volume search.  450+nm and really good at it's job.  Agreed that the TRS-4D is a medium range radar though I disagree that it's for light frigates.  I was making a supposition on the bidder and their team.  If there is another system out there that matches to the lower half of that radar picture I'm all ears.  Maybe it is a SeaMaster 400 like you said. Which would not only be comparable to a TRS-4D but also the SMART-S in my humble opinion which is what we have on our current frigates.

However the requirement for radar for the new frigates is a Medium or Medium+ scalable radar.  So a SMART-L is well past the requirement in capability and it's definitely not scalable.  So pick a Medium+ scalable radar that it could be.


----------



## serger989

Underway said:
			
		

> Or perhaps I'm entirely wrong again and what really happened was that after working with Irving and the Canadian procurement process once before on the AOPS the Danes decided that they wouldn't do that again to their people no matter how much money was involved.   :nod:



What did the Danes offer for the AOPS, was it their Knud-Rasmussen?


----------



## Underway

serger989 said:
			
		

> What did the Danes offer for the AOPS, was it their Knud-Rasmussen?



Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) were hired by Irving for marine engineering and naval architecture.


----------



## serger989

Underway said:
			
		

> Odense Maritime Technology (OMT) were hired by Irving for marine engineering and naval architecture.



Oh I didn't know that, thank you.


----------



## MarkOttawa

If this is how it is in Oz,



> Australia’s Domestic Navy Programs Burden Defense Budget
> _Political demand for local production inflates Canberra’s defense spending_
> ...
> [Weep at the numbers below]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page



Just imagine the effect the CSC $55-60 billion cost estimate for 15 ships will have on CAF's budget--esp. as the ships will be under construction in mid-2020s at the same time as we are supposed to be buying 88 new fighters (after the competition just announced on TV):
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Just imagine the effect the CSC $55-60 billion cost estimate for 15 ships will have on CAF's budget--esp. as the ships will be under construction in mid-2020s at the same time as we are supposed to be buying 88 new fighters (after the competition just announced on TV):
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page


Less than fifteen surface combatants could be built overseas for less money.  But the Americans will put pressure on Canada to spend a minimum of two percent of her gross domestic product on the military.  So any “savings” will still have to be spent on the military.  A new fleet of air-independent-propulsion submarines, anyone?  Or do I even dare to use the n word?  Please note that I am referring to _nuclear_ as in a SLOWPOKE-type reactor and not pressurized-water reactor.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> If this is how it is in Oz,
> 
> Just imagine the effect the CSC $55-60 billion cost estimate for 15 ships will have on CAF's budget--esp. as the ships will be under construction in mid-2020s at the same time as we are supposed to be buying 88 new fighters (after the competition just announced on TV):
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



All right. Time to work on those communications skills, me thinks.

Just like your alleged explanation of your original post bashing Quebec on the Coast Guard helicopters made no sense in relations to the actual original post, this one apposing an Australian graph to a mere "just imagine the effect of the CSC cost estimate for 15 ships" makes even less sense. What are you trying to say? What is your point?

How does an Australian graph related to their expenditures in Australian $ between  2018 and 2026 relates to our spending on CSC of about 55-60 B$ Canadian between 2023 and 2047?

If you are trying to intimate that their spending in country (don't know how you get there, the AAD are being built primarily oversea, the submarines, which haven't even started,  will be built in Australia but under the supervision of France and the replacement frigates may or may not be built in Australia - no decision on that yet.) is bringing them over 2% GDP  and is somehow bad and will have the same effect in Canada (which is untrue, as the 60 B$ has already been considered in the Liberal's most recent Defence Policy paper and has been proven not to get us near 2% GDP anywhere in it's whole time frame), I don't see any relevance to anything in that point.


Please elaborate. Otherwise, I am not getting it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Simply highlighting budget pressures caused in both countries by insistence on local work, plus fact that Canada has a lot less money planned overall to squander that way on ships than Australia.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

All right. So Canadian dollar is almost at par with Australian $ right now (.97CAN to 1AUS $)

Hobart program, of three AAD destroyers: $9B AUS

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-22/air-warfare-destroyer-hobart-launch-techport-adelaide/6487870

Submarine program, of 12 replacement classic propulsion subs: $46B AUS.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/10/australias-government-under-attack-over-submarine-deal/

Frigate replacement program, for 8 frigates: $35B AUS.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-08/defence-warns-of-costly-delays-on-future-frigates-project/8883940

That is way more than Canada is planning to spend in the same time interval. Moreover, Canada's economy is about 15% bigger in GDP than Australia. And all in all, if you look at their spending $44B AUS of 11 surface warship, to our plan of $60B CAN for 15 warships, it's just about the same. 

Again here, I don't see the point. Moreover, there has been no indication whatsoever that: (1) there is, as a result, any "budget pressure" in the Canadian defence budget or (2) that any money spent on the CSC is somehow "squandered".

Please, if you have point, explain it.


----------



## MarkOttawa

oldgateboatdriver:



> any money spent on the CSC is somehow "squandered"



No. It's not a question of "any money" (the ships are badly needed, esp for ASW and ALCM defence [maybe vs [ICBMs too, need latest SM-3 and SM-6?] with the regrowth of the Russian navy subs with cruise missile threat in North Atlantic: 'USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?'' https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/ ); rather are CSCs worth four billion each built by Irving, will the money for 15 really be there, and how will their cost affect other major procurements in the mid-2020s, e.g. new fighters?

Aussies face similar naval procurement, er, challenges, but simply are willing it seems to spend a lot more money to handle them.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

"Aussies face similar naval procurement, er, challenges, but simply are willing it seems to spend a lot more money to handle them."

They live in a much rougher neighbourhood than we do and the memories of WWII (threat of invasion by Japan when the majority of their military assets were in North Africa) are deeply entrenched in their minds.  In addition, they don't have to deal with the mindset of a significant number or slight majority, of the people of Quebec, who are distinctly pacifist and anti-military - I know I'm going to get alot of flak from this previous comment - but this goes back to the very foundations of an independent Canada.  The belief that the Canadian military is still a little brother of the British military still runs deep in Francophone Canada and until this is belief is changed or broken there will never be a significant increase in size/capability of the CAF during peace times. 

Just look at the recent trends - our Navy will be smaller after this rebuild than what it was before the last rebuild in the early 1990s.  Our Air Force will be smaller after this recent announcement to replace the CF18's - we originally purchased 138 CF18s, now we are looking at buying only 88 - that's a difference of 50 planes, a 43% reduction in the number of fighters - has our threats/needs to defend ourselves in the air been reduced by 43%?  

Our population between 1985 and today has increased by over a 1/3 and our standard of living has kept pace and gone beyond this, so paying for these items shouldn't be an issue - its how its now being presented to us.  The accounting procedures have changed between 1985 and today. Now the 'total cost' for the entire lifetime of the product is being presented upfront - and stick shock is occurring. The cost presented to us back in 1982 (in the midst of the worst recession in Canada since the Great Depression) was $4 billion CAD for 138 planes - I'm willing to bet that price didn't include the cost to maintain, upgrade facilities, training, etc, etc, etc, etc, that the Government now tacks on to all procurement's, this totally confuses the general public.

Ask yourself this question - when you go and buy a house and you've got a budget of say 300k (yes, the person is not living in Toronto, Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary or Montreal) and you find and buy that house for 300k - you are NOT looking at all the costs of home ownership over the next 30yrs - no one is saying to you, ok, you've got to add in 4k a year for property taxes for the next 30ys, assuming an annual inflation rate of 3%, replacing the furnace a min of twice over those 30yrs at an assumed cost of 5k the first time and 8k the second, replacing the roof twice at an assumed cost of 6k the first time and 8.5k the second, etc, etc, etc - until you are then presented at the time of purchase of a total cost of 498K - thus leaving the potential homeowner to say - What?!?, we can't afford that!  We've got to find a cheaper alternative... that is what is happening to us now....

Ok, bring on the comments! :nod:


----------



## Infanteer

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The belief that the Canadian military is still a little brother of the British military still runs deep in Francophone Canada and until this is belief is changed or broken there will never be a significant increase in size/capability of the CAF during peace times.
> 
> Just look at the recent trends - our Navy will be smaller after this rebuild than what it was before the last rebuild in the early 1990s.  Our Air Force will be smaller after this recent announcement to replace the CF18's - we originally purchased 138 CF18s, now we are looking at buying only 88 - that's a difference of 50 planes, a 43% reduction in the number of fighters - has our threats/needs to defend ourselves in the air been reduced by 43%?



Is there actually causality between these two?  Is "downsizing" a uniquely Canadian trend?  The US Navy is trending towards a historic lows for ship numbers as well.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Ok, bring on the comments! :nod:



Wrong thread for this stuff.  There are plenty of threads about Canadian politics and attitude to the military other places, including great pieces on Canada vs Oz comparisons.

On topic, recently read an Alion article in Frontline Magazine.  You can read the whole thing here.

Of note Atlas Electronik will be providing the combat management system and Hendsoldt will be providing the radar.  So looks like TRS-4D is an option.  Though the 3D model shows a radar that has different shaped panels then the TRS-4D.  Could it be that Hendsoldt will be installing someone else's radar?  It seems obvious that the APAR is not theirs so sourcing that is important.  Or could they be modifying their proven TRS-4D technology to increase the panel size for more power?  Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a "proven" radar system?


----------



## Czech_pivo

"Is there actually causality between these two?  Is "downsizing" a uniquely Canadian trend?  The US Navy is trending towards a historic lows for ship numbers as well."

That very well could be the case with the US Navy (and possibly the RN as well) but this 'fewer in number' case with the US Navy is more than offset with their increase in their Carrier fleet and 'force projection' that goes along with it.  Have our naval 'force projection' abilities increased or decreased over the last 10yrs?  Will they be increased, stagnant or decreased 15yrs in the future based on our current project timelines?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:
			
		

> Wrong thread for this stuff.  There are plenty of threads about Canadian politics and attitude to the military other places, including great pieces on Canada vs Oz comparisons.
> 
> On topic, recently read an Alion article in Frontline Magazine.  You can read the whole thing here.
> 
> Of note Atlas Electronik will be providing the combat management system and Hendsoldt will be providing the radar.  So looks like TRS-4D is an option.  Though the 3D model shows a radar that has different shaped panels then the TRS-4D.  Could it be that Hendsoldt will be installing someone else's radar?  It seems obvious that the APAR is not theirs so sourcing that is important.  Or could they be modifying their proven TRS-4D technology to increase the panel size for more power?  Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a "proven" radar system?



Ok, I'll move it over there - sorry - mea culpa


----------



## Infanteer

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> That very well could be the case with the US Navy (and possibly the RN as well) but this 'fewer in number' case with the US Navy is more than offset with their increase in their Carrier fleet and 'force projection' that goes along with it.



That's not what the US Navy is saying.  Their carrier numbers are also at all time lows since 1942.

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/02/22/fixing_the_navys_carrier_gap_110847.html

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/no-us-carriers-were-at-sea-for-the-past-week-that-hasnt-happened-since-world-war-ii/article/2611007

At risk of derailing this outstanding thread, all I'm doing is suggesting you rethink your premise that "Canadian force structure is shrinking because of uniquely Canadian political phenomenon" when it's clearly happening to other countries as well.


----------



## Loachman

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> we originally purchased 138 CF18s, now we are looking at buying only 88 - that's a difference of 50 planes, a 43% reduction in the number of fighters - has our threats/needs to defend ourselves in the air been reduced by 43%?



Fifty-four of those aircraft, in three Squadrons, were based in Germany then, as was a fourth Brigade.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Underway said:
			
		

> Ah yes the "Cure process" is what I was thinking of.  Thanks for that Chris.
> 
> Going over the Alion bid here are a few things I noted.  Points line up the attached photo.
> 
> 1.  APAR radar with the addition of what looks like a fixed array volume search radar.  Based on who's in the bid group anticipate its probably the TRS-4D Fixed Panel from Hensoldt.  They are found on the F125 Baden-Württemberg-class currently.  The mast appears to be larger to accommodate this change.
> 
> 2.  Replacement of the goalkeepers with Rolling Airframe Missiles.  That's going to save space for sure and probably some power.  It will increase probability of kill on a missile and increase engagement range of missile defence.  But it does reduce the ability of the ship to defend itself against surface attack from small boats.  Despite this change, lets be honest. It does lose some cool factor without the 30mm Avenger gatling guns.
> 
> 3.   Speaking of surface engagement, looks like 20-25mm guns. One forward stbd and other aft port.
> 
> 4.  Harpoon missiles fit in behind the forward superstructure.  They are behind a partial bulkhead to reduce radar signature and they fire over it.  Can’t see in this image so just labeled them for completeness.
> 
> 5.  Platform for 20-25mm gun.  Not in the older design.  This is gun position is new to the CSC.
> 
> 6.  40 cell VLS with strike length VLS integrated.  Space for another 8 pack.
> 
> 7.  127mm Oto Melara  dual purpose gun.  Most likely it’s the 127/64 version.
> 
> 8.  What is this thing? Assuming it’s EW of some sort.  Whether electronic support or attack I have no idea.
> 
> 9.  Note, no rotating SMART-L radar.  It's been removed and replaced by the flat panel arrays in the larger mast.
> 
> This is a well thought out and proven ship.  There is isn't much new on here just a single radar modification and a few weapons swaps.  This actually might lead to a better radar signature as you no longer have a large rotating array.
> Largest issue with the ship is the amount of modification that it’s going to require for the underwater warfare suite.  The DZP doesn’t appear to have a towed array of any sort that I can find a reference for.  That’s where the real engineering changes for her are going to be and most likely her weakest point in the bid.



To answer your question about the nr 8,it's thisOriginal LCF design)

Half of the ECM emitter array. On the starboard side of the hangar is the other set of emitters.(a bit late i know,sorry for that)


----------



## Uzlu

Maybe no bid based on the _Baden-Württemberg_-class frigate was good.  Unproven designs are risky.


> The German Navy Decided To Return Their Bloated New Frigate To The Ship Store This Christmas
> 
> It's the first time the German Navy has rejected a ship after it was formally delivered.
> 
> Just weeks ago we told the story of Germany's puzzling _Baden-Wurttemberg_ class Type 125 (F125) frigate program. Not only did we discuss the ship's odd mission and design features, but we also highlighted some of the troubling post-delivery issues with the lead ship in the class. These problems include a persistent list to starboard and the fact that the ship is dramatically overweight, which would limit its performance, increase its cost of operation, and most importantly, negatively impact the Deutsche Marine's ability to add future upgrades to the somewhat sparsely outfitted vessel.
> 
> Now the German Navy has officially declined to commission the vessel and will be returning it to Blohm+Voss shipyard in Hamberg. The decision to do so was based on a number of "software and hardware defects" according to German media reports. The noted software deficiencies are of particular importance because these destroyer-sized vessels will supposedly be operated by a crew of just 120-130 sailors—just half that of the much smaller _Bremen_ class frigates they replace—continuously for months at a time. On top of that, the design's reliability is paramount as the four ships in the class are supposed to deploy far from German shores for up to _two years_ at a time.
> 
> According to Navaltoday.com, this is the first time the German Navy has returned a ship to a shipbuilder after delivery. _Baden-Wurttenberg_ had already missed its planned commissioning date last summer.
> 
> Complicating things further is the fact that the fourth and final F125 frigate, the _Rheinland-Pfalz_, was already christened last Spring.  Because of the concurrent construction and testing procurement strategy, these vessels are likely to suffer from at least some of the same issues as the lead ship in the class.


http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17185/the-german-navy-has-decided-to-return-their-new-frigate-to-the-ship-store-this-christmas


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Maybe no bid based on the _Baden-Württemberg_-class frigate was good.  Unproven designs are risky.http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17185/the-german-navy-has-decided-to-return-their-new-frigate-to-the-ship-store-this-christmas



Can you imagine what would happen if the RCN returned a ship back to Irving because of problems? I would love to see that.


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:
			
		

> Can you imagine what would happen if the RCN returned a ship back to Irving because of problems? I would love to see that.


Would the RCN have anything at sea if they tried that?


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Would the RCN have anything at sea if they tried that?



Yes, everything on the west coast!


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Would the RCN have anything at sea if they tried that?



We would have the Astrix at least!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Our gov't estimates $C60 billion ($4 billion each for 15) for CSCs; meanwhile US Navy plans to procure made-in-US, roughly comparable, new FFGX frigates for around 1/4 the cost.  Yikes, the mad cost of the NSS.  A tweet by reporter for US _Inside Defense_:
https://twitter.com/LeeHudson_/status/950827634908385280



> Lee Hudson‏ @LeeHudson_
> 
> Lee Hudson Retweeted Inside Defense
> 
> Only one vendor will build frigate. The cost estimate for follow-on ships is $950M (including GFE)...



Oh well. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Our gov't estimates $C60 billion ($4 billion each for 15) for CSCs; meanwhile US Navy plans to procure made-in-US, roughly comparable, new FFGX frigates for around 1/4 the cost.


Are you saying that the price for the American frigates also includes costs resulting from development, production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management, and upgrades to existing facilities?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Our gov't estimates $C60 billion ($4 billion each for 15) for CSCs; meanwhile US Navy plans to procure made-in-US, roughly comparable, new FFGX frigates for around 1/4 the cost.  Yikes, the mad cost of the NSS.  A tweet by reporter for US _Inside Defense_:
> https://twitter.com/LeeHudson_/status/950827634908385280
> 
> Oh well. Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Mark, the Canadian estimate is NOT for $4B per ship. If you remove the other costs that are not part of the construction of the actual ships, they average more like 1.7 $billion Canadian (which is like 1.3 billion US$) accounting for inflation over the next 20 years.

The Americans only quote the construction price, and then, only the construction price of the first few frigates. By the time the last few US frigates come down the lines, I am willing to bet you, today, that they will cost somewhere around three billion US$ per ship. So the average cost per ship for the whole program will be very close and comparable in all aspects with the GP version of the Canadian ones. 

In other words, their frigates, which will NOT include any of the much more expansive air warfare version, are pretty close to the actual Canadian price per unit.


----------



## MarkOttawa

I really can't say but still--from our gov't:



> ...
> Canada’s defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged” (SSE), has committed to investing in 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships...
> 
> SSE estimates these ships will cost $56-60 billion. Further costs for personnel, operations, and maintenance for the life cycle of the CSC ships are greatly influenced by the ship design and will therefore only be available later in the process....
> http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page



Cf. more on US Navy FFG(X), seem to have quite a bit of air warfare capability--don't know how might compare with most of RCN CSCs:



> NAVSEA: New Navy Frigate Will Cost $950M Per Hull, More Than Double LCS Cost
> 
> The Navy’s new class of 20 guided-missile frigates could cost an estimated $950 million per hull, the Naval Sea Systems Command FFG(X) program manager said on Tuesday. That total is more than double the current cost per hull of both variants of the Littoral Combat Ship.
> 
> Speaking at the Surface Navy Association 2018 symposium, NAVSEA’s Regan Campbell said the new class of small surface combatant would set a so-called threshold requirement for a net average cost of $950 million for the 2nd through 20th hulls in the FFG(X) next-generation frigate program following a down select to a final shipbuilder in 2020. First-in-class for the new frigate is expected to cost more than the $950 million average.
> 
> That number is almost twice the about $460 million per-hull cost of the existing Lockheed Martin Freedom-class (LCS-1) and Austal USA Independence-class (LCS-2) Littoral Combat Ships currently under construction.
> 
> In comparison, a _Flight IIA Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer (DDG-51) costs about $1.8 billion to build and equip with sensors and weapon systems_ [emphasis added]...
> 
> While NAVSEA has not disclosed the bidders for last year’s RFP, USNI News understands up to eight or more designs are under consideration for the next phase of the program.
> 
> Those designs not only likely include existing LCS builders but also several European frigate designs. European shipbuilders, like Spain’s Navantia, have experience building smaller frigate-sized warships using the Lockheed Martin Aegis Combat System. Aegis shares a common DNA with the COMBATSS-21 combat system currently in use on LCS and planned for FFG(X).
> 
> “There are foreign ships that are competitors in the space and we anticipate those could be coming into play,” Campbell said.
> 
> In addition to previously disclosed requirements, _NAVSEA has set range it would like to see for the number of the Mk-41 Vertical Launch System cells – an objective target of 32 and threshold of 16. The cells could field a single Raytheon SM-2 or SM-6 per-cell or four Evolved SeaSparrow Missiles quad-packed into a single cell_ [emphasis added]. In comparison, a Flight IIA Burke has 96 VLS cells.
> 
> NAVSEA also will require the FFG(X) field a minimum eight over-the-horizon anti-ship missiles with an objective requirement of 16.
> https://news.usni.org/2018/01/09/navsea-new-navy-frigate-will-cost-950m-per-hull-double-lcs-cost



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

And the other point on the comparison: "now" dollars or "then" dollars.

If you want to big-up costs then you use "then" dollars.  If you want to minimalize costs then you use "now" dollars.  20 years at 2% results in a 50% increase in the cost of the last ship.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Still, one cannot but find this _Defense News_ headline rather gob-smackingly ironic in the RCN context:



> The [US] Navy's next-generation frigate comes with a big price tag
> https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/surface-navy-association/2018/01/10/the-navys-next-generation-frigate-comes-with-a-big-price-tag/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

Interesting article
https://www.naval-technology.com/contractors/warship/navantia-australia/pressreleases/saab-cea-technologies/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Is the USN crazy with its new frigate cost estimates?  Or are we in planning to pay C$4 billion each for (roughly) comparable RCN CSCs?  Note "Warfare Systems" in image:



> Navy Says It Can Buy Frigate For Under $800M: Acquisition Reform Testbed
> 
> The Navy’s frigate program is pioneering new procurement processes to get ships faster and cheaper. For the frigate, that means the cost should come in below the current target of $800 million, the program executive officer for small ships said here. (The maximum allowable cost per ship is $950 million). For the service as a whole, it’s a first step towards what the Navy’s new acquisition chief calls “a culture of affordability” — a culture without which the hoped-for 355-ship fleet won’t happen.
> 
> The overall goal is “driving to a 355-ship Navy,” said James “Hondo” Guerts, the newly confirmed Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Research, Development, and Acquisition. To get there, he said, “I’m not as focused on one single program as the culture of affordability.”
> 
> That said, “certainly, driving affordability in the frigate is going to be critically important,” Guerts told reporters at the annual Surface Naval Association conference yesterday. “I think competition will help us in that regard. I think our acquisition strategy of taking proven designs will help us in that regard. And so I’m optimistic about the affordability of that.”
> 
> *[US]$950M? $800M? Less?*
> 
> “The follow-on objective cost for FFG(X) is $800 million. We think we can get below that,” Rear Adm. John Neagley told the conference. Once conceptual design contracts are awarded — no later than March — “we’re going to use the next 16 months to work with our industry partners to really understand those details.”
> 
> The $800 million figure is the Navy’s target (“objective”) for the average cost of frigates No. 2 through 20 (the “follow-on” ships). The $950 million figure widely reported this week is the maximum average cost the Navy will accept for those same ships. Neither number includes the very first frigate, since the lead ship of a class has lots of extra costs: the initial development and design, setting up manufacturing facilities, and working out all sorts of teething troubles.
> 
> Neagley declined to offer any kind of cost estimate for that lead ship. There’ll be a first-take figure in the 2019-2023 budget plan released in February, he said, but that’s effectively a placeholder and may change as the program explores different designs and how to build them.
> 
> “We’re working with industry to understand that,” Neagley said. “That’s precisely why we laid out the strategy the way did — to engage industry early on this.”
> 
> Starting with a Request For Information last summer, the frigate program brought in potential shipbuilders to discuss the state of the art and the limits of what was possible. There was also “the greatest level of coordination, cooperation I’ve seen” within the Navy, Neagley said, between the various bureaucracies responsible for requirements (i.e. what the ship must do), resources (i.e. money), and procurement (i.e. actually buying the ship), as well as the eventual end users in the fleet. The goal of all this internal and external information-sharing was to refine the Navy’s requirements to something industry could actually build on schedule and on budget.
> 
> The service is now reviewing proposals from many strong contenders, Neagley said, all based on proven designs in US or allied service. (The Navy wouldn’t name them at this stage). That’s the field of competitors Guerts is hoping will help keep the cost down [WE GOT ONLY THREE BIDS FOR CSC].
> 
> *Commonality*
> 
> One way they think they can save is commonality. No matter which design wins, the frigate will carry a long list of standard Navy equipment, provided as Government Furnished Equipment (GFE). The goal is to reduce both procurement costs — since the Navy’s already buying this stuff in bulk — and operations costs — since the training, maintenance, and spare parts systems are already set up.
> 
> That quest for commonality standards in stark contrast to the predecessor program, the Littoral Combat Ship, which exists in two variants, each with some unique equipment. Accommodating all this US equipment will also pose a challenge for foreign designs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://breakingdefense.com/2018/01/navy-says-it-can-buy-frigate-for-under-800m-acquisition-reform-testbed/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Fincantieri to bid FREMM frigate for USN FFG(X), will build in US with American partners--C$2 billion each offer, with Naval Group, for RCN CSC rejected by gov't as not made as part of required bidding process:



> Fincantieri to Adapt FREMM Frigate for US Navy
> 
> Shipbuilder Fincantieri Marine Group has announced further details on its plans to adapt its FREMM frigate, already in service for the Italian Navy since 2012, to design the U.S. Navy’s new guided-missile frigate, FFG(X).
> 
> Fincantieri said it will lead an industry team, including Gibbs & Cox and Trident Maritime Systems, to design and build the ships at its U.S. shipyards, including Fincantieri Marinette Marine (FMM) in Marinette, Wisc.
> 
> The FFG(X) design is based on FREMM, a multi-mission ship capable of conducting antisurface, antisubmarine and electronic warfare, as well as air defense operations. Fincantieri is building 10 FREMMs for the Italian Navy, six of which have been delivered.
> 
> Design partners Gibbs & Cox will help to modifying the FREMM hull, mechanical and electrical systems to U.S. Navy standards, while Trident Maritime Systems will serve as the Electric and Propulsion System Integrator with responsibility to design, specify and integrate these ship systems and components.
> 
> “We’ve assembled a world-class team of partners to customize to American design standards and deliver an advanced, flexible and highly reliable ship to the U.S. Navy for their current and future needs,” said Francesco Valente, president and CEO of Fincantieri Marine Group. “Our American shipyards are tailor-made for building small surface combatants and we have a strong, established and reliable U.S. supply chain.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Fincantieri FREMM-FFG reference design vessel. Six of the 10 FREMM ships Fincantieri is constructing for the Italian Navy are in service. (Image: Fincantieri)_
> 
> https://www.marinelink.com/news/fincantieri-frigate-adapt432895



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Is the USN crazy with its new frigate cost estimates?  Or are we in planning to pay C$4 billion each for (roughly) comparable RCN CSCs?


The total projected cost for _Independence_ is 704 million USD. The US Navy had originally projected the cost at 220 million USD.  Is the USN crazy with its new frigate cost estimates?  Need more convincing?  Please take a look at http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-ship-cost-overrun-2017-3.  And from the link you have provided, we have this bit of gold: 





> Neither number includes the very first frigate, since the lead ship of a class has lots of extra costs: the initial development and design, setting up manufacturing facilities, and working out all sorts of teething troubles.
> 
> Neagley declined to offer any kind of cost estimate for that lead ship.


And there are no cost estimates for spare parts, ammunition, training, or government program management.  And the Canadian surface combatants will be built at a slower rate further into the future.  And the American frigates will get some savings per ship, because they will be building twenty instead of fifteen.  So, is it an apples-to-apples comparison?  Is it really fair to compare less than eight-hundred million USD to four billion CAD?


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Is the USN crazy with its new frigate cost estimates?  Or are we in planning to pay C$4 billion each for (roughly) comparable RCN CSCs?  Note "Warfare Systems" in image:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Does the US estimate include or exclude the GFE?

As far as the GFE is concerned - an interesting bunch of projectors/projectiles

2x 7m RHIBs

1x MH-60R (manned Seahawk)
1x MQ-8C (unmanned Kiowa/Jet Ranger)
1x VLS
8x OTH Missiles (Harpoon Replacements)
SSMM (Longbow Hellfires - also carried by the MH-60R and the MQ-8C)
SeaRAM

1x 57mm

Heavy on powered vehicles (in which category I include missiles)
Very light on guns
No torpedoes in the list. (although the MH60R carries the Mk54)

SSMM you tube video https://youtu.be/3Zry-DDwggg

Question - If this thing works off the deck of a truck why wouldn't it work from a Sea Can or the back of a truck?  Anti-Tank missiles.....


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: more on USN FFG(X):



> ...This price includes the government furnished equipment, meaning equipment that is owned by the government and provided to the contractor...
> http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2018/1/10/new-frigate-to-cost-$950-million-each



For some reason link doesn't work here but that's what it says.

More:



> ...
> The initial requirement will be for the FFG(X) to feature 16 Mark 41 vertical launch system cells, but a target of 32 seems more likely. These cells will be stuffed with four Evolved Sea Sparrow Missiles each, or they could accept a single larger missile like the latest generation of SM-2 Standard missile. But the SM-6 in particular would give these frigates a highly flexible long-range weapon capable of air defense, terminal anti-ballistic missile defense, and even surface and land-attack. Deploying the Tomahawk cruise missile and ASROC anti-submarine missile might also be an option.
> 
> With 32 cells to play with, an FFG(X) could have its arsenal tailored to its mission. For anti-air warfare dominated missions, such as convoy escort duty, the ship could deploy with 48 ESSMs and 24 SM-2s or SM-6s. On a multi-role mission, such as an independent patrol, the vessels could deploy with 24 ESSMs, 12 SM-6s or SM-6s, 6 BGM-109 Tomahawk missiles, and 8 RUM-139 VL-ASROC anti-submarine missiles. For strike-oriented missions, the ships could deploy with 24 ESSMs and 26 Tomahawk missiles. Even without Tomahawk or ASROC capability, the ability to provide area air defense alone would take a lot of pressure off the Navy's overworked destroyer fleet...
> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/17535/new-frigate-program-heats-up-as-u-s-navy-says-it-will-pay-nearly-1b-per-ship



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks Mark.

Canadian accountants may have the same genetic markers as Canadian lab rats.  They come up with different answers than their American counterparts.

See Red Dye #2 vs Red Dye 40 and Saccharine vs Cyclamates.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Chris Pook: Thanks--if only we had some semblance of serious defence media in Canada, as opposed to MSM which spin everything in terms of politics plus our "specialized" ones such as _Vanguard_ and _Frontline Defence_ which depend on industry advertising:
https://vanguardcanada.com/
http://defence.frontline.online/

And, one suspects, the two most relevant think tanks are also dependent on such funding--disclosure: CGAI fired me as blogger after some six years :
http://www.cdfai.org.previewmysite.com/the3dsblog/
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/

Then there's the CDA Insititute:
http://cdainstitute.ca/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Well convert US to Canadian dollars for starters and you have (as of 5min ago) 1.25 billion CAD for the project.  Also they don't do life cycle costs in their contracts like we do.  Finally by what they have listed on the requirements their frigate will be less capable than our frigate.  Lighter, less tonnage and less capable sensors/weapons with a smaller less capable helo setup as well.  Apples and oranges at this point.  Could change (as US programs do, they usually get bigger with christmas tree capabilities as well), but that's what I see here.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> ... with a smaller less capable helo setup as well.



How is a 60R plus an MQ-8C less capable than a Cyclone, except for hauling trash?


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> How is a 60R plus an MQ-8C less capable than a Cyclone, except for hauling trash?



Perhaps you need to explain how its more capable than a Cyclone instead of just sniping.  I also doubt they will be able to fit both on a frigate given the sizes of ship they are currently looking at operating.  Time will tell.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> Perhaps you need to explain how its more capable than a Cyclone instead of just sniping.  I also doubt they will be able to fit both on a frigate given the sizes of ship they are currently looking at operating.  Time will tell.



I wasn't snipping at all..

The MQ-8C provides persistent surveillance capabilities without the requirement to cycle the deck.  Assuming the Osprey radar trials are successful it provides the surface early warning component.

Although the sono capabilities of the 60R are arguably not as good (I have a bias there) and I hope that the tactical data management also isn't at the same level (given that I have a double bias towards the Cyclone including being an ACSO) the, and the afformentioned can't haul as much trash, the radar is better being unencumbered by ITAR but most notably the stand off anti surface weapon.

Moreover, the USN doesn't look at them individually, but as a pair that complements each other.  This means the sum is greater than the individual pieces.  That's why I think they will insist on carrying both as that is becomig the norm.

Again I'm biased towards the Cyclone community, which I think is really starting to spread its wings, but I think the 60R 8C pair beats it for surface work and isn't far behind for ASW.  This is also ignoring that the USN has a muture capability wheras the Cyclone has a lot of maturing left to do.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Can the AOR operate the MQ-8C or similar to protect itself and the task force?


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> Can the AOR operate the MQ-8C or similar to protect itself and the task force?



I'd think it could, but you'd have to add the ground control segment, plus if facing an ASW threat you"d still want an MH.

Ediited to add: but I think a better way forward would be to use the resources to build up the MH (Cyclone) crew force, rather than divert them to Fire Scout, at least for now.


----------



## MTShaw

Baz said:
			
		

> I'd think it could, but you'd have to add the ground control segment, plus if facing an ASW threat you"d still want an MH.



Why would we use an MH when we have the Cyclone: the Helo spec't for the government.

Is there some design fault that prevents the Cyclone from working with UAV.


----------



## Baz

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Why would we use an MH when we have the Cyclone: the Helo spec't for the government.
> 
> Is there some design fault that prevents the Cyclone from working with UAV.



MH means Maritme Helicopter,I was refering to the Cyclone.

No; it's not designed to directly work with a UAV, nor is any other Maritime Helicopter I'm aware of, but it is designed to be iteroparable with a broad range of Maritime assets.


----------



## MTShaw

Baz said:
			
		

> MH means Maritme Helicopter,I was refering to the Cyclone.



I thought you meant the MH-60.


----------



## Kirkhill

On another note 

MQ-8B vs MQ-8C







And the MQ-8C exercising on the LCS-8 (one of the Aussie Trimarans)


----------



## Spencer100

The MQ-8C looks like a Bell. Is the base unit made in Quebec?


----------



## Kirkhill

From what I understand the MQ-8C is based on a Bell 407 variant.



> On 3 May 2010, Northrop announced plans to fly a Bell 407 helicopter modified with autonomous controls from the MQ-8B. Named Fire-X, it was to demonstrate an unmanned cargo resupply capability to the US Navy.[2] The unmanned Fire-X completed its first flight at Yuma Proving Ground in Arizona on 20 December 2010.[3] On 23 April 2012, Northrop received a $262.3 million contract from the Navy to build the newly designated MQ-8C Fire Scout; the work included two developmental aircraft and six low-rate production aircraft initially. The Navy wants 28 MQ-8Cs for naval special operations forces.[4] In March 2013, the Navy incorporated the Rolls-Royce 250-C47E engine into the MQ-8C for a 5 percent increase in "hot and high" power, 2 percent reduced fuel consumption, 8 percent increase in rated takeoff power, and better reliability.[5] The Bell 407-based MQ-8C has an endurance of 12 hours, a range of 150 nmi (170 mi; 280 km), and a payload capacity of about 318 kg (701 lb);[6] it has twice the endurance and three times the payload as the MQ-8B.[7]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_MQ-8C_Fire_Scout


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I wonder how they manage the issue of skids and deck resonance?


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I wonder how they manage the issue of skids and deck resonance?



We used to do it as well, when VU-10 had Twin Hueys (before 412s replaced them).

I only know one person I could ask.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Baz said:
			
		

> We used to do it as well, when VU-10 had Twin Hueys (before 412s replaced them).
> 
> I only know one person I could ask.



I know VU-10 used twin Hueys. It just got me wondering if it was a problem. They cannot have much of a deck limit?


----------



## Baz

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I know VU-10 used twin Hueys. It just got me wondering if it was a problem. They cannot have much of a deck limit?



Go in to the archives and pull out a SHOPs from the early '90s!  You have the power...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

You would think so....


----------



## Cloud Cover

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Profile comparison between Type 23 and Type 26.
> 
> Much, much larger in all directions.



Found another interesting graphic today concerning modern warship design size and scaling. The Type 26 sitting alongside HMS Belfast, courtesy of savetheroyalnavy.org   

"This is a mock up of how the future Type 26 Frigate, HMS Belfast might look alongside the museum ship HMS Belfast (1938). It demonstrates how classification of warships has changed. The Type 26 frigate of c2028 is 70% WWII Cruiser size. (The Type 26 actually has a broader beam than the cruiser). A typical frigate of WWII displaced just 1,400 tons."

HMS Belfast: Edinburgh Configuration 13 386+ tons full load.
Type 26 GCS (UK GP variant): 8000+ ton full load  

Two Type 26 tied alongside each other = ~ 140 feet
Two Halifax tied alongside each other= ~ 108 feet


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I know VU-10 used twin Hueys. It just got me wondering if it was a problem. They cannot have much of a deck limit?



VU-32?  ???

Hypothetically, use a coarse hawser net on the deck.

Hypothetically, +/- 8 degrees list.  Pitch "unrestricted"

Hypothetically.


----------



## Baz

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> VU-32?  ???
> 
> Hypothetically, use a coarse hawser net on the deck.
> 
> Hypothetically, +/- 8 degrees list.  Pitch "unrestricted"
> 
> Hypothetically.



Of course you are right.  I would say I was confusing it with VX-10, the old RCN Experimental Sqn, but I think I was just being stupid!


----------



## Uzlu

Why build them in Canada?  We could be saving many billions of dollars if we simply buy them overseas.  Well, here is an argument in favour of building them in the great white north.





> Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies
> 
> It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it is Canada. Take the savings and pay ex-shipyard workers Employment Insurance for 10 years.
> 
> This would, of course, close every shipyard capable of building large ships in Canada – all three of them. Why did nobody think of it before?
> 
> Well, they have, and for decades the idea has been rejected by every type of government. Because it is not just the shipyards that would lose business, but hundreds of small, medium and large businesses across the country. Businesses that not only provide such things as steel and copper, but that produce products ranging from anchors to the integration of combat systems. Does anyone remember the hundreds of businesses that suffered when the Avro Arrow was cancelled in 1959?
> 
> But the most important loss would be the loss of intellectual property (IP) that would go along with such an idea.
> 
> Intellectual property belongs to those who design the millions of things that go into a modern warship. This IP would belong to those offshore companies who designed the ship and it systems. We have already seen an inkling of this problem with the current attempt to buy offshore designs for the Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). Several countries and their shipyards have balked at the requirement for Canada to have access to the IP of their proposed designs.
> 
> But why is this IP important? It is primarily because it limits the amount of maintenance and modification that Canada can carry out. Without the IP, you cannot fix anything, you cannot modify anything and you cannot sell your technology to other countries. It would mean that we would have to send the ships back to their parent shipyards for dockings and other essential work. It would mean that maintenance of any ship systems, from main engines to combat systems, could only be done by the holders of the IP.  It would mean little or no work for Canadian workers on any of these systems.
> 
> But surely we could buy the IP from the selling shipyard? Well, that would also mean buying it from every IP holder who has equipment on the ship. And it would cost us billions, many of those billions we might also have to put toward payment of ex-employees. This is a sellers’ market and Canada would have very little leverage to acquire IP for minimal cost.
> 
> To those who argue the point: It is just not that simple to buy all our warships offshore.
> 
> _Gordon Forbes, LCDR (ret’d), has been involved in the naval procurement business for the most part of 38 years, both in the Navy and in the defence industry. He lives in Orléans._


http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/forbes-heres-why-we-cant-buy-our-warships-from-foreign-companies


----------



## Good2Golf

Baz said:
			
		

> Of course you are right.  I would say I was confusing it with VX-10, the old RCN Experimental Sqn, but I think I was just being stupid!



No harm no foul, Baz.  As a green guy, I only knew the number because of the transfer paperwork when we received their machines after their unit closed. 

All good!

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## Czech_pivo

Wonder if this also played into why they didn't bother throwing their hat into the ring...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/german-engineering-yields-new-warship-that-isnt-fit-for-sea-1515753000

full access for those without WSJ subscription
http://www.news.com.au/technology/innovation/inventions/german-navys-new-stateoftheart-warship-sails-into-tech-trouble/news-story/3789e66048c33035585607e65cfccb26


----------



## Cloud Cover

Odd to see a ship described as "weighing 7,000,000 kilograms." More impressive, I guess.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From Aussie[Fox News story above:



> ...
> THE German navy ordered four brand new warships, for a staggering price tag...
> 
> The Baden-Württemberg is the first of four new F-125 class frigates ordered by the Bundeswehr [_DeutscheMarine_], the German military, with a total price tag of around $A3.6 billion [C$ total about same]...



So less than $1 billion each, whereas RCN CSCs look like $4 billion per...

Mark
Ottawa

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MTShaw

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Odd to see a ship described as "weighing 7,000,000 kilograms." More impressive, I guess.



I prefer 7 Gigagrams


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I prefer 7 Gigagrams


 :rofl:


----------



## Good2Golf

MTShaw said:
			
		

> I prefer 7 Gigagrams



Appreciating the potential differing of views of leading zeros, shouldn't/couldn't it be 7.000000 Gigagrams when the conversion considers implicit significant digits of the original specification?

[/wayward mathgeek]


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From Aussie[Fox News story above:
> 
> So less than $1 billion each, whereas RCN CSCs look like $4 billion per...



Their combat systems are significantly reduced from what is expected for CSC.  They have no air warfare capability and no antisubmarine warfare capability.  The majority of a ships cost is its combat systems.  CSC will be able to *gasp* defend itself from air attacks and *doublegasp* have antisubmarine warfare systems instead of zero.  Apples to oranges comparison.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Actually, they are slightly better armed multipurpose ship in the same (low) class as the Absalon.

Moreover: It's $1B each TODAY, as they are being built right now. The Canadian cost is the actual dollars value for ships to be built over18 years, starting almost five years from now. And as indicated before, it includes many other things than just the ships, unlike the one referred to by Fox in Germany. Finally (and how many times do I have to point this out), the PBO's actualized cost of the 15 CSC's [that is how much they would cost TODAY if we bought them all in one year] is $28B, which is $1.8B each. Since the three AD /Command version will cost a lot more than the other 12, you can easily evaluate based on recent buys such as the Australian Hobarts a cost of $4B each AD ship, leaving a cost of the GP version around $1.3B. That is quite comparable to the German ships especially when you account for their limitations, as indicated by Underway above.

We should strive in these fora to avoid the journalists tendency to use whatever figure they like to create effect without attached warnings and strive instead to make sure we compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges.


----------



## calculus

Hi all, new member here. Anyone have any thoughts on CSC range? It is reputed the RCN is looking for a range similar or better than the Halifax class (7000 nm at 15 kn). I don't know if this is a critical requirement or a nice to have, however. In any case, the only ship that would seem to meet this criteria is the T26, which will supposedly travel in excess of 7000 nm "in Electro-Motor (EM) drive" (no speed indicated). The DZP is reputed to have a range of around 4000 nm at that speed, and the F105 about 4500. Thoughts?


----------



## Swampbuggy

OGBD, I see that you mention the 3 AAD versions of CSC. Is it certain that the RCN will see only 3? You’d think that 4 would make more sense from a T.G., coastal and maintenance POV. I know that HURON was decommissioned due to manning issues, but with each CSC expected to be less personnel intensive, wouldn’t that be mitigated somewhat?


----------



## Uzlu

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> OGBD, I see that you mention the 3 AAD versions of CSC. Is it certain that the RCN will see only 3?


https://army.ca/forums/threads/90990/post-1515323.html#msg1515323


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just was look in general at renderings.

Is it just appearance or is BAE helicopter deck significantly larger than Alion or Navantia designs?


----------



## Kirkhill

If I understand correctly the T26 (8000 t full load vs 6391 for Navantia and 6050 for Alion) has a deck designed for a CH-147 (although only a hangar for the CH-148 (12,993 kg MTOW)).  It also has a separate Boat Deck/Flex-Deck /Mission Bay.

The Alion ship is operated by the Dutch with an NH-90 (10,600 kg MTOW)  and the Navantia ship is operated by the Spanish with an SH-60B (9,927 kg MTOW).


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Just was look in general at renderings.
> 
> Is it just appearance or is BAE helicopter deck significantly larger than Alion or Navantia designs?



It's probably larger, De Zevin Provincen has a 27m long flight deck  and a beam of 18.8m.  The Navinata bid is based on the F100 which has a 26.4m long flight deck and a beam of 18.6m, so about the same size.

Only measurement I can find for Type 26 is 19m beam.  I assume it's supposed to be a larger flight deck for reason that Chris Pook has already pointed out.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

In the RFP process, does the Navy have the right to request bid amendments from individual bidders to address shortcomings that although not disqualifying the design, may make it less than ideal?  Or are they locked in to specifically the design in the original bid made?


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> In the RFP process, does the Navy have the right to request bid amendments from individual bidders to address shortcomings that although not disqualifying the design, may make it less than ideal?  Or are they locked in to specifically the design in the original bid made?



There is a mechanic in the process that allows for the government to notify a non-compliant bidder on deficiencies and allow the bid to be modified to meet compliance.  This can be done once from what I have read.

I would suspect that modifying things after a bid has been deemed compliant won't happen until a winner has been selected, and then the normal process for changes in requirements would happen.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> In the RFP process, does the Navy have the right to request bid amendments from individual bidders to address shortcomings that although not disqualifying the design, may make it less than ideal?  Or are they locked in to specifically the design in the original bid made?



If the bid is compliant but the Navy thinks that it could be done and would like to see more from that bidder, then the answer to your question is no. 

If on the other hand, a bid is received that is generally compliant but for one or two (a few) aspects that are non-compliant, either because it was missed or misunderstood, but could be corrected in the view of the Navy/Bid evaluators, there is a process whereby once in the process, this can be pointed out to the bidder and a modified bid can be requested.

For instance, if the RFP calls for a mission bay of at least 100 square meters and two bidders have a bay of 150 meters and the third bidder has exactly 100 meters, there is no process to have that bid reworked because the Navy, seeing it can be accommodated, suddenly prefers 150 meters. Those three bids are compliant and will be evaluated as such.

On the other hand, if that third bidder comes up with a bay that 98 square meters, and the Navy feels they were trying to meet bid requirements but somehow screwed up, they can give that bidder its chance to correct the deficiency.


----------



## Good2Golf

I believe CSC will follow the "two-step" process, i.e. where PSPC, on behalf of the client Department, will advise bidders when there is a compliance issue that could be based on misunderstanding the stated requirement, or if there is context that can allow a bidder to explain why they thought they were compliant, and to be formally engaged by PSPC to explain the specific point of concern of their proposal.  This is seen more and more often, particularly where ITBs and bidder Value Propositions come into play, vice the classic single-step, Mandatory/Rated Requirement framework where a single non-compliant to a Mandatory, no matter the scale relative to the overall requirement would see a bidder eliminated.

Regards
G2G


----------



## calculus

BUMP

Hi all, new member here. Anyone have any thoughts on CSC range? It is reputed the RCN is looking for a range similar or better than the Halifax class (7000 nm at 15 kn). I don't know if this is a critical requirement or a nice to have, however. In any case, the only ship that would seem to meet this criteria is the T26, which will supposedly travel in excess of 7000 nm "in Electro-Motor (EM) drive" (no speed indicated). The DZP is said to have a range of around 4000 nm at that speed, and the F105 about 4500. Thoughts?


----------



## Karel Doorman

calculus said:
			
		

> BUMP
> 
> Hi all, new member here. Anyone have any thoughts on CSC range? It is reputed the RCN is looking for a range similar or better than the Halifax class (7000 nm at 15 kn). I don't know if this is a critical requirement or a nice to have, however. In any case, the only ship that would seem to meet this criteria is the T26, which will supposedly travel in excess of 7000 nm "in Electro-Motor (EM) drive" (no speed indicated). The DZP is said to have a range of around 4000 nm at that speed, and the F105 about 4500. Thoughts?



To be fair,DZP has a range of about 5000NM at 18 Kn

https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dezeven/


----------



## Cloud Cover

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> To be fair,DZP has a range of about 5000NM at 18 Kn
> 
> https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/dezeven/


full load?


----------



## Karel Doorman

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> full load?



What do you mean ,Whiskey?Range is 5000 NM at 18 Kn,if different at fullfull,doubt it,well,all the other numbers(T-26,F100 etc)are also not correct.

Is there a difference?i wouldn't know to be fair.


----------



## calculus

Hi Karel, thanks for responding. I believe the figure you quote from naval-technology is statute miles, not nautical miles. The number I got for DZP (4000 nm) was from Wikipedia. If naval-technology is correct, that 5000 mile number would equate to 4350 nm, roughly, leaving a 350 nm discrepancy between those two sources of information. This does point to the difficulty around getting accurate information on ship ranges. It seems inordinately difficult finding this information. I was hoping someone on this forum had some insight into this as it applies to the CSC and the general belief that the RCN is looking for some long legs on their new ships.


----------



## Karel Doorman

calculus said:
			
		

> Hi Karel, thanks for responding. I believe the figure you quote from naval-technology is statute miles, not nautical miles. The number I got for DZP (4000 nm) was from Wikipedia. If naval-technology is correct, that 5000 mile number would equate to 4350 nm, roughly, leaving a 350 nm discrepancy between those two sources of information. This does point to the difficulty around getting accurate information on ship ranges. It seems inordinately difficult finding this information. I was hoping someone on this forum had some insight into this as it applies to the CSC and the general belief that the RCN is looking for some long legs on their new ships.



Hi Calculus,it seems you're right about the miles and nautical miles,sorry for that.the number i can find so far is indeed 4000NM,but will ask on the Dutch Defense Forum to be sure.

here's another detailed piece about the DZP-class.(there is another but taht's in dutch,i can read it,but not everyone here can)

https://thaimilitaryandasianregion.wordpress.com/2016/01/02/de-zeven-provincien-class-frigate-netherlands/


----------



## MarkOttawa

How fast will Irving be able to float RCN CSCs?  Though to be fair Naval Group has now done eight FREMMs and is well down the learning curve:



> Naval Group Launched 8th FREMM Frigate 'Normandie' for the French Navy
> 
> On 1 February 2018, Naval Group floated the FREMM multi-mission frigate Normandie, just 12 months after the start of hull assembly in the building dock on the Lorient site. The completion of this milestone represents an important step, demonstrating the industrial and technological mastery of Naval Group, ensuring compliance with a very tight schedule to be able to deliver, as foreseen, six of the FREMMs ordered by OCCAR (Organisation for Joint Armament Cooperation) on behalf of the DGA (French Defence Procurement Agency - Direction Générale de l’Armement) to the French Navy (Marine Nationale) before the end of 2019.
> 
> The eighth FREMM frigate to be built in Lorient and the sixth in the series ordered by OCCAR on behalf of the DGA for the French Navy, the FREMM Normandie was taken out of its building dock in Lorient where it was assembled on time: just 12.5 months since the first block was positioned on the keel block line.
> 
> ...Six FREMM frigates were already delivered between 2012 and 2017. The Aquitaine in 2012, the Provence in 2015, the Languedoc in 2016 and last but not least the Auvergne in April 2017.
> 
> The FREMM Bretagne, floated in September 2016, will be transferred to Brest, where it will be based, in the second quarter 2018.
> 
> On the international market, Morocco took delivery of the Mohammed VI in 2014 and Egypt took delivery of the TahyaMisr in 2015.
> 
> The two final frigates, Alsace and Lorraine, will be delivered to the French Navy before the end of 2022.
> _These frigates will be equipped with strengthened air defence capacities_ [emphasis added]. The assembly of the FREMM Alsace in the Lorient building dock will start in spring 2018.
> 
> FREMM technical characteristics
> Heavily armed, the FREMM Normandiedeploys as its sister ships the most effective weapon systems and equipment, such as the Herakles multifunction radar, the naval cruise missile (MdCN), the Aster and Exocet MM 40 missiles or the MU 90 torpedoes.
> • Overall length: 142 metres
> • Width: 20 metres
> • Displacement: 6,000 tonnes
> • Max. speed: 27 knots
> • Implementation: 108 persons (including the helicopter detachment)
> • Accommodation capacity: 145 persons
> • _Range: 6,000 nautical miles at 15 knots_ [emphasis added]
> https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/february-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/5914-naval-group-launched-8th-fremm-frigate-normandie-for-the-french-navy.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MarkOttawa

Irving assigned CSCs in 2011 under NSPS (now just NSS, don't want Harper-era acronyms, eh? not that his gov't did any great job on shipbuilding),
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/vol12/no2/doc/Shadwick%20En%20Page%2077-80.pdf

if lucky (very) we'll get first one around 2024/25:
http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/business-equipment/canadian-surface-combatant.page

'Nuff said.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MTShaw

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> How fast will Irving be able to float RCN CSCs?  Though to be fair Naval Group has now done eight FREMMs and is well down the learning curve:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



They'll deliver them as per the timetable set by their customer, the federal government. The federal government has the power to take over government if Irving does not deliver.


----------



## Cloud Cover

MTShaw said:
			
		

> They'll deliver them as per the timetable set by their customer, the federal government. The federal government has the power to take over government if Irving does not deliver.



 Are you saying the federal government would take over Irving when they fail to deliver on the timetable?  :rofl:


----------



## MTShaw

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Are you saying the federal government would take over Irving when they fail to deliver on the timetable?  :rofl:



Probably not. What I was trying to state were facts. Cynicism is useless. Skepticism fine.  But by being overtly cynicism is like killing the messenger before he leaves his original starting point. 

Oh yeah: "'Nuff sad" only serves to stifle conversation and debate. Give me a break,


----------



## Cloud Cover

Don’t confuse cynicism with pragmatic realism. What has Irving done or suggested that demonstrates corporate leadership that might make the process faster, more efficient etc. As has been pointed out and borne out time and time again, this is not about building ships, it is all about transferring money to a region of voters and creating some east coast jobs.


----------



## Edward Campbell

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Don’t confuse cynicism with pragmatic realism. What has Irving done or suggested that demonstrates corporate leadership that might make the process faster, more efficient etc. As has been pointed out and borne out time and time again, _this is not about building ships, it is all about transferring money to a region of voters and creating some east coast jobs_.



I think you're being a wee bit too cynical. My understanding, based on second and third hand information (perhaps better described as "bar talk" and rumours) is that the original political "guidance" was in the shape of a question: 'Can (or, better, how can) we rebuild our shipbuilding industry so that it can, reasonably, complete contracts for the Navy, the Coast Guard and private firms?'    

As I understand it, and you and others will know better than I, international trade law excludes "national security" contracts from most of its provisions, allowing nations to subsidize (spend almost as much as they wish) their defence contractors. That is, I believe, what we are doing ~ or, at least, it is what the _mandarins_ aimed to do ~ with the _National Shipbuilding Procurement Strategy_: to spend heavily on rebuilding capabilities and then getting, for our money, a few warships and Coast Guard vessels.


----------



## Navy_Pete

That was the original intent; the strategic big picture part of building an industry offsets the giant sticker shock of the projects.

The issue is that the original mandarins have all since moved on to somewhere else, so there is a lot of extra stuff getting tacked on now. Pretty much anything that is wet and will be operated by Canada (including RIBs, zodiacs, canoes etc) is being rolled into the 'small ship and RRM pillar, which is taking the focus away from delivering ships to the RCN and CCG (even though that's where basically all the budget goes).

The 2016 annual report is available on the PSPC website though if you want to give it a read through;

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/rapport-report-2016-eng.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

From report above on NSS on JSS:
https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/rapport-report-2016-6-eng.html

"...Concurrently, the Government of Canada will engage in contract negotiations with Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards for the construction phase, presently scheduled to start in 2019..."

THAT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.

And not timeline for (one only) construction of new CCG icebreaker.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MTShaw

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From report above on NSS on JSS:
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/rapport-report-2016-6-eng.html
> 
> "...Concurrently, the Government of Canada will engage in contract negotiations with Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards for the construction phase, presently scheduled to start in 2019..."
> 
> THAT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.
> 
> And not timeline for (one only) construction of new CCG icebreaker.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



I agree if only through incompetence of the original engineers of the OOSV screwing up the schedule. Even if they were to start the JSS' in 2019-2020, they're not in Kansas any more.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From report above on NSS on JSS:
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/rapport-report-2016-6-eng.html
> 
> "...Concurrently, the Government of Canada will engage in contract negotiations with Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards for the construction phase, presently scheduled to start in 2019..."
> 
> 
> 
> THAT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.
> 
> And not timeline for (one only) construction of new CCG icebreaker.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



To be fair, that was drafted in March of 2017, so it's not up to date.


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> From report above on NSS on JSS:
> https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/rapport-report-2016-6-eng.html
> 
> "...Concurrently, the Government of Canada will engage in contract negotiations with Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards for the construction phase, presently scheduled to start in 2019..."
> 
> THAT. WILL. NOT. HAPPEN.
> 
> And not timeline for (one only) construction of new CCG icebreaker.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Depends on a few things.  First was that article about starting the build for the JSS due to design delays on the CCG ships.  Second is the fact the gov't could change priorities and say basically that the JSS takes priority over all other builds, as soon as you are finished what you are working on Seaspan get going on it.  Third could be how negotiations with Davie go on icebreakers and other ship types. 

Technically Seaspan could start cutting steel for some of the blocks in 2019 at a slow pace, while waiting for space in the drydock to start putting them together.  Just start really slow yet still technically meet the 2019 timeframe.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Seaspan appears ready to start on some blocks of the JSS, this year. Partly out of delays getting the design issues for the SV done, but I suspect also to "marry" the Feds to the original commitment to build the JSS at Seaspan.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Looking like L3 Tech is positioning itself to feast on both the Australian bid as well as ours if the Type 26 is selected.  Lots of homegrown talent/tech that can be utilized if its selected.

 http://www.janes.com/article/77694/l3-technologies-added-to-bae-systems-sea-5000-bid-team


----------



## MarkOttawa

As for new USN frigates, which they will get long before RCN gets CSCs:

Handicapping the Navy’s Frigate Competition
By Jerry Hendrix

The horses in a major new defense-acquisition program are approaching the starting gate, but it’s not too late to handicap the race and place bets on the eventual winner. The process is easier in this competition because, unlike recent previous major program buys, the Navy limited this competition to proven “mature” designs, to include submissions from foreign ship-builders so long as they partnered with an American shipyard. The net result is a competitive field made up of participants with established track records and approximate prices...

Logic and history suggest that the two LCS programs should have the inside-track advantage. They are established, currently in production, and familiar to the Navy’s lead decision-makers...

That there is a competition at all for the new frigate suggests, however, that the Navy is less than enamored with the two LCS variants, which have tarnished reputations for having short endurances and even shorter times between breakdowns...

Many naval track watchers consider the General Dynamics’–sponsored, Spanish-designed, F-100 frigate to be the purest thoroughbred multi-mission frigate on the oceanic circuit. In fact, given its Aegis-based 3-D air-search radar, superb active and passive sonar systems, and 48 VLS weapons tubes, it can do everything that an American Arleigh Burke–class destroyer can do, only just a little less of it. It can do area air defense, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare, and it can certainly provide more than adequate convoy escort, but these abilities come at a cost...

Fincantieri offers the last horse in the frigate race. The FREMM (Fregata Europea Multi-Missione) frigate combines a sleek multi-mission, stealthy hull form with the endurance (6,500 nautical miles) of a long-distance performer. Ten FREMMs are already in service, six for Italy and four for France, so the ship’s construction and operating costs and maintenance reliability are well established. Fincantieri builds two variants of the design: One is superbly focused on anti-submarine warfare, and the other has a more general purpose and is able to perform all missions reasonably well. It is, as of yet, not clear which variant, or perhaps an amalgam of both, Fincantieri will offer to the Navy. One question raised by naval analysts with regard to both the FREMM and Navantia’s F-100 design is whether the two European ships can meet Naval Sea Systems Command’s stringent survivability standards. But the fact that these two designs made it through the first elimination race suggests that FREMM and the F-100 met the Navy’s survivability standards. What is clear, based upon its established track record, is that Fincantieri’s FREMM will be able to offer a reliable and highly advanced ship, equipped to perform local air defense, anti-submarine and anti-surface warfare missions as well as convoy escort, for around $800 million per ship.

Based upon its spacious design, combat capabilities, and cost, FREMM emerges as a clear front-runner. It has a Goldilocks-like appeal: neither too expensive nor too under-equipped. In fact, it’s a robust hull with room for mission growth...

_Jerry Hendrix — Jerry Hendrix is a retired U.S. Navy captain, an award-winning naval historian, and a senior fellow and director of the Defense Strategies and Assessments Program at the Center for a New American Security._





_Italian Navy FREMM-class frigate Carlo Bergamini (Fabius1975/Wikimedia)_
https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/02/us-navy-frigate-competition-finalists/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

I thought the FREMM was out for CSC anyway?


----------



## Uzlu

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I thought the FREMM was out for CSC anyway?


FREMM was indeed rejected by the Liberals.





> Proposals submitted outside of the established competitive process will not be considered
> 
> Recent media coverage referenced a proposal submitted outside of the established competitive process  alleging the ability to deliver CSC ships at a reduced cost. Establishing and respecting a bid and evaluation process that is consistently applied to all potential bidders is fundamental to a fair, open and transparent procurement. Without common requirements and criteria, it is impossible to consistently and effectively evaluate proposals. The submission of an unsolicited proposal at the final hour undermines the fair and competitive nature of this procurement suggesting a sole source contracting arrangement.  Acceptance of such a proposal would break faith with the bidders who invested time and effort to participate in the competitive process, put at risk the Government’s ability to properly equip the Royal Canadian Navy and would establish a harmful precedent for future competitive procurements.  To be clear, any proposals submitted outside of the established competitive process will not be considered. It should be noted that a fairness monitor has been engaged to oversee the procurement process, and agrees with this approach.
> 
> With respect to suggestions that significant savings could be realized through this alternative process, this is far from evident.  It is important to note that a warship project budget must cover more than just delivering the ships. It must also include the costs associated with design and definition work, infrastructure, spare parts, training, ammunition, contingencies and project management. Typically, the acquisition of the ships themselves only represents about 50-60% of the project’s overall budget. As well, any prices cited without the context of applicable terms and conditions as indicated in the RFP (such as scope of work, divisions of responsibilities, intellectual property rights, warranties, limitations of liability, indemnities, etc.) are effectively meaningless.


https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2017/12/update_on_the_canadiansurfacecombatantrequestforproposals.html


----------



## Dave Dunlop

FUTURE CANADIAN SURFACE COMBATANT-THE ONLY OPTION

David Dunlop, RCN PO1NCIOP (Retired)-NATO/QGJM/CD2

Now that the Canadian government has entered the decision phase for the bids entered for the rights to build 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships, it is time to give an opinion as to which of the three bids entered will be the best fit for Canada’s Future Naval Fleet. The backbone of this future Canadian Naval Combat Fleet will be vessels that will see Canada through the next few decades, and must be judiciously chosen. There are several new designs of warships being presented to Canada and pros and cons with all of them. Spanish, Dutch and British companies have all answered the Requests For Proposals (RFP’s) within the time-frame. Spain is offering their F-100 Christopher Columbus Class, the Dutch with their De Zeven Provincien Class and the Lockheed-Martin (LM)/British Aerospace Electric (BAE) consortium offering their Type 26 Frigate. The Italian/French consortium RFP was disqualified as they had not submitted official proposals within the time limit. Canada expects to make a decision on the winning bid by the Spring of 2018.

	All companies (including Germany) have Multi-Purpose Frigates either in service, under construction or planned that can “do the job”. The German Type 126/MKS 180 Saxony Class is particularly interesting, with it’s strengthened hull for Arctic Operations, but there is only one design for Canada that offers a balanced “plug & play” approach, and that design is, without question, the LM/BAE consortium Type 26 Frigate. This ship exceeds Canada's high-level requirements, will be deployable worldwide for extended periods and would be more than capable of replacing our Anti-Air, Anti-Surface and Anti-Submarine capabilities with one single Class of ship. The Australian Navy has the BAE Type 26 frigate on their short list to replace their aging frigates as well. No other ship design compares to meet Canadian Naval requirements, including the Italian/French FREMM Class, the German Type 126/MKS 180 Frigate, the Spanish F-100 Christopher Columbus Class or the Dutch De Zeven Provincien Class.

	The LM/BAE Type 26 Frigate is a cutting-edge warship that is simply the best fit for Canada's future work-horse Navy. It is a modern new warship with all the capabilities Canada require’s in a CSC. The Type 26 is infinitely adaptable, can easily be re-configured and the RCN can “tweak” the design to cater its own development requirements, which is where, the Type 26 has the potential to excel. A re-configurable mission bay can accept containerized loads to allow the rapid re-loading of the vessel. Such loads might include aid/rescue packages, underwater vehicles, boats or Naval Drones.

	The Type 26 Frigate is 149.9 meters (492 ft) in length and has a maximum beam of 20.8 meters (69 ft) with a displacement of 7,000+ tons. A CODELOG (Combined Diesel Electric or Gas Turbine-MT 30) configuration is deployed in the ship, giving it a top speed in excess of 29+ knots with 4 x 20V 4000 M53 Diesel Generators. It has a MK 41 VLS system that can accommodate Surface, Air and Land Attack Missiles. It has a 5” 62 caliber Mk. 45 Medium Range Gun along with 2 X 30mm, 2 X CIWS & 2 X Mini-Gun Systems and can be fitted with future Canadian torpedo’s and counter-measure’s. It will accommodate Canadian Hull Mounted & Towed Array Sonar systems that are vital to long-range submarine detection. Its large Flight Deck can easily handle the CH 148 Cyclone helicopter in it’s hanger, with the ability to land Heavy Lift Chinook Helicopters. It’s hanger facilities are also large enough to accommodate Maritime UAV’s along with a flexible Mission Bay.

	It can undertake a wide range of roles from high intensity conflicts including Anti-Submarine/Anti-Surface Warfare and Area Air Defence, along with the ability to aid in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HA/DR) operations. The Type 26 is flexible, versatile and highly survivable with an extremely low acoustic signature. It exceeds all Canadian Naval requirements, and will accommodate Canada-specific modular design sub-systems with open systems architecture. These same features will minimize ownership costs and facilitate Canadian industry playing a major role in through-life support and upgrades, delivering long term economic benefits to Canada. Its low acoustic signature, crucial to evading detection from submarines, will translate into safety and survivability of the crew, and the ability of the ship to successfully complete its missions. Accommodations are included for 208 crew, with a core complement of 118 sailors. 

	A major part of the ship design will be the new Lockheed-Martin state-of-the-art LM CCM 330 Combat System (CS), that will meet all of Canada’s Naval C4ISR requirements. It may only have one draw-back. Ice capability in our North. If it had a more strengthened hull however, that would certainly go a long way to meet the strategic needs for a truely “Blue” Three Ocean Canadian Navy. It also works well within our own time-frame as BAE has already started construction of their Type 26 Frigate in July of 2017, about three years ahead of Canada’s future Naval Frigate requirements.

	The LM/BAE Type 26 Canadian Surface Combatant is simply the right solution for Canada’s Future Naval Fleet and at a final cost of between 60/70B CAD, they are still well worth the investment and of course will be built here in Canada.

David Dunlop is a retired RCN Petty Officer 1st Class Naval Combat Information Officer with over 41 years experience as a Tactical Data Coordinator for Command.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

While I tend to agree with PO Dunlop, I believe a small word of caution is warranted: He speaks of the type 26 in the present tense, as if one existed that can be observed to possess all the good characteristics he ascribes to the vessel.

Unfortunately, that is not the case, and all those characteristics, such as low acoustic signature, capacity to maintain 29 knots (which is more than the UK model, expected to do 27 knots), etc. are characteristics that BAE is shooting for with its design, but hasn't demonstrated yet.

But other than that, I agree with the analysis and conclusion.


----------



## Cloud Cover

He raises some good points, one thing I noticed is the "future torpedoes" - is he referencing the current LWTU project or something else?  AFAIK the Type 26 ship is not presently designed for a torpedo launch tube system, so where would be suitable for that fit without adding in an expensive design and structural change? Surely not the modular mission bay. The hangar again like the HAL? Or, a new ASROC hybrid for the Mk 41 VLS?


----------



## Karel Doorman

I am convinced(well from what i read from the City-Class)that it will be an excellent warship,but as said before there's no proof of that yet,we can only go on what BAE says it can possibly do.Plus the fact that i'm curious as what one "copy" will cost after the Canadians are ready "Canadizing" it.


----------



## Underway

As much as I love the advertisement of the Type 26 I get suspicious when an "article" from a member with only a single post shows up.  And then it talks about a ship that wasn't even in the competition (Saxony class with is far to old and too small for what we want).  Also the image attached isn't even the Canadianized version which can be pulled directly from the surface combatant team website.

Future torps most likely refer to the upgrade from the Mk46 to the Mk 54 LHT which will be on the CPF's long before the CSC gets it.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I’m curious to see if the Canadianized version finds a spot for Harpoons. The UK version isn’t supposed to be equipped with an ASM, I believe, until the British and French come up with a VLS launches LRASM.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I’m curious to see if the Canadianized version finds a spot for Harpoons. The UK version isn’t supposed to be equipped with an ASM, I believe, until the British and French come up with a VLS launches LRASM.



ASM is a requirement of the program.  Best guesses is that the Type 26 bid is the Naval Strike missile, the Navinata bid is the Saab RBS-15, and the Alion bid is Harpoons.  All have their pros and cons.  NSM uses IR/EO homing and is very hard to detect but a smaller warhead relative to the other two.  RBS is the big daddy of three and has the longest range and biggest warhead and active radar guidance.  Harpoon has a slightly shorter range of the NSM and has a slightly larger warhead and of course active radar terminal guidance, but is a proven missile system (some would say long in the tooth) compared to the other two.


----------



## Cloud Cover

These aren't SSM missiles above the mission bay? They look too big to be MASS, Irras etc.


----------



## MTShaw

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> These aren't SSM missiles above the mission bay? They look too big to be MASS, Irras etc.



Either they got the proportions wrong for the AShM or, i'd guess, some sort of anti AShM or anti-swarming missiles. For instances the Freedom class FFG(X) has Longbow Hellfire missiles up front.

MTS


----------



## Underway

Full on speculation but if you google Naval Strike missile it looks a lot like those are the launchers for them on that image. Could be wrong though.  It's definitely not a Harpoon, Exocet or Saab missile.  Running out of options picked the NSM.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

My understanding was that Harpoon was pretty much on its way out as a front line anti-shipping missile. No?


----------



## Swampbuggy

It certainly looks like an NSM in the rendering. Here is a screenshot image of NSM launchers on the NANSEN from Norway. Shape and size are consistent with the rendering on the Type 26 offering.


----------



## AlexanderM

This is supposed to be ready by 2030 and will be able to launch from either the MK41 or the Sylver launcher, as can the JSM/NSM. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perseus_(missile)

Link isn't cooperating so just have to select "Perseus (missile)" a second time once inside.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> My understanding was that Harpoon was pretty much on its way out as a front line anti-shipping missile. No?



That's what I hear as well.  Problem is you need something to replace it with.  I think it will be in service for a while still in many navies.  

There is no reason why different bids can't have the same missile system.  Anti ship missiles are really easy to install onboard compared to most other types of weapons.  Just bolt on, plug in and go.  Really all they need from the ship is, power, nav and attitude info to ensure they go in the right direction, and launch at the right angle.  The rest of the ASuW missile systems are usually stand alone or easy to integrate in an open architecture (for lack of a better way to explain, essentially their own window on the combat management system).  Any new missile will meet the specifications I'm sure.


----------



## jollyjacktar

A nice video about the Mk. 41 VLS slated for the Type 26.

https://youtu.be/rWI6ihQcU14


----------



## Cloud Cover

Was the show floor module on the right the strike length version or the mod for the CAMM ER?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Will Justin Trudeau allow a missile defence capability on CSCs?



> PPA to bring BMD Capability to Italian Navy in 2024
> 
> The Italian Navy (Marina Militare) will get Ballistic Missile Defence (BMD) capability in 2024 with the delivery of its first PPA (Pattugliatore Polivalente d'Altura or Offshore Multipurpose Patrol Ship) vessel in the "Full" configuration. Captain Francesco Gennaro Esposito, Italian Navy General Staff (MARISTAT 7°) future vessels ship design and CMS department, confirmed the information to Navy Recognition during a recent visit at the Leonardo naval test and integration facility near Rome.
> 
> "The PPA Full version will be able to embark and use the Aster 30 Block 1NT that is the anti-ballistic missile with the support of the radar system of the future LHD in terms of early warning detection" said Captain Esposito.
> 
> The long range detection of ballistic missiles will be realized with the L-band AESA radar based on gallium nitride (GaN) technology which allows the radar to have better performance in terms of range. The missile tracking capability will be provided by the C-band element of the new dual-band radar developed especially by Leonardo for the PPA.
> 
> An MBDA Italy representative explained that PPA Full will be able to detect and engage ballistic missiles on their own or in cooperation with other early warning sources via Link 16. He added that PPA Light+ variant could potentially have that BMD capability but the first real BMD capable ship for the Italian Navy will be the first PPA Full variant to be delivered in 2024 [lots more detail follows]...
> http://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/march-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6008-ppa-to-bring-bmd-capability-to-italian-navy-in-2024.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Depends on how you define Ballistic Missiles.  The CAF definition is different then the media's and the RCN's definition is a refinement of the CAF one.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Does anyone have any thoughts on the Italian use of the 76mm Strales system as their CIWS?

I've seen a video on how it's supposed to work, but have no idea if it can do what it's supposed to when chips are on the table....


M.


----------



## MTShaw

32 mk41 vls in this little video:

https://twitter.com/CSCHomeTeam/status/966785222388875265


----------



## Uzlu

> Careful consideration: Positioning the next Canadian Frigates for the Fights of the Future
> 
> The process to choose the winning design for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) is well underway, with the final selection expected sometime this year. We don’t know much about the exact requirements for the CSC but the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) flagship strategy document, Leadmark 2050 , is clear: while the CSC will undertake a variety of mission types, it will be designed primarily to operate in a high-end warfighting environment. That makes sense since a ship designed to fight pirates and provide disaster relief wouldn’t fare well against modern anti-ship cruise missiles or torpedoes.
> 
> Operating in a high-end environment requires a combat management system (CMS) that tightly integrates the ship’s weapons, sensors, communications and data links to allow it to defend itself and take the fight to the enemy. This is especially true for air defence, as the nature of contemporary air threats means that the crew often has minutes (or seconds if the threat is supersonic) to react to a missile that comes over the horizon. The CMS is key in this situation, as it can gather and display data from the ship’s sensors, activate kinetic or non-kinetic countermeasures, and cue incoming threats much faster than a human can.
> 
> There are three broad categories of air defence capabilities that the government should consider (and prioritize) when deciding on the CSC’s CMS/design: short- to medium-range; long-range; and ballistic missile defence (BMD). Having an effective short- to medium-range air defence capability is perhaps the most important in terms of ship survivability and should be prioritized. But being able to detect and engage threats at longer ranges will likely become almost as important as threats become more advanced and the CSC becomes responsible for the air defence of deployed land forces. So, decisions made on the CMS now will likely have long-term effects down the road.
> 
> Missiles such as the Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) and the Aster 15, with ranges of around 50 kilometres, will likely form the core of the CSC’s short-to medium-range air defence capability, so having a CMS that works with them will likely be critical. Both Lockheed Martin Canada’s CMS330—the CMS on the Halifax-class frigates—and Atlas Elektronik’s ANCS CMS are already integrated with ESSM. So is 9LV, the CMS offered by Navantia and SAAB Australia in their bid, which is currently serving on a number of Australian naval vessels. The combination of 9LV, Australia’s CEAFAR radar, and ESSM on Australia’s ANZAC-class frigates is assessed by some defence analysts to be the best short- to medium-range naval air defence system in the world. Interestingly, CMS330 is also in the process of being integrated with MBDA’s new Sea Ceptor short-range air defence missile on New Zealand’s ANZAC-class frigates.
> 
> In terms of providing a long-range air defence, things get more complicated. Two of three systems on offer (CMS330 and 9LV) have not yet been integrated with a long-range air defence missile system like SM-2 or SM-6, missiles with ranges of over 150 kilometres. That fact is more of an indictment on the CAF’s requirements than on the systems themselves; but it’s strange that there may be no requirement for such a capability right off the bat, given the growing importance of long-range air defence in both the ship and area defence roles the government has stated the CSC will fulfill. That’s not to say longer-ranged missile systems cannot be integrated into 9LV and CMS330 in the future—quite the opposite in fact, given their modularity—but they’re not integrated “off-the-shelf” like they are in ANCS. Systems integration is a complex process and additional integration increases the risk of cost overruns and delays.
> 
> The Australian Future Frigate faces the same problem. Australia’s solution was to “combine” (in some manner) the 9LV/CEAFAR radar combination with the US Navy’s (USN) Aegis CMS to facilitate the integration of future US missile systems such as the SM-6 to give the Future Frigate greater long-range air defence capabilities. By “combining” 9LV/CEAFAR and Aegis, Australia is hedging the future viability of its Future Frigates on the continued ability of the USN to be on the cutting edge of naval weapons and sensors technology. Having Aegis on its ships alleviates the Royal Australian Navy of the burden (and cost) of integrating new American weapons systems and sensors into its own CMS architecture. It’s unclear as to whether Navantia and SAAB Australia are offering the 9LV/Aegis CMS combination in their CSC bid, although the CEAFAR radar is included.
> 
> The Canadian government must think carefully about its approach to ‘futureproofing’ the CSC to ensure that the ships can be upgraded as effectively and cost-efficiently as possible in the future. If Aegis is included in the Navantia/SAAB Australia bid and is selected, Canada would be able lessen future integration costs through collaboration with the US and Australia. If Aegis isn’t included, then Canada would likely be responsible for integrating future weapons systems and sensors into its CMS architecture no matter which CMS is chosen. That approach increases the risk of delays and cost overruns down the road. Now Canada doesn’t have to go down the same route as Australia to “futureproof”, it could instead choose to install a European “family” of weapons and sensors on the CSC to lessen the future acquisition costs.
> 
> Another potential aspect of ‘futureproofing’ is ballistic missile defence (BMD). Currently, the US and Japan are the only countries with an effective sea-based capability to track and engage theatre ballistic missiles using a special configuration of the Aegis CMS and the SM-3 missile. Dutch De Zeven Provinciën-class frigates—the design on which Alion Science and Technology/Damen Shipbuilding’s bid is based—have demonstrated the ability to track ballistic missiles but lack the ability to engage them, and other countries are incorporating BMD into their future ships. Should the RCN need such a capability, it’s likely that many of the future weapons and sensors installed on the CSC will have some inherent ability to conduct BMD. However, none of the CMSs offered have the ability to do so “off-the-shelf” and integrating such a capability would entail additional costs and trade-offs in terms of potential mission loadouts.
> 
> Given the nature of threats the CSC is likely to face in the future, careful deliberation is needed when deciding which CMS best meets the CAF’s short- and long-term requirements. The risk profile of each CMS on offer is likely to be an important factor in positioning the CSC for future upgrades. None of the options are risk-free, but good planning should ensure that Canada is able to field an effective, upgradeable CSC that can fulfill the government’s requirements now and in the future.
> 
> _Disclosure: Lockheed Martin Canada is a corporate sponsor of the CDA Institute.
> 
> Christopher Cowan is a Research Analyst and Editor at the CDA Institute._


https://cdainstitute.ca/careful-consideration-positioning-the-next-canadian-frigates-for-the-fights-of-the-future/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Just a reminder that BAE's Type 26 frigate design (only under construction now) in running for Canadian Surface Combatant:



> UK hires team to stop destroyers from breaking down at sea
> 
> An industry team led by BAE Systems has secured a £160 million (U.S. $224 million) deal with the British Ministry of Defence to help fix long-running propulsion problems that have blighted the reliability of the Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyer fleet.
> 
> BAE, along with partners BMT Defence Services and Cammell Laird, are to undertake what the MoD calls the power improvement project, or PIP, which principally will see the anti-air warships’ two existing diesel generators replaced with three larger units.
> 
> The warships have suffered a number of embarrassing breakdowns at sea due to problems with the propulsion system during operations in high temperatures, undermining confidence in the reliability of the six destroyers.
> 
> The worst of the problems saw ships losing all electrical power and propulsion while at sea.
> 
> “Our aim is to rapidly restore command confidence in the power and propulsion system of the Type 45 fleet, demonstrate value for money, and safeguard vital skills for future generations of warship support,” said David Mitchard, managing director at BAE Systems’ Maritime Services...
> https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/03/21/uk-hires-team-to-stop-destroyers-from-breaking-down-at-sea/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Just a reminder that BAE's Type 26 frigate design (only under construction now) in running for Canadian Surface Combatant:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Of the Type 26 bid for the CSC the propulsion system is the least of my concerns.  It's a similar system to the current UK frigates and not a new all electrical type system that the Type 45 uses.


----------



## Cloud Cover

MTShaw said:
			
		

> 32 mk41 vls in this little video:
> 
> https://twitter.com/CSCHomeTeam/status/966785222388875265



That’s what is shown in this video as well at 3:07-3:09. — https://youtu.be/xFVZ_rS9rH4 

The RN Type 26 will be fitted with 24 cell in 3 x 8 cell Mk 41 modules: https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/03/02/british-type-26-frigates-to-get-lockheed-missile-launcher/ 

Overall, the proposed Canadian variant appears to be longer, wider, more heavily armed (at least from the information available).


----------



## Czech_pivo

Update on the RN Type 26 progress.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/2184-first-type-26-vessel-progressing


----------



## MTShaw

Whiskey, 

I didn't see a size difference, but if there is one it would start with power capactiy. 30 knots is a minimum to zigzag around with a CBG. The type 26 is only good for 26. That will be done in the curing process, if it is not done already.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well we could always rent them http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/192653/france-to-lease-two-fremm-frigates-to-greece-for-5-years%3A-report.html


----------



## Czech_pivo

Have to wonder if the French are having similar staffing issues like the RN is currently experiencing.  To 'give up ' two fully operational Frigates, they must either have some excess capacity somewhere that they'll use these crews for, or, they have an overall shortage of trained crews and this will allow them to fully staff their remaining ships.


----------



## Underway

Some CSC based scuttlebutte.

Modeling and Simulation in Halifax is doing the modeling on the sensors from the CSC bids to see if the glossy brochure matches the actual performance.  (M&S are one of those Centres of Excellence in NATO that you never hear about.  The RCN is a world leader in this category...)  This as far as I know is a new thing for warships (like one hand can count how many times this was done) and a first for Canada.

The CSC may not have an AAW variant and a GP variant outside of weapons loadout and/or C4I gear.  Depending on the cost and performance of sensor systems all of the ships may have the same sensors.  It's really up to the bidders sales pitch.  They are free enough to bid two different radar systems or a single system that meets all performance objectives.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Wonder if their decision will influence our's in any manner?  2 of the 3 finalists are the same as ours.

From Jane's: 
http://www.janes.com/article/79889/selection-of-australian-future-frigate-design-expected-shortly


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Wonder if their decision will influence our's in any manner?  2 of the 3 finalists are the same as ours.
> 
> From Jane's:
> http://www.janes.com/article/79889/selection-of-australian-future-frigate-design-expected-shortly



Not directly.  We are doing our own thing, and Australia has different requirements.  In many ways their project is simpler (and lets be honest, their procurement has more experience with buying new ships recently.... see Hobart Class and Canberra Class as examples), as they flat out said that the ships will carry CEA's CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radars, and have the Saab 9LV Combat Management System.  It's significantly reduced the amount of variables that they need to pick a platform.  They essentially have dictated the entire combat suite to the bidders and really only need to look at how the bidders can perform on the other float/move variables.  

I expect that the F-100 will be picked as its about 75% common with the Hobarts.  Really would reduce training costs, some maint costs and various other issues that commonality brings.   The speed of their procurement process seems is staggering compared to ours.  Though if you look at the Hobart procurement that took quite a while as they had to reinvent a shipbuilding industry again like we are now.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Aren't they just taking CEA's equipment off the ANZAC class or is this a completely new system. Whatever it is, they are building one hell of potent Navy especially if their sub fleet gets going as planned.


----------



## RDBZ

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Aren't they just taking CEA's equipment off the ANZAC class or is this a completely new system. Whatever it is, they are building one hell of potent Navy especially if their sub fleet gets going as planned.



The Sea 5000 ships will be equipped with Aegis CMS not 9LV, and in addition to CEAMOUNT and CEAFAR will have the new CEAFAR2-L that's also going to be fitted to the ANZACs to replace the SPS-49.


----------



## Underway

RDBZ said:
			
		

> The Sea 5000 ships will be equipped with Aegis CMS not 9LV, and in addition to CEAMOUNT and CEAFAR will have the new CEAFAR2-L that's also going to be fitted to the ANZACs to replace the SPS-49.



Yah I just read up on that 10 min ago.  Something changed over the last few months WRT the CMS (probably in my memory, lol).  Yes the CEAFAR2-L (I should have been more specific) is one of the versions of the CEAFAR family that is going to be on the ship.  Makes for a L, S and X band combo.  Which is pretty unique.


----------



## Underway

Some images of the Type 26 CSC bid model from the company that builds them.

Things I noticed are the 32 VLS spots on the foc'sle, the double 25-30mm rear deck guns, the RAM launchers on the sides and the Harpoons on the the top deck.  Of note the are no mid deck small VLS launchers like the UK Type 26 has.  Harpoons seem an odd choice but its a model and maybe a placeholder.  The main radar also seems odd to me.  I for the life of me can't figure out what Lockheed is going to use. I originally guessed it might be a Kronos Dual Band system based on the video but the video model doesn't have the same number of VLS on it as these images do, so that makes me question both models accuracy.

The radar could be a AMDR from Raytheon.  That wouldn't be a huge surprise, given the modularity and power of that new system.  Or it could just be a placeholder in the model.    

http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-001.jpg

http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-003.jpg

http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-002.jpg

http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-0031.jpg

http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-005.jpg

http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-007.jpg

*edited for cut and paste errors*


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Nice 5 inch gun on the focs'ole, though.  :nod:


----------



## Czech_pivo

The RN specs talk about the Type 26 accommodating two helicopters. The pics above show a single hanger door.  It there enough space in there to store two helicopters?


----------



## serger989

Underway said:
			
		

> http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-001.jpg
> 
> http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-003.jpg
> 
> http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-002.jpg
> 
> http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-0031.jpg
> 
> http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-005.jpg
> 
> http://www.jlawson.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/T26-CSC-007.jpg



This is awesome! I never seen this before, in all the other little pictures they have shown for the CSC, you can't really see the Port or Starboard CIWS/SeaRAM. This is the first model where you can see it all really clearly and it's SeaRAM  Cool!


----------



## AirDet

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The RN specs talk about the Type 26 accommodating two helicopters. The pics above show a single hanger door.  It there enough space in there to store two helicopters?



The model is clearly for a single Helo. As the stacks bracket the Hgr there's no way to fit 2 Helos in there... unless they are tiny (eg. Cobra). 

With the stacks on either side of the Hgr, it'll get super hot in there. The 280s stack went right thru the middle of the double hgr and it could get unbearable in there especially when closed up at flying stations.


----------



## Kirkhill

Isn't the stack (single) for'ard of the hangar?  Between the SeaRAM positions?

And while looking at the SeaRAMs, don't those overhanging wings, as well as the bridge wings, tend to work against a stealthy design by creating radar traps?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The RN specs talk about the Type 26 accommodating two helicopters. The pics above show a single hanger door.  It there enough space in there to store two helicopters?



Per the attached document (interesting read) the hangar is large enough for 2 WildCat or 1 Merlin. There is also space for UAV's of unspecified type, but apparently lots of space for them. The mission bay can also hold up to 10 20ft. containers, so it appears the mission bay either extends under the hangar and the flight deck or forward(unlikely since the funnels are situated there).

Cheers

edit: the mission bay is the same deck as the hanger and the flight deck. As the document notes, in an extreme case the vessel can carry a second Merlin in the mission bay (not in the hangar).


----------



## Underway

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Per the attached document (interesting read) the hangar is large enough for 2 WildCat or 1 Merlin. There is also space for UAV's of unspecified type, but apparently lots of space for them. The mission bay can also hold up to 10 20ft. containers, so it appears the mission bay either extends under the hangar and the flight deck or forward(unlikely since the funnels are situated there).
> 
> Cheers
> 
> edit: the mission bay is the same deck as the hanger and the flight deck. As the document notes, in an extreme case the vessel can carry a second Merlin in the mission bay (not in the hangar).



Yes, because the mission bay can be open to the hangar you can conceivably push one helo all the way into the mission bay.  The second helo goes behind it in some drawings I've seen.  Smaller helos like the Wildcat can go in side by side.  The beam of the Type 26 is wider than the CPF by a small amount as well.  The torpedo spaces may not be located alongside the hangar as in the CPF freeing up more space (though that doesn't make sense from a ease of loading the helo's perspective).



			
				AirDet said:
			
		

> With the stacks on either side of the Hgr, it'll get super hot in there. The 280s stack went right thru the middle of the double hgr and it could get unbearable in there especially when closed up at flying stations.



The one on the stbd side seems to be a stack, and it might be a downtake.  Or perhaps for DG's which might have a seperate air handling system. Hard to know from a picture/model.  Good insight!


----------



## Good2Golf

AirDet said:
			
		

> The model is clearly for a single Helo. As the stacks bracket the Hgr there's no way to fit 2 Helos in there... unless they are tiny (eg. Cobra).
> 
> With the stacks on either side of the Hgr, it'll get super hot in there. The 280s stack went right thru the middle of the double hgr and it could get unbearable in there especially when closed up at flying stations.



Wouldn't those be only two of the four MTU DG stacks on the Stbd side aft?  Looks like the two fwd DGs are up fwd with the MT30's stack.

:dunno:

G2G


----------



## Swampbuggy

I have a question re: the rear mounted RWS’s. Is their arc of fire sufficient to cover frontal/frt quarter approaching targets? I don’t see any provision for an RWS mount near the bridge wings or VLS.


----------



## Lumber

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I have a question re: the rear mounted RWS’s. Is their arc of fire sufficient to cover frontal/frt quarter approaching targets? I don’t see any provision for an RWS mount near the bridge wings or VLS.



That's what the 5" is for  :threat:  

;D

But yea I had the same thought. 

I think the logic is that you would rarely by firing forward with those guns.

Either you're conducting some kind of interdiction operations in which case you are abeam of the "target" vessel, or you're reacting to a small boat/swarm attack and are weaving at high speeds "away" from the hostile craft, meaning those gun arcs would be open.

There aren't many situations I can think of where you are going to engage a small boat while also driving straight at it.

Even the current '.50s can't shoot forward.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Lumber said:
			
		

> That's what the 5" if for  :threat:
> 
> ;D
> 
> I imagine that would get your full attention...


----------



## Swampbuggy

Lumber said:
			
		

> Except for the “main” guns on an MCDV, right? 😏


----------



## AirDet

Underway said:
			
		

> Yes, because the mission bay can be open to the hangar you can conceivably push one helo all the way into the mission bay.


If the mission bay is tall enough that could work for a ferry trip. 


> The second helo goes behind it in some drawings I've seen.


  
The Flight deck is too small you can't switch the helos around so you'll be stuck flying only one of the birds. However the advantage would be if someone else fouled your flight deck you could free the deck to recover your helo.


> The torpedo spaces may not be located alongside the hangar as in the CPF freeing up more space (though that doesn't make sense from a ease of loading the helo's perspective).


Well, we don't load the helo in the hgr. In fact we only load at sea on the flight deck with the head turning. So this wouldn't matter to us airdet. The ships weapons techs always work well with us. They usually like watching the load. I once recommended qualifying them. That went over like a lead fart.

For the record, I'm not a hard navy trade but I loved the 5+ years I spent at sea. Yes, a zoomie with a gold anchor! I consider myself "naval air".


----------



## AirDet

I regret I'm too long in the tooth to be able to sail on these boats. As it is now one of my good friends has taken the very last seaking det to sea... RimPac.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> That's what the 5" if for  :threat:
> 
> ;D
> 
> But yea I had the same thought.
> 
> I think the logic is that you would rarely by firing forward with those guns.
> 
> Either your conducting some kind of interdiction operations in which case you are abeam of the "target" vessel, or you're reacting to a small boat/swarm attack and are weaving at high speeds "away" from the hostile craft, meaning those gun arcs would be open.
> 
> There aren't many situations I can think of where you are going to engage a small boat while also driving straight at it.
> 
> Even the current '.50s can't shoot forward.



I wouldn't be overly surprised if there were/could be .50's mounted on the bridge wings, giving coverage close in for those firing arcs.  Taking small boats on the beam would mean overlapping arcs of fire from the 5 inch, 25mm (30mm??) and then .50 at various ranges.  Running from small boat attacks would mean overlapping 25mm arcs astern.  In harbour between bridge wing .50's and hanger quarterdeck (? - just made that deck name up) 25mm you have good coverage of over 180 degrees on each side and overlapping 25mm arcs astern.  And that's what you want, layered defence.  Its certainly not the worst setup.

Contrast with the Alion bid where it looks like a 25mm stbd side forward just below the bridge wing, above the missile deck and one aft on the hangar quarterdeck port side.  These would cover the full forward and stern arcs. They may be able to cover the aft stbd blind spot with the port gun and the forward port blindspot with the stbd gun.  It's pretty close to 360 degree coverage with at least one 25mm.  Nothing wrong with this either, as tactics might dictate different approaches to different situations given the coverage in the two different ships.  

https://alion.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/alion-1024x657.png

Its certainly fun to think of these things and how they might apply to real world situations if/when built.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

AirDet said:
			
		

> I regret I'm too long in the tooth to be able to sail on these boats. As it is now one of my good friends has taken the very last seaking det to sea... RimPac.



? 

The very last Sea King Det is at sea now...nowhere near RIMPAC.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> https://alion.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/alion-1024x657.png[/url]
> 
> Its certainly fun to think of these things and how they might apply to real world situations if/when built.





Re: the Alion LCF - Given that it’s some sort of RWS starboard just below the bridge, do we know what the other item is on the port side platform? I can’t quite make it out in the picture.


----------



## Lumber

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Re: the Alion LCF - Given that it’s some sort of RWS starboard just below the bridge, do we know what the other item is on the port side platform? I can’t quite make it out in the picture.



That's a MASS launcher.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Lumber said:
			
		

> That's a MASS launcher.



Ok, thanks! I thought it might be some kind of flare/chaff device, but couldn’t quite get the detail in my picture. Is it usual to have just one onboard, or is it likely that there would be another somewhere on the starboard?


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Ok, thanks! I thought it might be some kind of flare/chaff device, but couldn’t quite get the detail in my picture. Is it usual to have just one onboard, or is it likely that there would be another somewhere on the starboard?



Starboard on the hangar quarterdeck, across from the other 25mm.  Depending on the type of ECM and your ships signature you see between 2 and 4 chaff/flare launchers to get proper coverage for a frigate sized ship.  But with the various types of countermeasures and ships this is really just a generalization from my own observations.  The VDQ has 3 MASS launchers mounted whereas the rest of the CPF's mount 2.  If the VDQ trial goes well and proves effective you might very well see more MASS launchers start sprouting on other ships.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> Starboard on the hangar quarterdeck, across from the other 25mm.  Depending on the type of ECM and your ships signature you see between 2 and 4 chaff/flare launchers to get proper coverage for a frigate sized ship.  But with the various types of countermeasures and ships this is really just a generalization from my own observations.  The VDQ has 3 MASS launchers mounted whereas the rest of the CPF's mount 2.  If the VDQ trial goes well and proves effective you might very well see more MASS launchers start sprouting on other ships.



Very interesting information, thanks for the clarification. I know it’s subjective and doesn’t speak to the capability/coverage of the various systems onboard, but something about that sort of asymmetrical design bothers me. Just aesthetically it’s a bit off putting, not that that should be any sort of knock on the quality of the ship.


----------



## AirDet

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ?
> 
> The very last Sea King Det is at sea now...nowhere near RIMPAC.



The det chief and I go way back. I just assumed it was RimPac.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

AirDet said:
			
		

> The Flight deck is too small you can't switch the helos around so you'll be stuck flying only one of the birds.



Actually, AirDet, I think you are fooling yourself by looking at the type 26 as if it is in the same size category as the Halifax's.

It is not: The type 26 is actually 30 percent bigger than the IRO's and about 34 percent bigger than the HAL's.

But more importantly, the flight deck of the type 26 is 14 feet wider than the flight deck of the HAL's (68 feet wide as opposed to 54). I know there is going to be only one deck handling system, but in reasonable sea states and with some hand-draulic power, you could reasonably manage to switch between the helo in the hangar and the one pushed into the flex deck. Tons of room on deck (so long as you don't try with the blades deployed   ) to do the switch.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I have handraulically moved a sea King out from and back into the hangar on a frigate, once.

It took the entire air department, plus the FD Stoker and Electrician, most of the firefighters and a couple of random bosons who were just passing by.

There was nothing easy about it.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I said "reasonably" ... not "easily".

Just saying that it's not true that you couldn't switch. That's all.

Also, since the flex deck is quite big, if you carried two helos fully folded, wouldn't it be possible to then carry a small aviation tractor?


----------



## AirDet

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, AirDet, I think you are fooling yourself by looking at the type 26 as if it is in the same size category as the Halifax's.
> 
> It is not: The type 26 is actually 30 percent bigger than the IRO's and about 34 percent bigger than the HAL's.
> 
> But more importantly, the flight deck of the type 26 is 14 feet wider than the flight deck of the HAL's (68 feet wide as opposed to 54). I know there is going to be only one deck handling system, but in reasonable sea states and with some hand-draulic power, you could reasonably manage to switch between the helo in the hangar and the one pushed into the flex deck. Tons of room on deck (so long as you don't try with the blades deployed   ) to do the switch.



It was tricky enough to do on the tanker with a mule. On anything narrower it's not doable. Don't forget the Cyclone is wider than the Seaking. Having worked the flight deck for 15 years I have a pretty good idea what can and can't be done on the back end. You are not swapping two helos on that deck without flying both of them off and swapping in the air.


----------



## Underway

AirDet said:
			
		

> It was tricky enough to do on the tanker with a mule. On anything narrower it's not doable. Don't forget the Cyclone is wider than the Seaking. Having worked the flight deck for 15 years I have a pretty good idea what can and can't be done on the back end. You are not swapping two helos on that deck without flying both of them off and swapping in the air.



Could you rotate them using a single deck handling system?  Say one is in the air for a few hours dipping, then the second one is launched and replaces number one on station.  Thus doubling your helo in the air time (by doubling your available helos). You could also have an ability to surge them if required with both tracking a sub as a team. Is that feasible?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Using a built flushly into deck bi-directional cable haul system through a rail? Can move flex deck containers as well.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Question for Chinook pilots is that deck on Type 26 really big enough or just barely good enough in pristine condition.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

AirDet said:
			
		

> It was tricky enough to do on the tanker with a mule. On anything narrower it's not doable. Don't forget the Cyclone is wider than the Seaking. Having worked the flight deck for 15 years I have a pretty good idea what can and can't be done on the back end. You are not swapping two helos on that deck without flying both of them off and swapping in the air.



I accept that you certainly know more about this than I do. And I never professed that we should do such swap as matter of daily operation - just that if need be, it could be done.

However, I remain convinced that we will all be surprised by the size of Type 26 ships (if they are what we get - or when we see the British ones). At 7600 tons, 492 feet long by 68 wide, they are close to the size of the old PRO AOR's [8400 tons (without fuel and cargo - ship only) and 564 feet long by 76 feet wide]. Moreover, considering the shape of the respective flight decks (kind of truncated triangle on the AOR and near rectangular on the Type 26), I believe we will find, in the end, that the Type 26 flight deck is actually larger than the PRO class one.


----------



## Baz

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I accept that you certainly know more about this than I do. And I never professed that we should do such swap as matter of daily operation - just that if need be, it could be done.
> 
> However, I remain convinced that we will all be surprised by the size of Type 26 ships (if they are what we get - or when we see the British ones). At 7600 tons, 492 feet long by 68 wide, they are close to the size of the old PRO AOR's [8400 tons (without fuel and cargo - ship only) and 564 feet long by 76 feet wide]. Moreover, considering the shape of the respective flight decks (kind of truncated triangle on the AOR and near rectangular on the Type 26), I believe we will find, in the end, that the Type 26 flight deck is actually larger than the PRO class one.



I would also add the necessity is sometimes the mother of invention; if we find that it is really useful to carry two helos when the mission bay is not otherwise occupied, there are people at the appropriate research establishments that could help solve that particular deck handling problem.

I would suggest that we need to take a slight step back at some point though; say 1 1/2 for each CSC, 3-4 on the tanker, 1/2 on each AOPS (all have been discussed here); not putting dets on low readiness ships, so now we are at 15-20 aircraft in 12 dets, which is above 12 Wing establishment.  So you better start thinking about how to buy extra platforms and find the remar to fly and maintain them.

Now, I'll admit my bias... instead of an extra Cyclone, put two Fire Scouts up there.  Needs less room  to store and move, and with two you could maintain 24 hour coverage unless one went u/s.  Some 50 pound head might even be able to figure out how to range the Cyclone far aft, bring the Fire Scout out beside it, and then bring the Cyclone back into the hangar without it even leaving the trap, launching the Fire Scout, recover the other, rinse and repeat...

Another question for the 50 pound heads at Northrup: how many times can you hot fuel a Fire Scout before it needs maintenance.  If once that gives you 24 hours before swapping, if more than that gets truly impressive.

See my other comments reference the tanker; Fire Scout with AESA plus AIS and whatever medium altitude sensors you can stick on there is, IMHO, the surface surveillance platform of choice right now.


----------



## Good2Golf

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Question for Chinook pilots is that deck on Type 26 really big enough or just barely good enough in pristine condition.



Chinook’s footprint is 12’ wide and 26’ long (centred 4’ aft of the hook).  Lots of space, so long as those bulwarks on the stern quarters aren’t too high.  Orientation of landing-on might be other than the nose-fwd most pictures show, sideways gives more clearance to the hangar.  Rear towards hangar is also an option and would make unloading/loading more direct.  A Chinook also has a negative-pitch detent, so it can press itself down a bit, but landing conditions would still have to comply with HOSTAC (or equivalent) rules. 

:2c:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## tabernac

AirDet said:
			
		

> It was tricky enough to do on the tanker with a mule. On anything narrower it's not doable. Don't forget the Cyclone is wider than the Seaking. Having worked the flight deck for 15 years I have a pretty good idea what can and can't be done on the back end. You are not swapping two helos on that deck without flying both of them off and swapping in the air.



+1
I've seen two Sea Kings traversed out onto the FD of an IRO as proof of concept for extended engine room fires. With the both the Cyclone and the T26 FD larger than HAL/IRO FDs, I still don't see a switcheroo being remotely possible. Might as well modify the superstructure and hanger to add a second hangar door, likely any other civilized dual helo flight deck.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Very good article on the upcoming choices the Australians are about to make in the next month or so.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/inquirer/the-fight-to-build-our-frigates/news-story/534bfeb867caa767edcc1ba3ebe3f2d9


----------



## Czech_pivo

And now there is this article out of the UK about the Type 26 not being ready for service until 2027.  That means that either we (or the Australia, if they choose the Type 26) become the guinea pig in shaking out the 'bugs' and very well should have a ship fully operational before the RN.
Because of this, its a bit hard not to see the complaints about allowing the Type 26 into the competition for 'proven' designs as holding validity. 

The beginning paragraph: 
Why will the Royal Navy not have its first Type 26 frigate operational until 2027?
Defence Procurement Minister, Guto Bebb stated in Parliament on 23rd April that the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted from the builders in the summer of 2025. Eighteen months of further trials and training should see her become operational in 2027. Here we ask why the navy must tolerate such a leisurely eight-year construction schedule.

http://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-will-the-royal-navy-not-have-its-first-type-26-frigate-operational-until-2027/


----------



## Good2Golf

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> ...HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted from the builders in the summer of 2025. Eighteen months of further trials and training should see her become operational in 2027. Here we ask why the navy must tolerate such a leisurely eight-year construction schedule...



Off the top of my head, I’d say so that proper testing leading to successful fielding could occur. 

You know, like Canada _*didn’t*_ do with the Phoenix pay system?

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Because of this, its a bit hard not to see the complaints about allowing the Type 26 into the competition for 'proven' designs as holding validity.



We've been over this before.  The competition was for a "mature design" not a proven one.  The radar requirements alone meant that no design would already be proven.  I wish the media would get off that position.  I suspect it was spread by the French/Italian consortium since day one in an attempt to eliminate/discredit their competition pre-emptively.  Most of the competition complaints have come from them.  Alion and Navinata don't seem to be that whingy about the process.  Probably because they think they can win with the current setup.


----------



## AirDet

I know it's nice to have a helo up 24/7 but it's not doable with the crew hour rules unless you're willing to carry 4 crews per helo. 

I get that the only reason a frigate or destroyer exist at all is to carry the helo... ;D but you can't fly them all the time.


----------



## AirDet

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, AirDet, I think you are fooling yourself by looking at the type 26 as if it is in the same size category as the Halifax's.
> 
> It is not: The type 26 is actually 30 percent bigger than the IRO's and about 34 percent bigger than the HAL's.



Yet it isn't as large as the tanker's FD and that was as small as you could safely go and still do a swap.

In the end there's no real need for more than one helo... even though they are the most important part of the ship. :nod:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

AirDet, I think you may have missed one of my posts between the one you quote and your post just before this one. I said in it:



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> However, I remain convinced that we will all be surprised by the size of Type 26 ships (if they are what we get - or when we see the British ones). At 7600 tons, 492 feet long by 68 wide, they are close to the size of the old PRO AOR's [8400 tons (without fuel and cargo - ship only) and 564 feet long by 76 feet wide]. Moreover, considering the shape of the respective flight decks (kind of truncated triangle on the AOR and near rectangular on the Type 26), I believe we will find, in the end, that the Type 26 flight deck is actually larger than the PRO class one.



But, for those who have had a chance to see or visit one of them, here's a good size reference for the Type 26: the Type 45 (Daring) class British destroyers are only 8 feet longer and 1 1/2 feet wider than a Type 26 is designed to be. Those who have seen one of them know that's as big a flight deck, if not bigger, than an AOR's FD.

In fact, assuming that both the model ship and the model Cyclone in the pictures that started this whole restart of the thread a few days ago are to scale, can someone say that there isn't enough room on that FD to park three Cyclones, blades and tails folded, side by side on there? And if you can, then, with only two, isn't it clear that you could do a swap?


----------



## AirDet

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> AirDet, I think you may have missed one of my posts between the one you quote and your post just before this one. I said in it:
> 
> But, for those who have had a chance to see or visit one of them, here's a good size reference for the Type 26: the Type 45 (Daring) class British destroyers are only 8 feet longer and 1 1/2 feet wider than a Type 26 is designed to be. Those who have seen one of them know that's as big a flight deck, if not bigger, than an AOR's FD.


I didn't miss your post. I just didn't have the actual data on size comparisons. I don't have a copy of SHOP (Shipboard Helo Operations Procedures} to reference. 


> In fact, assuming that both the model ship and the model Cyclone in the pictures that started this whole restart of the thread a few days ago are to scale, can someone say that there isn't enough room on that FD to park three Cyclones, blades and tails folded, side by side on there? And if you can, then, with only two, isn't it clear that you could do a swap?


Obviously you have never towed a helo... three helos on the tossing deck of an AOR. Maybe if you craned them into place but not with a mule. Don't forget that on the Type 26 you'll have a bear trap to maneuver around. There's a difference between what is mathematically possible and what is actually possible.

The reality is that until this ship is actually built we're just guessing. In the meantime I'll try to find out the length of the AOR's FD. I know it was 74ft wide and 88ft long rings a bell but I can't be sure.


----------



## AirDet

Oldgateboatdriver, as you can see I'm as passionate about the job we do at sea as any other sailor. I'm very excited about these new boats. I just believe we should be careful not to assign too much credit to their potential capabilities until we finalize their design.

The hardest thing older sailors like us will deal with is watching other people sail away in the ships we envisioned.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

AirDet said:
			
		

> Oldgateboatdriver, as you can see I'm as passionate about the job we do at sea as any other sailor. I'm very excited about these new boats. I just believe we should be careful not to assign too much credit to their potential capabilities until we finalize their design.
> 
> The hardest thing older sailors like us will deal with is watching other people sail away in the ships we envisioned.



I fully agree with you there, and about the fact that we are taking guesses here, even though educated ones.

And your measurements for the AOR's FD jives with my own recollection from my days on PRO: 88 feet rings a bell and the width is the actual hull's width, so 74 feet. But you may recall that it narrowed toward the "pointy" stern, and my recollection is that it was only 38 feet wide at the back. Maybe one of the other tanker wankers can chime in and confirm. But a Type 45 FD is 90 feet long by 69 feet wide, and rectangular - hence my estimate that it is bigger.

BTW, I had the chance to sail for three days onboard HMS ILLUSTRIOUS once, and I know that in Canada, as we rely on the bear trap for both landing and traversing, we don't do "free" moves, but on the small carriers, they had these air people (called handlers/ nicknamed air bosn's) who went around everywhere planes/helos were and, as soon as the airplane stopped moving anywhere for more than a few seconds, proceeded to tie them down with ratcheted and turnbuckles tie-downs.

Theoretically, couldn't those be used, if the deck was equipped with the necessary recessed eyepads?


----------



## AirDet

Well, we do that already. That's what the deck crew do. What you are describing is the same way we handle helos on the AOR. We jokingly call them deck monkey vice air boson. We use those "lashings" you describe on all ship types. Whenever the helo is not about to take off we lash them to the deck.


----------



## AirDet

All the Helo stuff aside, no matter which boat we finally I regret I'll never sail on them. All 3 left in the competition look sweet. The VLS and sensors alone will get us back into the big leagues... we that and some new tankers.

There are some serious improvements on the horizon for the RCN, lead by these CSCs.


----------



## Baz

AirDet said:
			
		

> Well, we do that already. That's what the deck crew do. What you are describing is the same way we handle helos on the AOR. We jokingly call them deck monkey vice air boson. We use those "lashings" you describe on all ship types. Whenever the helo is not about to take off we lash them to the deck.



Blue shirts:


----------



## AirDet

Those are the same lashings we use. The chocks are neat... they are adjustable. We use heavy rubber chocks.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Wonder if RCN will miss a boat that USN might catch (nice photos)--excerpts from lengthy piece:



> We spent 3 days on a top FFG(X) contender. Here’s what you need to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABOARD THE ITALIAN FREMM ALPINO, Atlantic Ocean – The Italian Navy’s anti-submarine warfare FREMM Alpino is in the United States on a tour of the East Coast.
> 
> The Fincantieri-built warship is a contender for the U.S. Navy’s next-generation Frigate, the FFG(X), and the Alpino is on this side of the Atlantic giving the service a look at what the hull can do.
> 
> The Alpino is one of 10 FREMM destined to make up a significant portion of the Italian Navy’s surface fleet – four ASW versions like Alpino and six general purpose FREMM that replaces the variable-depth sonar array with a rigid-hull inflatable boat.
> 
> Defense News spent three days on board Alpino. Here is everything you need to know about FREMM.
> 
> *Crucial Details*
> 
> Length: 167 meters (547 feet, just 20 feet shorter than a Ticonderoga-class cruiser)
> 
> Width: 16 meters (52 feet)
> 
> Displacement: 6,500 tons
> 
> Top speed: 27 knots
> 
> Range: 6,000 nautical miles. During normal operations – not zipping around at 25 knots – you can get about two percent fuel consumption per day.
> 
> Propulsion: A combined diesel and gas system system of four diesel generators providing power to two electric motors that turn the twin shafts for up to 15 knots. Above 15 knots there is a single LM2500 gas turbine forward of the combining gear. You need two generators to run the screws or just the LM2500. All the main components can be switched out without cutting a hole in the ship.
> 
> The ship also has an Auxiliary Propulsion Unit that can spin 360-degress, has a top speed of seven kts, and can be used to do some nifty maneuvers. Getting underway from Norfolk, the Alpino pulled away from the pier without tugs, which is a breeze with the APU.
> 
> Power capacity: Four 2,1-megawatt diesel generators
> 
> Crew size: 167, but it can hold accommodate up to 200.
> 
> *Warfighting*
> 
> Missions: Primary mission is anti-submarine warfare. Capable of point-defense anti-air warfare, electronic warfare, anti-surface warfare and special operation insertion.
> 
> Design: The ship is largely enclosed with plenty of angles to reduce the radar cross-section...
> 
> *Damage Control*
> 
> The damage control system is highly sophisticated...
> 
> *Berthings and Staterooms*
> 
> Plush.
> 
> The crew lives in staterooms, the largest of which are two six-person staterooms for (of course) the Marines and air detachment. Most are four-person staterooms. One-person staterooms are for the embarked admiral, the captain, the executive officer, and the department heads. The rest of the officers are in two and four-person staterooms. The beds are the same throughout the ship. In the two-person staterooms the racks the fold out from the wall, with the bottom rack folding out into a couch. In the four-person staterooms the racks are fixed. Each stateroom has an identical private bathroom, officer and enlisted.
> 
> The Alpino comes equipped with no fewer than five espresso machines, but sailors hoping the Navy will buy Italian espresso machines shouldn’t hold their breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> *Takeaways*
> 
> The ship is pretty darn cool: It’s built to fight and has plenty of power to go around. An _AEGIS version of the FREMM being pitched by Fincantieri has an even greater power capacity_ [emphasis added--probably could do missile defence, which capability RCN CSC should have]...
> 
> All told, this is a survivable, purpose-built ship and its plainly evident after three days on board why the Navy put it in the final five for its FFG(X) program.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/05/30/we-spent-3-days-on-a-top-ffgx-contender-heres-what-you-need-to-know/


 
Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

Interesting article re the UK Type 26.


http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1574437-u.k.-willing-to-share-shipbuilding-info-with-canada


----------



## MarkOttawa

Note BAE Systems Type 26 not in final five for USN FFG(X) new frigates competition--Navantia design only one also in RCN CSC fight: 
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/us-navy-frigate-program-moves-forward-with-five-designs-shortlisted/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## jmt18325

Does our program even have the same requirements as theirs?  The reality is the 3 finalist designs all seem to bring significant capability to the table for Canada.


----------



## MarkOttawa

BAE Systems Type 26 was put forward for USN's FFG(X) but looks like didn't make cut for final five:



> BAE joins race for new US frigate with its Type 26 vessel
> 
> BAE Systems is officially gunning for the U.S. Navy’s new frigate program with its new Type 26 frigate now in production in the U.K.
> 
> Company officials confirmed Thursday it had responded to the U.S. Navy’s request for information and were in talks with unspecified companies in the states about how it would build the ship for the FFG(X) program, according to a BAE official who spoke on background to discuss early developments.
> 
> “In terms of the technical requirements, its a good fit. ... We responded to the RFI and we’re confident its a pretty good fit,” the official said.
> 
> The Type 26, designed primarily as an anti-submarine ship, is competing hard for both the Canadian and Australian frigate programs. Anti-submarine warfare is a key requirement for FFG(X), which BAE thinks gives its frigate an edge. The design also incorporates a large mission bay that can be used as flex space for mission modules...
> https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2017/09/14/bae-is-in-the-race-for-the-the-us-ffgx-with-its-type-26-frigate/



In RAN competition Type 26 up against Fincantieri FREMM and a Navantia (Spain) design:https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/australian-sea-5000-competition-climax-can-the-type-26-frigate-achieve-export-success/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Note BAE Systems Type 26 not in final five for USN FFG(X) new frigates competition--Navantia design only one also in RCN CSC fight


The Type 26 is out, because it is too expensive for the Americans.  The Americans can pay a bit more than the price of a Type 26 and buy an _Arleigh Burke_ Flight III.  The Americans want a frigate.  The Type 26 is more like a light destroyer than a frigate like an _Oliver Hazard Perry_.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Based on the article below, they want a low end frigate, something I would think the FREMM is not:

https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/16035/navys-rationale-for-swatting-down-perry-class-frigate-reactivation-doesnt-float%3fsource=dam


----------



## Uzlu

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Based on the article below, they want a low end frigate, something I would think the FREMM is not


They are definitely more interested in a low-end frigate rather than a high-end frigate that can come close to a destroyer.





> While the Type 26 incorporates or can adapt to virtually all the capabilities outlined in July’s RFI, including 36 vertical launching system cells and Mark 41 VLS launchers, the ship might be too rich for the Navy’s blood, according to Bryan Clark, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and a former aid to former Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jon Greenert.
> 
> “I think they‘re leaning to something with a little less capability that will be a bit more economical,” Clark said.
> 
> The British Royal Navy recently inked a deal for the first three Type 26 frigates worth £3.7 billion (U.S. $4.9 billion). That cost averages to just a little less than an Arleigh Burke-class destroyer, though that’s not a perfect metric because the costs would be different for a U.S. version.
> 
> Still, the Navy isn’t looking to buy a ship that compete’s [sic] for missions with the destroyer, said Rear Adm. Ron Boxall in an exclusive interview with Defense News in July.
> 
> “We don’t want the ship to be so big that it competes with the destroyer. We want this to be part of the high-low mix,” Boxall said. “So ensuring we get those capabilities at the best value is important.”


https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/dsei/2017/09/14/bae-is-in-the-race-for-the-the-us-ffgx-with-its-type-26-frigate/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile in Canadian never never land: "To the right, slow march!":



> New acquisition procedure further delays CSC decision
> 
> A new naval acquisition procedure meant to ensure more complete bidder proposals will delay a planned decision on the Royal Canadian Navy’s (RCN) future warship for another three months, the Canadian government has said.
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada (PSPC) originally planned on announcing a winning bid for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) programme in the second quarter of 2018, but the PSPC now expects this decision to be made later in the year.
> 
> The delay is a result of complications stemming from an amendment to the request for proposals (RFP) that requires greater feedback between potential bidders and the government, and adds a new acquisition wrinkle the PSPC could use for other future programmes.
> http://www.janes.com/article/80471/new-acquisition-procedure-further-delays-csc-decision



Sigh.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Based on the article below, they want a low end frigate, something I would think the FREMM is not:
> 
> https://www.google.ca/amp/amp.timeinc.net/thedrive/the-war-zone/16035/navys-rationale-for-swatting-down-perry-class-frigate-reactivation-doesnt-float%3fsource=dam



FREMM is really, ideally a frigate either ASW or GP.  You can make it higher end if you like but there is a reason the Italians and French use the Orizzonte and Horizon classes for their AAW ships.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Agreed, but FREMM still appears to be more ship than they want. This is not, as far as I can tell, displacing the LCS program (yet). I have to wonder if the 330's as  currently updated  would fit the bill, or would it still be too much ship.


----------



## Underway

It's a US program.  If it doesn't develop technology and mission creep I'll be completely shocked (a la Pentagon Wars).  There will be a strong push from some sectors of the gov't and the USN to make it fancy and expensive instead of the dirty and cheap that they want.  I wouldn't be surprised of an LCS repeat just on a larger hull.  The US just can't help themselves.


----------



## FSTO

A former USN Cdr weighs in on the FREMM.

http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/05/three-days-of-fremm.html
Regulars here know I've been on Team-FREMM for years and have been as happy as a bee to see it on our Top-5 list for FFG-(X) replacement.

Our friend David Larter at DefenseNews give you a great overview of the contender. Read the whole thing, but here are the juicy bits;
The Fincantieri-built warship is a contender for the U.S. Navy’s next-generation frigate, the FFG(X), and the Alpino is on this side of the Atlantic giving the service a look at what the hull can do.

The Alpino is one of 10 FREMM destined to make up a significant portion of the Italian Navy’s surface fleet – four ASW versions like Alpino and six general purpose FREMM that replaces the variable-depth sonar array with a rigid-hull inflatable boat.

Defense News spent three days on board Alpino. Here is everything you need to know about FREMM.

Crucial Details

Length: 167 meters (547 feet, just 20 feet shorter than a Ticonderoga-class cruiser)

Width: 16 meters (52 feet)

Displacement: 6,500 tons

Top speed: 27 knots

Range: 6,000 nautical miles. During normal operations – not zipping around at 25 knots – you can get about two percent fuel consumption per day.

Propulsion: A combined diesel and gas system system of four diesel generators providing power to two electric motors that turn the twin shafts for up to 15 knots. Above 15 knots there is a single LM2500 gas turbine forward of the combining gear. You need two generators to run the screws or just the LM2500. All the main components can be switched out without cutting a hole in the ship.

The ship also has an Auxiliary Propulsion Unit that can spin 360-degress, has a top speed of seven kts, and can be used to do some nifty maneuvers. Getting underway from Norfolk, the Alpino pulled away from the pier without tugs, which is a breeze with the APU.

Power capacity: Four 2,1-megawatt diesel generators

Crew size: 167, but it can hold accommodate up to 200.

Warfighting

Missions: Primary mission is anti-submarine warfare. Capable of point-defense anti-air warfare, electronic warfare, anti-surface warfare and special operation insertion.

Design: The ship is largely enclosed with plenty of angles to reduce the radar cross-section.

Armaments: Two Oto-Breda 76mm Guns; 16-cell vertical launch; two three-tube torpedo launchers positioned both port and starboard; two Oto-Breda 25mm machine guns; two NH-90 helicopters.

Sensors: Primary sensors are the THALES variable-depth sonar, known as the CAPTAS-4, a towed array sonar and a hull-mounted sonar. The VDS deploys from a pneumatically controlled door and ramp system that in the general purpose FREMM is used for a 13-meter RHIB for special operations forces.

The ship is also equipped with an air search radar, surface search radar, an electronic warfare system, and commercial radars. The helo is strapped with FLIR, a surface-search radar, a dipping sonar, and Link 11.

Payloads: MU90 Torpedoes; Aster surface-to-air missiles; Teseo surface-to-surface missile; Milas anti-ship missile and anti-submarine missile, and Marte missile on the helo.
Of note, you can also upgun, converting the forward 76mm to a 5" mount. 

The following are below the fold, but one could argue the most important things the ship brings; 
The damage control system is highly sophisticated.

The ship is equipped with an incredible camera system that exists almost everywhere except the living spaces and spaces like central control that are constantly manned. If fire or flooding is detected in any space, a live video feed will automatically pull up on the screen of the damage control system monitors.

Fire boundaries on the main deck can be set automatically from central control with the flip of a switch, which releases the magnetized door stops, and the damage control officer can see when anyone breaks fire boundaries (he will let you know).

The primary fire system is highly pressurized water sprinkler system that sprays atomized demineralized water that decouples the fire from its fuel source. About a gallon of water is sufficient to handle most spaces, including main-space fires and the demineralized water protects electronics.
As bridge watchkeeping is in the news;
The bridge is state-of-the-art but in a way that makes your job easier, not in the way that saves people by lumping too many functions in one watchstander. 
...
The visuals on the bridge are fantastic, with 180-degrees plus visible without stepping outside on the bridge wings.
Living conditions? Of course;
The crew lives in staterooms, the largest of which are two six-person staterooms for (of course) the Marines and air detachment. Most are four-person staterooms. One-person staterooms are for the embarked admiral, the captain, the executive officer, and the department heads. The rest of the officers are in two and four-person staterooms. The beds are the same throughout the ship. In the two-person staterooms the racks the fold out from the wall, with the bottom rack folding out into a couch. In the four-person staterooms the racks are fixed. Each stateroom has an identical private bathroom, officer and enlisted.
Nothing is perfect - but it is workable;
There are a couple of things on this version of the FREMM that would make the U.S. Navy uncomfortable in terms of design.

FREMM has only a single LM2500 and the redundancy-obsessed NAVSEA would likely want two. The AEGIS version of the FREMM being pitched by Finacantieri has two independent propulsion systems, one for each shaft, instead of two motors and one LM2500.
Here is the best thing about the FREMM; it is underway. The kinks are worked out. It does not have the original sins of either LCS class. It's not a mini-Burke. 

A side issue, but a real one, is that we are asking our allies to adopt the F-35. We should return the favor and let them know that, yes, we are mature enough to buy someone else's design if it is this good.

Time to cut steel.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Meanwhile in Canadian never never land: "To the right, slow march!":
> 
> Sigh.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



If this is correct, then the 18 month gap that’s been reported when the AOPS is supposedly set to be completed and the CSC starts will potentially grow to be 21-24 months.....That’s enough time to build out numbers 7 & 8 on the AOPS or don’t build more than the 5 or 6 originally agreed upon and  layoff the workers for two years.....


----------



## Cloud Cover

FSTO said:
			
		

> A former USN Cdr weighs in on the FREMM.
> 
> http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2018/05/three-days-of-fremm.html
> Regulars here know I've been on Team-FREMM for years and have been as happy as a bee to see it on our Top-5 list for FFG-(X) replacement.
> 
> Our friend David Larter at DefenseNews give you a great overview of the contender. Read the whole thing, but here are the juicy bits;
> The Fincantieri-built warship is a contender for the U.S. Navy’s next-generation frigate, the FFG(X), and the Alpino is on this side of the Atlantic giving the service a look at what the hull can do.
> 
> The Alpino is one of 10 FREMM destined to make up a significant portion of the Italian Navy’s surface fleet – four ASW versions like Alpino and six general purpose FREMM that replaces the variable-depth sonar array with a rigid-hull inflatable boat.
> 
> Defense News spent three days on board Alpino. Here is everything you need to know about FREMM.
> 
> Crucial Details
> 
> Length: 167 meters (547 feet, just 20 feet shorter than a Ticonderoga-class cruiser)
> 
> Width: 16 meters (52 feet)
> 
> Displacement: 6,500 tons
> 
> Top speed: 27 knots
> 
> Range: 6,000 nautical miles. During normal operations – not zipping around at 25 knots – you can get about two percent fuel consumption per day.
> 
> Propulsion: A combined diesel and gas system system of four diesel generators providing power to two electric motors that turn the twin shafts for up to 15 knots. Above 15 knots there is a single LM2500 gas turbine forward of the combining gear. You need two generators to run the screws or just the LM2500. All the main components can be switched out without cutting a hole in the ship.
> 
> The ship also has an Auxiliary Propulsion Unit that can spin 360-degress, has a top speed of seven kts, and can be used to do some nifty maneuvers. Getting underway from Norfolk, the Alpino pulled away from the pier without tugs, which is a breeze with the APU.
> 
> Power capacity: Four 2,1-megawatt diesel generators
> 
> Crew size: 167, but it can hold accommodate up to 200.
> 
> Warfighting
> 
> Missions: Primary mission is anti-submarine warfare. Capable of point-defense anti-air warfare, electronic warfare, anti-surface warfare and special operation insertion.
> 
> Design: The ship is largely enclosed with plenty of angles to reduce the radar cross-section.
> 
> Armaments: Two Oto-Breda 76mm Guns; 16-cell vertical launch; two three-tube torpedo launchers positioned both port and starboard; two Oto-Breda 25mm machine guns; two NH-90 helicopters.
> 
> Sensors: Primary sensors are the THALES variable-depth sonar, known as the CAPTAS-4, a towed array sonar and a hull-mounted sonar. The VDS deploys from a pneumatically controlled door and ramp system that in the general purpose FREMM is used for a 13-meter RHIB for special operations forces.
> 
> The ship is also equipped with an air search radar, surface search radar, an electronic warfare system, and commercial radars. The helo is strapped with FLIR, a surface-search radar, a dipping sonar, and Link 11.
> 
> Payloads: MU90 Torpedoes; Aster surface-to-air missiles; Teseo surface-to-surface missile; Milas anti-ship missile and anti-submarine missile, and Marte missile on the helo.
> Of note, you can also upgun, converting the forward 76mm to a 5" mount.
> 
> The following are below the fold, but one could argue the most important things the ship brings;
> The damage control system is highly sophisticated.
> 
> The ship is equipped with an incredible camera system that exists almost everywhere except the living spaces and spaces like central control that are constantly manned. If fire or flooding is detected in any space, a live video feed will automatically pull up on the screen of the damage control system monitors.
> 
> Fire boundaries on the main deck can be set automatically from central control with the flip of a switch, which releases the magnetized door stops, and the damage control officer can see when anyone breaks fire boundaries (he will let you know).
> 
> The primary fire system is highly pressurized water sprinkler system that sprays atomized demineralized water that decouples the fire from its fuel source. About a gallon of water is sufficient to handle most spaces, including main-space fires and the demineralized water protects electronics.
> As bridge watchkeeping is in the news;
> The bridge is state-of-the-art but in a way that makes your job easier, not in the way that saves people by lumping too many functions in one watchstander.
> ...
> The visuals on the bridge are fantastic, with 180-degrees plus visible without stepping outside on the bridge wings.
> Living conditions? Of course;
> The crew lives in staterooms, the largest of which are two six-person staterooms for (of course) the Marines and air detachment. Most are four-person staterooms. One-person staterooms are for the embarked admiral, the captain, the executive officer, and the department heads. The rest of the officers are in two and four-person staterooms. The beds are the same throughout the ship. In the two-person staterooms the racks the fold out from the wall, with the bottom rack folding out into a couch. In the four-person staterooms the racks are fixed. Each stateroom has an identical private bathroom, officer and enlisted.
> Nothing is perfect - but it is workable;
> There are a couple of things on this version of the FREMM that would make the U.S. Navy uncomfortable in terms of design.
> 
> FREMM has only a single LM2500 and the redundancy-obsessed NAVSEA would likely want two. The AEGIS version of the FREMM being pitched by Finacantieri has two independent propulsion systems, one for each shaft, instead of two motors and one LM2500.
> Here is the best thing about the FREMM; it is underway. The kinks are worked out. It does not have the original sins of either LCS class. It's not a mini-Burke.
> 
> A side issue, but a real one, is that we are asking our allies to adopt the F-35. We should return the favor and let them know that, yes, we are mature enough to buy someone else's design if it is this good.
> 
> Time to cut steel.



The big take away for me is that the FFG(X) must be Aegis.  The Italians are proposing a modified FREMM to mee that requirement.
Interestingly, depend on who you talk to there, there will be 40-52 LCS regardless if this ship is built. None of which are Aegis.  The USN is moving away from a single combat system management platform and tailoring platforms to missions. These guys are not fooling around anymore. 

And contrary to the article that I posted above, the next article suggests that we will not realistically see an AEGIS equipped frigate having its time wasted floating around the carribean or the coasts of South America looking for drug smugglers.

They are looking for a something with a "presence" to make a statement that is just shy of a land attack capable Arleigh Burje Flight III - heavier, general duty, show the flag, fuck off or die frigate that is not a destroyer (but not a type 26, which really could be s heavy destroyer if properly equipped and armed.) And I would note with emphasis the Electronic Warfare/Cyber Warfare requirement.
And, two helicopters! Very useful warship.
Somebody in USN shop planning has their shit together.


----------



## Lumber

Stop. You had me at "stateroom".

Although I agree, they need a more redundant propulsion system.

Also, why is it that 30,000 ton battleships went 30+ knots in 1942 but no one is making anything that goes more than 27 knots these days?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Sure what ever that means.  3 queen sized bunks for 6 marines? A bureau with a large vanity mirror and dressing table?


----------



## Uzlu

Lumber said:
			
		

> Also, why is it that 30,000 ton battleships went 30+ knots in 1942 but no one is making anything that goes more than 27 knots these days?


If I am not mistaken, the following classes of frigates, destroyers, and aircraft carriers are being built, and all are better than 27 knots.

_Hobart_
Type 052D destroyer
Type 055 destroyer
Project 17A frigate
_Vikrant_
_Visakhapatnam_
FREMM
Pattugliatori Polivalenti d'Altura
_Admiral Gorshkov_ 
_Admiral Grigorovich_
_Arleigh Burke_
_Gerald R. Ford_


----------



## RDBZ

Navanita Australia's website shows the apparent evolution in the design of its Aus Sea 5000 contender, which will likely be reflected in its bid for the CSC.

https://navantia.com.au/capabilities/f-5000/

The later, top most images, indicate that the structure behind the bridge will now remain the same as the Hobarts', with only the mast altered to accommodate the CEAFAR, CEAFAR2-L, SEAMOUNT arrays.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:
			
		

> Stop. You had me at "stateroom".
> 
> Although I agree, they need a more redundant propulsion system.
> 
> Also, why is it that 30,000 ton battleships went 30+ knots in 1942 but no one is making anything that goes more than 27 knots these days?



Short answer:  - design tradeoffs (higher speeds at higher seastates in current ships, better seakeeping, better maneuverability at higher speeds) 
- the longer a ship is the higher its theoretical top speed.  Therefore bigger ships can go faster then smaller ships at the top end (in a displacement hull form).  Hence why US Carriers can outrun their escorts.  Higher top speed and the power to get there.


----------



## Uzlu

Scale model of Alion design proposal for Canadian Surface Combatant at CANSEC 2018.  

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/june-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6264-ge-pitching-lm2500-gas-turbine-for-canada-s-surface-combatant-program.html


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway said:
			
		

> Short answer:  - design tradeoffs (higher speeds at higher seastates in current ships, better seakeeping, better maneuverability at higher speeds)
> - the longer a ship is the higher its theoretical top speed.  Therefore bigger ships can go faster then smaller ships at the top end (in a displacement hull form).  Hence why US Carriers can outrun their escorts.  Higher top speed and the power to get there.



I believe that to be incorrect, Underway.

The length of a ship has no bearing on top speed for displacement hull. What does is the beam-to-length ratio. The smaller the ratio (where 1 to 10 is a smaller ration than 1 to 5, for instance), the faster a ship will be for a given power level, so long as you have an equally efficient hull form (obviously a small ratio with a blunt, square bow won't help you go fast).

But that is for a given amount of propulsion force, and for vessels of similar weight. All of these play in the picture. 

Compare the old steamers with the IROs for instance: The Sallyrands achieved 28 Kts with a 1 to 8.7 ratio and 30,000 HP to push them along (I'll use shaft HP for all my examples). At 60 feet longer, by your logic, the IROs should have been faster. In fact they were marginally so with an extra 1.5 Kts. But they did so with an equivalent ratio of 1 to 8.5, but required an extra 20,000 HP to do so (50,000 HP).

The Arleigh Burke's can actually keep up with the US carriers, BTW, with top speeds above 32 Kts. That would seem to follow your logic, since they are 85 feet longer than the IROs. However, they need twice the power of the IROs to achieve it, at 105,000 HP. They have a beam-to-length ration of 1.78.

This last ratio is actually the same as that of a US carrier. But a US carrier needs 260,000 HP to achieve that speed. That amount of power (which, incidentally, only  a steam turbine can give you, sorry GT's   ) is the only thing that give these warships their speed.

A useful comparison is a US carrier with an Maersk company EEE class: The Emma Maersk has a ratio of 1 to 7. A little greater than a carrier, but  of comparable overall size with a Nimitz class. The E.M. achieves 25 Kts on 110,000 HP. You can see that the Nimitz class needs 150,000 extra HP just to achieve the last 7 Kts of her speed. This means that the Nimitz needs its last 60% of power to achieve her last 23% of speed. 

This is normal, as speed increases, the amount of power required to go faster through the water grows exponentially. A good example is our own MCDV's: they can achieve 14 Kts with the first three DG's running, but running the fourth DG (for a 25% increase of power) only gives you an extra 1.5 Kts.



			
				Uzlu said:
			
		

> Scale model of Alion design proposal for Canadian Surface Combatant at CANSEC 2018.
> 
> https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/june-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6264-ge-pitching-lm2500-gas-turbine-for-canada-s-surface-combatant-program.html



Nice touch: Combining the frigates "300" series number with the old IRO's "80" numbering.  ;D

However, please tell me they shot the designer. Why on earth would we, in Canada, with what we know about ASW and how rough our waters can be, want to have a godda@n bow mounted sonar.  :facepalm:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

A small thought just occurred to me while looking again at that Alion proposed design at CANSEC 2018: Don't they know we stopped using green for our flight decks colour a long while ago.  ???   Good research, guys! ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> A small thought just occurred to me while looking again at that Alion proposed design at CANSEC 2018: Don't they know we stopped using green for our flight decks colour a long while ago.  ???   Good research, guys! ;D




Good story there. About a decade ago, the Navy phoned 12 Wing and asked: why are the flight decks green? They could not source that particular colour paint anymore and wanted to know what to do about it.

We started looking through old publications. Nothing. 

We started phoning retired naval air folks. Nobody could remember why.

After a month or so, we were forced to admit that, as far as we could determine, HMCS Bonaventure was delivered with that colour flight deck. Since then, it was just assumed by everyone that that was the colour one used for flight deck (even though, no one else but Canada did it that way).

We came to the conclusion that switching to grey would not be the end of the world and the Brits played a massive, half century long joke on us.


----------



## FSTO

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Good story there. About a decade ago, the Navy phoned 12 Wing and asked: why are the flight decks green? They could not source that particular colour paint anymore and wanted to know what to do about it.
> 
> We started looking through old publications. Nothing.
> 
> We started phoning retired naval air folks. Nobody could remember why.
> 
> After a month or so, we were forced to admit that, as far as we could determine, HMCS Bonaventure was delivered with that colour flight deck. Since then, it was just assumed by everyone that that was the colour one used for flight deck (even though, no one else but Canada did it that way).
> 
> We came to the conclusion that switching to grey would not be the end of the world and the Brits played a massive, half century long joke on us.


 :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :facepalm: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Young sub walks up to grizzled Chief and says "Why do.....?
Chief holds up hand and says "Cause its always been that way sub; you may carry on sir!"


----------



## Kirkhill

Probably not the most valid reference but.....

If I remember correctly, having built a fair number of AirFix plastic models of British Carriers as a kid,  all the RNs WW2 carriers had green decks with yellow markings.   So it is likely that you got HMS Powerful (HMCS Bonaventure) from Harland and Wolff just the way the RN specified her.







Here's Centaur and you can see a clear colour difference between the hull and the flight deck.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I believe that to be incorrect, Underway.
> 
> The length of a ship has no bearing on top speed for displacement hull. What does is the beam-to-length ratio. The smaller the ratio (where 1 to 10 is a smaller ration than 1 to 5, for instance), the faster a ship will be for a given power level, so long as you have an equally efficient hull form (obviously a small ratio with a blunt, square bow won't help you go fast).
> 
> But that is for a given amount of propulsion force, and for vessels of similar weight. All of these play in the picture.
> 
> Compare the old steamers with the IROs for instance: The Sallyrands achieved 28 Kts with a 1 to 8.7 ratio and 30,000 HP to push them along (I'll use shaft HP for all my examples). At 60 feet longer, by your logic, the IROs should have been faster. In fact they were marginally so with an extra 1.5 Kts. But they did so with an equivalent ratio of 1 to 8.5, but required an extra 20,000 HP to do so (50,000 HP).
> 
> The Arleigh Burke's can actually keep up with the US carriers, BTW, with top speeds above 32 Kts. That would seem to follow your logic, since they are 85 feet longer than the IROs. However, they need twice the power of the IROs to achieve it, at 105,000 HP. They have a beam-to-length ration of 1.78.
> 
> This last ratio is actually the same as that of a US carrier. But a US carrier needs 260,000 HP to achieve that speed. That amount of power (which, incidentally, only  a steam turbine can give you, sorry GT's   ) is the only thing that give these warships their speed.
> 
> A useful comparison is a US carrier with an Maersk company EEE class: The Emma Maersk has a ratio of 1 to 7. A little greater than a carrier, but  of comparable overall size with a Nimitz class. The E.M. achieves 25 Kts on 110,000 HP. You can see that the Nimitz class needs 150,000 extra HP just to achieve the last 7 Kts of her speed. This means that the Nimitz needs its last 60% of power to achieve her last 23% of speed.
> 
> This is normal, as speed increases, the amount of power required to go faster through the water grows exponentially. A good example is our own MCDV's: they can achieve 14 Kts with the first three DG's running, but running the fourth DG (for a 25% increase of power) only gives you an extra 1.5 Kts.



In my defence I did say short answer to not get into a massive power curve, bow design engineering discussion.  But yes the hull length is more critical to a ships speed than most people realize.  Design hull speed is calculated by the equation 1.34*sqrt(length of hull at waterline in feet).  It's fairly accurate for displacement ships.  Bunch of theory goes into this but essentially it's where the power curve of cost vs pushing through the bow wake is impossible as the power required to push through is exponentially vertical. Now of course more power will allow you to actually reach this hull speed (cost vs benifit tradeoff), and most ships don't have enough power to do this without planing or going semi-displacement. And of course bow design is important in this as well as it can significantly help with the power curve.

A good short article here for how naval ships can be designed to reach their maximum hull speeds.
Ref:  http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2007/ph210/shank2/

As for US Carriers, they can, when going their max design hull speed outrun their escorts.  They won't out accelerate them but their max speed is higher.  

 :2c:



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Nice touch: Combining the frigates "300" series number with the old IRO's "80" numbering.  ;D
> 
> However, please tell me they shot the designer. Why on earth would we, in Canada, with what we know about ASW and how rough our waters can be, want to have a godda@n bow mounted sonar.  :facepalm:



Towed arrays of various sorts are really quite good and don't come out of the water in heavy seas.   :nod:


----------



## jollyjacktar

I remember talking with a retired sailor who sailed on the carrier USS Eisenhower.  He said they had her up to 55 knots in trials.


----------



## Uzlu

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I remember talking with a retired sailor who sailed on the carrier USS Eisenhower.  He said they had her up to 55 knots in trials.


According to http://www.navweaps.com/index_tech/tech-028.php, the US Navy publicly released the speeds for three _Nimitz_-class aircraft carriers.

_Nimitz_: 31.5 knots
_Theodore Roosevelt_: 31.3 knots
_Harry S. Truman_: 30.9 knots.


----------



## MarkOttawa

jollyjacktar: Perhaps talking in KPH? .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Or just pulling his leg.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe wind over the deck


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> As for US Carriers, they can, when going their max design hull speed outrun their escorts.  They won't out accelerate them but their max speed is higher.



When I was at the Bi-National Planning Group in CSprings the US Co-Director was Capt Kendall Card; his last posting was CO of USS Abraham Lincoln during the Tsunami relief (and also the George Bush "Mission Accomplished" fly on, but that's another story).

He gave us a briefing on the Tsunami operations, which was interesting not the least from the fact his background was a 60 pilot, and he actually flew some of the missions.  One of the items I remember from the brief was that in order to get on-sta as quickly as feasible they outpaced their escorts, which is a relatively big deal in that area of the world.  They also disembarked most of (the entire?) fixed wing complement so they could concentrate on helos.

It was interesting to hear the capabilities that a Carrier with a helo heavy complement and a large flat deck amphib brought to the op... even some of the stuff about how they used small decks to support helo ops was obvious when they said it, but maybe not so much so if he you had to think of it yourself.


----------



## jollyjacktar

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Or just pulling his leg.



Possibly, possibly.  Buggered if l know how fast she was with all boilers lit and the pedal to the metal ( in ideal conditions)



			
				MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> jollyjacktar: Perhaps talking in KPH? .
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



 :dunno:  maybe that was downhill, in neutral.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Any influence on CSC decision? Build-in-Oz cost seems roughly comparable to build-in-Canada. Note AEGIS radar at end with missile defence capability:



> Australia tipped to buy British naval frigates in $35 billion deal with old partner
> 
> Britain is strongly tipped to win the hard-fought contest to design and build Australia’s new $35 billion fleet of naval frigates in a move that would firm up the partnership with a key ally at a time of international political uncertainty.
> 
> Sources in Canberra and defence industry circles said it was all but certain that Britain’s BAE Systems would be chosen as the international partner to design and help build what will form the backbone of the Royal
> Australian Navy’s surface fleet for the coming decades.
> 
> The national security committee of cabinet is expected to discuss the decision soon, with an announcement possible by the end of next week.
> 
> The _British firm has been in a race against Italy’s Fincantieri and Spain’s Navantia for the contract to provide a design and help Australia build nine new frigates, starting in 2020_ [emphasis added, significantly earlier than CSCs, eh?]. BAE has previously said the project will create more than 5000 jobs.
> 
> Defence has assessed the three bids and is understood to have made a recommendation on which offering would give the navy the best capability for key missions such as hunting enemy submarines...
> 
> BAE’s Global Combat Ship is regarded as the most modern design and the best suited to anti-submarine warfare. However _because it remains a design on paper and has not yet been built, it also potentially poses a greater risk of delays and blowouts_ [emphasis added].
> 
> BAE has argued that since it is building the first few ships for the British navy, any problems will be ironed out there.
> 
> The construction will take place in Adelaide. Defence Industry Minister Christopher Pyne has spruiked the project as central to creating a long-term naval shipbuilding industry in Australia.
> 
> They will be equipped with a US-made Aegis combat system meshed with locally made SAAB Australia technology to integrate Aegis with the radar system. That will give it strong capabilities to target planes and even missiles.
> https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/australia-tipped-to-buy-british-naval-frigates-in-35-billion-deal-with-old-partner-20180619-p4zmea.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Any influence on CSC decision? Build-in-Oz cost seems roughly comparable to build-in-Canada. Note AEGIS radar at end with missile defence capability:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Aegis isn't a radar, it's a combat management system, which doesn't give it strong capability to defend against missiles any more than any other combat management system out there.  It's the sensors and the weapons that give it missile defence capability combined with the CMS.  They are a team.

The Oz radars will not be the SPY-1 system on the frigates as they SPY-1 is already on the Hobart Class.


----------



## RDBZ

SPY-1 is now a legacy system, with the US Navy moving to SPY-6 on flight 3 ABs and the RAN to the CEAFAR + CEAFAR2-L combination.


----------



## oskarm

Hello,

I have digged last year posts in this topic, but I have not find any technical requirements for SSC. Were there published any unclassified requirements?

In topic of moving helicopters on the deck, US on LCS and NZ on Canterbury uses electrical tugs like this: https://www.mototok.com/blog/the-perfect-helicopter-tug
Does any one know how it works in practice at higher sea states? Is it suitable for North Atlantic for a frigate?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some clarification of misunderstandings that i have red in this topic.

1) AEGIS with SPY-1 and SPG-62 can engage much more targets simultaneously then 3-6. It would be true if SM-2 and ESSM could use only Home All the Way metod of targeting. But this missiles can use 1-way or 2-way up-linking (depending on radar system and version of the missiles). Up-linking is done by SPY-1. Ilumination from SPG-62 is needed only for 3-4 seconds before missile hit its target. Real number of targets is cassified, but estimations are 18-32 (probably it depends on version of AEGIS ane SPY-1).

2) Today medium or high speed diesels can accelerate as rapidly as turbines. Eg. Iver Huitfeld can go from idille to full torque within 15 seconds (both engines and variable pitch propellers). I dont know how healthy it is for durability but other engins monofacturers clame the same.
In my oppinion reason that OMT did not placed its offer could be:
- noisy CODAD that makes passive sonar useless for subs detecting (Ultra Electronic's towed sonar should be one of the best in passive detection in the world).
- other requirments like higher shock resistant and lots of other minior requirments that would drive to virtualy new design. If Canada can afford pay 2-2,5 more per ship and the real problem is crewing the ships, then why not.


----------



## Uzlu

oskarm said:
			
		

> other requirments like higher shock resistant and lots of other minior requirments that would drive to virtualy new design.


The Royal Canadian Navy appears to be asking for the moon.  I would not be surprised if the final design chosen is a lot closer to a clean-sheet-of-paper design than a slightly modified off-the-shelf design.


----------



## Dale Denton

Whats the difference between the Australian and Canadian bids as well as the Glasgow build? Renderings look different too.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Federal officials felt 'pressured' to direct frigate repair work to Halifax: documents

Irving warned of 'massive layoffs' if government didn't address gap between shipbuilding projects

Federal officials overseeing the country's shipbuilding program warned the Liberal government that they were being leaned on to steer up to $1.2 billion worth of repair and upgrade work on naval frigates toward the Irving-owned Halifax Shipyard, internal documents reveal.

Marie LeMay, deputy minister of Public Services and Procurement Canada, used remarkably blunt language to draw the attention of her minister at the time, Judy Foote, to backroom discussions related to an impending construction gap between different classes of warships

More at link:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/irving-shipbuilding-repair-upgrade-1.4718556


----------



## Czech_pivo

Nothing new in that article.  Just re-stating all that is known about this current government and its inability to move anything forward smoothly and capably.  
Will be interesting to see what smoke and mirrors they come up with at the upcoming NATO Summit Meeting where POTUS has already sent an official letter to the PM expressing disgust at our defense spending and openly calling it out that its well, well below that agreed upon 2% level.


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Whats the difference between the Australian and Canadian bids as well as the Glasgow build? Renderings look different too.



Sensors and weapons are the largest differences really.  The Australian bid uses the CEA family of radars.  This most likely means a weapons loadout of semi active missiles.  The UK uses the Artesian 3D radar and CAAM /Sea Ceptor missiles which are active homing missiles.  The Canadian bid doesn't use either of those radars though the radar type isn't really known. 

That's the main reason in why the bids look different, as the mast structure changes with the radar changes along with different comms and EW antenna.  Most of the rest of the ship looks the same.  There are going to be internal differences as well.  All three will have different combat management software, different helo's to be carried, different ASW torps, different engines and power generation, changes to damage control, internal communications, bridge equipment, etc...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Navantia design in running for CSC (also USN FFG(X))--will our ships have missile defence capability?



> US approves sale to Spain of 5 Aegis naval weapons systems for $860 million
> 
> The U.S. State Department approved the sale to Spain of Aegis naval weapons systems for five new frigates at an estimated cost of $860.4 million, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency said in a release.
> 
> The addition of five new Aegis-equipped frigates to Spain’s fleet “will afford more flexibility and capability to counter regional threats and continue to enhance stability in the region,” the Tuesday, June 27 release said.
> 
> The Aegis Combat System is an integrated naval weapons system uses radar and computer technology to detect and track targets, and guide weapons to destroy them. The system is composed of the Aegis Weapon System (AWS), the Aegis Anti-Aircraft Warfare (AAW) capability, along with the Phalanx Close In Weapon System (CIWS), and the Mark 41 Vertical Launch System for missiles.
> 
> Spain has its own close-in weapon system, the Meroka 12-barrelled Oerlikon 20 mm gun system.`
> 
> It can incorporate the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System which was developed to provide missile defense against short- to intermediate-range ballistic missiles, destroying them after boost phase and prior to reentry using Standard Missiles.
> 
> Spain currently operates five Álvaro de Bazán-class frigates (also known as F100-class) with the Aegis system, and the release said that the Spanish navy will “continue to operate it as required to ensure interoperability as a highly valued NATO partner,” adding that it is “vital to the U.S. national interest to assist Spain in developing and maintaining a strong and ready self-defense capability.”
> 
> The _Spanish navy plans to build five new F110-class frigates, with the first planned to be commissioned in 2023 and the remaining four by 2027_ [emphasis added].
> 
> The DSCA release said Spain has requested to buy five Aegis Weapons Systems, including among many components five shipsets of AWS Computing Infrastructure, Operational Readiness Test Systems, Mk 99 Mod 14 Fire Control Systems and Mk 41 Baseline VII Vertical Launching Systems.
> 
> Weaponry in the proposed sale includes 20 Standard Missile 2 Block IIIB missiles and two Mk 54 Mod 0 lightweight torpedoes...
> https://thedefensepost.com/2018/06/27/us-spain-aegis-weapons-systems-approved/



Navantia design also in running, along with BAE Type 26 and Fincantieri FREMM, for new RAN frigates:
https://www.naval-technology.com/features/sea-5000-building-australias-future-frigates/

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Dale Denton

Underway said:
			
		

> Sensors and weapons are the largest differences really.  The Australian bid uses the CEA family of radars.  This most likely means a weapons loadout of semi active missiles.  The UK uses the Artesian 3D radar and CAAM /Sea Ceptor missiles which are active homing missiles.  The Canadian bid doesn't use either of those radars though the radar type isn't really known.
> 
> That's the main reason in why the bids look different, as the mast structure changes with the radar changes along with different comms and EW antenna.  Most of the rest of the ship looks the same.  There are going to be internal differences as well.  All three will have different combat management software, different helo's to be carried, different ASW torps, different engines and power generation, changes to damage control, internal communications, bridge equipment, etc...



Thank you for the info.

Why isn't there a requirement for any Destroyer variants and for just 1 class? Why are we asking for 15 (heavy?) Frigates instead of a combo of Destroyers and Frigates? Wouldn't there be a "capability gap"? Is an aegis-equipped frigate really just a destroyer anyways?

Sorry for all the questions, new to naval stuff.


----------



## Swampbuggy

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Thank you for the info.
> 
> Why isn't there a requirement for any Destroyer variants and for just 1 class? Why are we asking for 15 (heavy?) Frigates instead of a combo of Destroyers and Frigates? Wouldn't there be a "capability gap"? Is an aegis-equipped frigate really just a destroyer anyways?
> 
> Sorry for all the questions, new to naval stuff.



I believe that I’ve heard that there’s a possibility that each ship will have the same sensor suite, VLS arrangement, weapons etc. Therefore, depending on mission parameters, any ship could take the destroyer role (re: AAW for instance) or C/C platform while the others could be loaded out according to whatever supporting role they are directed to (ASW, supporting land forces etc). If that’s true, then the flexibility of the class will be a huge asset, but also likely very expensive given that each ship would be equipped with the same pricey tech. I believe Underway has spoken to this possiblity much earlier on in this thread.


----------



## Dale Denton

BAE triumphs in £20bn Australia frigate contract

https://www.ft.com/content/845e88e0-7ac7-11e8-8e67-1e1a0846c475
https://www.wsj.com/articles/australias-26-billion-warship-deal-goes-to-britains-bae-1530190803


Emphasis mine:


> BAE Systems has beaten Italian and Spanish rivals to win a multibillion-dollar contract to build Australia’s new fleet of warships in a victory that should strengthen defence ties between London and Canberra just as Britain exits the EU.
> 
> The UK defence giant will supply nine of its new Type 26 submarine hunters to the Royal Australian Navy in the landmark programme, in what is the first overseas order for the new generation of British-designed frigates.
> 
> The total value of the programme is estimated at A$35bn (£20bn) over its 30-year life, although analysts estimated the contract for the build phase will be valued at between A$15bn and A$20bn.
> 
> Canberra chose BAE over rival designs from Spain’s Navantia and Italy’s Fincantieri in a competitive tender, which is part of a A$200bn spending programme by Australia to upgrade its military hardware.
> 
> The UK has embarked on a diplomatic charm offensive over the past 12 months in Australia, including visits by Boris Johnson, foreign secretary, and Michael Fallon, former defence secretary. It has pledged to upgrade defence co-operation with Canberra and play a more prominent role in the Asia Pacific, where China has begun to militarise islands in the contested waters of the South China Sea.
> 
> BAE’s Type 26 global combat ship is scheduled to start replacing the Royal Navy’s existing Type 23 frigates in the late 2020s and is expected to remain in service until the middle of the century. The UK ministry of defence ordered eight frigates and started building the first of class last year.
> 
> *Analysts said the Australian Navy’s decision to choose the Type 26 should help BAE compete for other overseas orders, including an ongoing tender by the Royal Canadian Navy for 15 frigates worth an estimated $50bn.*



New Tribal Class (if we pick T26 too)? Although Hunter-Class sounds great too.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I'm going out on a limb and predicting that we too pick the Type 26.


----------



## Cloud Cover

If the Aussies are going with 9 for 35 billion, we will get 6 for same price or more.


----------



## Czech_pivo

The belief is that we'll get 15 for 60.  Let's hope that we do get 15 as anything less will make us even less capable and more reliant on the US.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The belief is that we'll get 15 for 60.  Let's hope that we do get 15 as anything less will make us even less capable and more reliant on the US.



I’m not so sure. I’d almost rather see 13-14 CSC all equally equipped, and then with the $2-4B saved buy 1-2 more AOPS and then a fleet of 7-9 simple, fast and adequately armed stay at home coastal defence craft to replace the MCDV’s. Something like the USCG Sentinal class or maybe an ARMIDALE. Send the CSC’s out on international deployments, use the AOPS on northern duties, OP CARIBBE, West Africa deployment etc and as the “lily pads” off our Southern coasts, and keep the small, fast ships for 2 week coastal patrols. That might be a better fleet mix overall.


----------



## Thumper81

So Australia went Type 26.  Let's hope we follow suit.  The BAe Type 26 is paired with Lockheed Martin so they should have a leg up due to CMS 330.  However dumb things have happened in procurement before.  The RCN unfortunately probably has no real say in the final design selection.  It'll be decided by Public Works.


----------



## serger989

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> The belief is that we'll get 15 for 60.  Let's hope that we do get 15 as anything less will make us even less capable and more reliant on the US.



15 is the official number but, I did read someone in the government mentioning the possibility of only 11. I truly do not remember this and am now using google-foo if my memory is deceiving me.

Edit: I believe it was Jason Kennedy, though it was said in 2015, so it's pretty old news


----------



## Swampbuggy

serger989 said:
			
		

> 15 is the official number but, I did read someone in the government mentioning the possibility of only 11. I truly do not remember this and am now using google-foo if my memory is deceiving me.
> 
> Edit: I believe it was Jason Kennedy, though it was said in 2015, so it's pretty old news



I’m pretty sure you’re correct about it being Jason Kenney and the number 11. I also seem to remember that someone speaking in the RCN’s behalf (it may have even been Mark Norman) thought there was a chance it could go even lower and that they had warned the government that anything less than 9 would be unacceptable.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Jason Kenney in 2015:



> The Incredible Shrinking RCN Canadian Surface Combatant Fleet, or…
> 
> "A re-elected Conservative government could end up approving the construction of as few as 11 warships to replace the navy’s frigates, despite committing to 15 combat vessels under their marquee defence strategy.
> 
> Conservative candidate Jason Kenney, the defence minister, offered that update on Friday [Oct. 2]..."
> https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/10/05/mark-collins-the-incredible-shrinking-rcn-canadian-surface-combatant-fleet-or/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Jason Kenney was speaking before three things happened.

1.  His gov't got booted and thus he has no say now.
2. The new defence policy was released.
3.  The budget for the ships was increased to approx $60 billion.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I’m curious about the potential 18 month gap between AOPS and CSC. Is it more or less a done deal that there will be a significant gap, due to the delays in picking a design, or is there still a possibility of a relatively smooth transition between building one class and the other.  I guess what I’m asking is if the warning of the delay is more to put a charge in someone’s tail to get them moving faster or is it a given at this point? Or, thirdly, is it a machination to get more work out of the Government? Maybe all three?


----------



## suffolkowner

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I’m curious about the potential 18 month gap between AOPS and CSC. Is it more or less a done deal that there will be a significant gap, due to the delays in picking a design, or is there still a possibility of a relatively smooth transition between building one class and the other.  I guess what I’m asking is if the warning of the delay is more to put a charge in someone’s tail to get them moving faster or is it a given at this point? Or, thirdly, is it a machination to get more work out of the Government? Maybe all three?



 A bunch more AOPS for the CCG whether they want them or not


----------



## Cloud Cover

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> I’m pretty sure you’re correct about it being Jason Kenney and the number 11. I also seem to remember that someone speaking in the RCN’s behalf (it may have even been Mark Norman) thought there was a chance it could go even lower and that they had warned the government that anything less than 9 would be unacceptable.


If the number is 9, or less than 12, Leadmark will require a revision or a new vision. 
I'm concerned that if the possibility of a change in government in 2019 or the financial effects of the erupting trade wars will throw this project into the boneyard.  Canadian peso's may not buy much...


----------



## Swampbuggy

I just wonder at what point the “gap” becomes inevitable, if it hasn’t already. Say they pick a vessel by January, is 3 years lead time too little to start cutting steel? Must there be a gap of any significance at all?


----------



## Czech_pivo

US Navy is in talk with UK, Australia and Canada about 'inter-operational ability' between the 4 navies in regards to their ongoing frigate replacements.

https://news.usni.org/2018/07/12/navy-hopes-commonality-least-interoperability-frigates-australia-canada-u-k


----------



## Uzlu

> Design, systems bids for national shipbuilding strategy due Friday
> 
> Feds, Irving to select winning consortium later this year
> 
> Friday is the deadline for companies to hand in their revised technical proposals for Canada’s multibillion dollar warship procurement. Irving is the prime contractor for the combat portion of the government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy.
> 
> Bidders hoping to cash in on the federal government’s massive multibillion dollar warship procurement have until Friday to hand over their final proposals.
> 
> The Chronicle Herald confirmed Tuesday that one of the three teams in the running, BAE Systems and Lockheed Martin Canada, has already submitted its final package for evaluation and the other two consortiums of Navantia and SAAB; and Alion Canada, Damen, and Atlas are on track to submit theirs by the deadline.
> 
> Though the request for proposals for a combined warship design and combat systems integrator closed on Nov. 30 last year, at the end of May the government’s evaluation team began providing bidders with feedback on areas that needed attention and gave the teams until July 20 to submit their revised technical proposals. The financial bids, which had not yet been submitted, are also due Friday.
> 
> This new system that allowed bidders to adjust their bids following feedback is referred to as the cure process, which the government claims will ensure maximum competition.
> 
> Irving Shipbuilding is the prime contractor for the combat portion of the government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy and will build a fleet of 15 Canadian Surface Combatants at its Halifax shipyard, with a budget of $56 billion to $60 billion, starting in the 2020s. It will also have a say, alongside the federal government, in selecting the winning bidder.
> 
> A spokesperson for Canada’s Combat Ship team — a name that Lockheed and BAE have given their partnership — told The Chronicle Herald that after years of hard work there is genuine excitement among the team after submitting their final bid on Tuesday.
> 
> “We are promising billions of dollars in innovation across Canada’s priority areas and we estimate we will generate an immense global market of exports from international sales,” the spokesperson said.
> 
> For the ship design component, BAE Systems is offering its Type 26 Global Combat Ship — long rumoured to be a favourite of Royal Canadian Navy officials and arguably the most modern vessel of its kind in the world. For the combat systems on board, Lockheed Canada is putting forward its Canadian-designed CMS 330. This is a newer version of the combat management system Lockheed designed for the Royal Canadian Navy’s original Halifax-class ships and is present on Canada’s modernized frigates.
> 
> The U.K. navy is currently in the process of procuring eight Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates, and just last month the Type 26 was selected as the winning design in Australia’s SEA 5000 program — their government will be building nine.
> 
> Bruce Samuelson, chief operating officer for Alion, said he feels that his team’s submission offers a balance between capability and risk while meeting all the navy’s technical requirements.
> 
> Alion Canada is leading a bid that includes Damen’s Dutch De Zeven Provinciën class LCF frigate design and an Atlas Electronic combat systems kit.
> 
> “It’s a military off the shelf design, which is what the Crown and the shipyard have asked for,” Samuelson said.
> 
> “The procurement itself was all focused on this balance of capability versus risk, and risk was assessed by how much does the baseline design have to be changed. Our design requires very few changes to adapt to the Canadian requirements so there’s that balance.”
> 
> Samuelson said during the bid process his team worked under the assumption that the importance of that proven, off-the-shelf component was sacrosanct, and if the government makes a decision to take a design that has not yet actually been utilized by any navy — referring to the Type 26 — that will be a significant deviation from the original intent of the procurement.
> 
> “As engineers and as technologists, there’s a natural desire to want to improve (our design). We have laid down the law on our team to ensure that the requirements laid out in the procurement, which is this balance of capability versus risk, were adhered to,” he said.
> 
> “If the Crown makes a decision to take a design that’s not in the water, I’ll have a lot of explaining to do to my board.”
> 
> BAE’s “paper ship” design — one that is still in the design and construction phase — has long been a concern for the company’s competitors, even prompting accusations of bid-rigging by the government earlier in the process when the requirements were allegedly expanded to allow for the Type 26 in the competition.
> 
> But speaking with media and industry experts at a roundtable discussion on the SEA 5000 program on Monday, Gary Fudge, VP of Canadian naval systems programs with Lockheed Martin, said if Canada were to select the Type 26 there will already be several vessels of that class in the water by the time Canada’s program gets underway.
> 
> “We feel we’re right in the sweet spot where the risk of the program will be down because we’ll be on ship four or five, but not too deep in that we can procure the equipment and systems that are standard on the ship,” he said.
> 
> The Chronicle Herald was not able to reach anyone from Navantia for comment, but a spokesperson confirmed they will be submitting their finalized technical proposal and their financial proposal by Friday. Navantia’s team is offering up a design based on the F-105 anti-submarine warfare frigate used by the Spanish navy.
> 
> Rania Haddad, a departmental spokeswoman, said in an email that once Public Services and Procurement Canada receives all bids on Friday, officials will then proceed with the remainder of the technical evaluation and the financial evaluation.
> 
> “Once the evaluation is complete, the Government of Canada and Irving will select and announce a preferred bidder,” she said. “Contract awards will follow later in 2018, and the start of ship construction remains scheduled for the early 2020s.”


http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1584921-design-systems-bids-for-national-shipbuilding-strategy-due-friday


----------



## Uzlu

> The French company submitted with Italian partner Fincantieri a controversial bid in Canada’s competition for its Canadian Surface Combatant warship program, filing the offer directly to the Canadian National Defence Ministry rather than the Public Services and Procurement Canada office.
> 
> Naval Group has since held talks with Canadian authorities, and the company is confident its offer will be considered, François Dupont, Naval Group’s international business director, said June 14. That joint offer is based on the hull and propulsion of the Italian version of the FREMM warship and the Setis combat management system from Naval Group.


https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2018/07/18/french-firm-naval-group-releases-financial-results-from-first-half-of-2018/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> US Navy is in talk with UK, Australia and Canada about 'inter-operational ability' between the 4 navies in regards to their ongoing frigate replacements.
> 
> https://news.usni.org/2018/07/12/navy-hopes-commonality-least-interoperability-frigates-australia-canada-u-k



The other 3 should carry and be willing to share with the US, but the US has a long history of pulling out of programs and doing it's own thing.


----------



## RDBZ

Colin P said:
			
		

> The other 3 should carry and be willing to share with the US, but the US has a long history of pulling out of programs and doing it's own thing.



I'm not sure what 'news' there really is in that article, at least as far as Australia is concerned.  The Hobart class AWDs are equipped with Aegis and Cooperative Engagement Capability, as will be the new Hunter class.  The Collins class submarines are equipped with the USN's AN/BYG-1 combat system, while the new generation submarines will also utilise future evolutions of that system.  Probably the only munition carried by the fleet that is not common with the USN would be the MU-90 torpedoes on surface combatants.  Even gas turbines are common with the USN.  How much more interoperable can you get?


----------



## Czech_pivo

"Naval Group has since held talks with Canadian authorities, and the company is confident its offer will be considered, François Dupont, Naval Group’s international business director, said June 14. That joint offer is based on the hull and propulsion of the Italian version of the FREMM warship and the Setis combat management system from Naval Group."

I'd be surprised if this was the case - 1) there's been no news of this in any CDN news outlet or the Gov't of Canada, 2) their bid was not reviewed and they have not received any feedback re: revisions/changes to their bid during the 'cure' process which ends today. 
If they are allowed to go forward after 20 July, then that's completely outside the rules the Government had established and forced the other 3 bidders to go through the 'curing' process - and all credibility (whatever is left) of CDN Defense procurement will be thrown out the door.
Just close the door on 20 July to the whole process, take the rest of the summer off(which I'm sure that will occur), come back after Labour Day and spend the remainder of Sept/Oct to finalise the process and announce the winner ahead of schedule (ha!) during the first week of Nov (right before the 100yr celebrations for the end of WWI) and bloody well move forward!


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Just close the door on 20 July to the whole process, take the rest of the summer off


I doubt very much they are going to take the summer off. _Iroquois_ and _Algonquin_ were decommissioned in 2015.  _Athabaskan_ was decommissioned in 2017.  First delivery of the first surface combatant is, if all goes well, mid 2020s—perhaps eleven years after _Iroquois_ and _Algonquin_ were decommissioned.
  
Eleven years is a long time for the Royal Canadian Navy to be without air-defence warships.  It might be time to come to work early, leave work late, work weekends, or hire additional staff.  The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that for each year of delay, the programme would cost about $3 billion more.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Uzlu said:
			
		

> I doubt very much they are going to take the summer off. _Iroquois_ and _Algonquin_ were decommissioned in 2015.  _Athabaskan_ was decommissioned in 2017.  First delivery of the first surface combatant is, if all goes well, mid 2020s—perhaps eleven years after _Iroquois_ and _Algonquin_ were decommissioned.
> 
> Eleven years is a long time for the Royal Canadian Navy to be without air-defence warships.  It might be time to come to work early, leave work late, work weekends, or hire additional staff.  The Parliamentary Budget Officer estimates that for each year of delay, the programme would cost about $3 billion more.



Air-Defence?  Psssh!

We have Sea Sparrow and CWIS, it doesn't matter that nobody understands that their are different weapon systems for different types of engagements, ranges, etc!

Understanding of Missile Defence, Weapons Systems, Air Defence, Warfare, etc in this country can be summed up with the following:


----------



## Karel Doorman

Final proposal is in,Canada will join,UK and Aystralia ist seems.  

But it will all be different versions.Low risk,not known yet,not an excisting design(go figure)and propably most costly option,but the newest design for sure.(ASW specialized ship)


https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/july-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6370-canada-s-combat-ship-team-unveils-comprehensive-csc-solution.html


----------



## jmt18325

Canada hasn't selected a winner.  That process is just beginning.


----------



## Karel Doorman

You are right,i misread the article,my bad. :


----------



## JMCanada

There is a new review on latest ASW frigate design F-110 from Navantia. It seems a design ready to start production ... whenever funds are available. 

Apart from a very good suite of radars, sonar, ESM and sensors, the design is about 6.700 tons, CODLOG propulsion, up to two Helos, AEGIS and (just only) 2x8 Mk. 41 cells. It is still to be decided if they will  use CAMM family missiles for local aerial defense or ESSM. It depends on wether integration with AEGIS is feasible or not.

Maybe some solutions adopted for the F-110 have also been included for the CSC bid ... (?)

http://www.infodefensa.com/es/2018/07/25/noticia-publica-primicia-ultima-actualizacion-fragata.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on USN FFG(X)--compare cost with CSC, just for order-of-magnitude purposes:



> Navy Exercises Options For Additional Future Frigate Design Work.
> 
> The Navy has exercised options adding several million dollars to the future guided-missile frigate (FFG(X)) conceptual design work being performed by five shipbuilders in contention for the final hull design.
> 
> The Navy expects bids from the following shipbuilders – Austal USA, Huntington Ingalls Industries, General Dynamics Bath Iron Works, Lockheed Martin and Fincantieri Marinette Marine. A final request for proposal is expected in 2019, with the Navy planning to award a single source design and construction contract in 2020, according to the Navy. Ultimately, the Navy _plans to build a fleet of 20 frigates_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Each company was awarded initial contracts of $15 million in February to start design work. The latest contract modification, announced Monday, sends between $6.4 million and $8 million in additional funding to each company to be used fleshing out their designs.
> 
> ...The Navy expects to spend between $800 million and $950 million on each hull, which will follow the Littoral Combat Ship.
> 
> In terms of combat and communications systems, the Navy plans to use what is already deployed on LCS platforms. USNI News understands the new frigates will use the COMBATSS-21 Combat Management System, which uses software from the same common source library as the Aegis Combat System on large surface combatants. Missile systems for the frigate include the canister-launched over-the-horizon missile; the surface-to-surface Longbow Hellfire missile; the Mk53 Nulka decoy launching system and the Surface Electron Warfare Improvement Program (SEWIP) Block 2 program with SLQ-32(V)6. The ships would also require an unspecified number of vertical launch cells. The frigate design also is expected to include the SeaRAM anti-ship missile defense system and several undersea warfare tools...
> https://news.usni.org/2018/07/31/35430



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

So each company got $15 million to flesh out their already existing designs...and now are receiving even more, to continue to design their already designed ships?   ???

I thought the whole point of the USN project here was to buy already existing designs that could be built & implemented rapidly, due to the LCS shortcomings.  Why do these pre-existing designs always need so much money for design work, if they are already designed?


----------



## MarkOttawa

CBH99: Perhaps sensibly cost-efficient to pay companies small sums (by US standards) to make their bids as useful and realistic as possible, and to ensure they won't lose much financially--if anything--by making their best bid possible. Do we do anything similar in Canada?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

Fair enough.  Providing them with sums of money to ensure their bids go through the process rather seamlessly does make sense, and probably does save them time & hassle.  Makes sense.

On the surface it just seems odd to give them money to design a ship that is already designed & in some cases, in the water.  But, your explanation makes sense.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> *Alion Submits Final Proposal for CSC Program*
> 
> Alion Canada, a wholly owned subsidiary of Alion Science and Technology, headquartered in McLean, Va., have submitted their final bid and compliance forms to the Canadian government for the Canadian Surface Combatant Program.
> 
> “We provide a world-class combatant that is proven, affordable, off-the-shelf solution. Our offering is focused on the Royal Canadian Navy’s stated requirements and will generate jobs and innovation across Canada,” says Chief Operating Officer Bruce Samuelsen. He added that Alion is ready today to work with Irving Shipbuilding and the Canadian Government to get production underway and ships in the water as soon as possible.
> 
> The Alion solution is based on the De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate— a proven NATO vessel, built by Damen Schelde Naval Shipbuilding, with more than 10 years of operational excellence.  Damen’s knowledge and design-for-production experience is made available to Canada through their key role as part of Alion’s team.
> 
> Alion’s combat system solution is based on the world-class capabilities of ATLAS-Elektronik and Hensoldt Sensors. ATLAS brings an outstanding, globally renowned open architecture Combat Management System that readily accepts new and evolving technologies. Hensoldt’s capability and experience in developing and fielding state-of-the art radars was central to meeting the unique Canadian requirements with a fielded, non-developmental radar. Other key suppliers include L3 Technologies Canada, Raytheon Canada Limited, DRS Technologies Canada Limited (DRS TCL) and Rheinmetall Canada Inc.
> 
> “Each decision we made for equipment selection and systems integration focused on delivering cost-effective solutions that meet the requirements while delivering robust Canadian content,” said Bruce Samuelsen, Chief Operating Officer for Alion. “Many original system suppliers are building systems in Canada, but our combat system partners are actually creating manufacturing jobs for Canadians.” In fact, Alion Canada provides the only domestic surface combatant ship design capability that will create additional high technology jobs through the CSC program, by including dozens of Canadian companies.
> 
> By selecting a ship with proven operational and combat experience, Alion’s solution also eliminates the risk associated with the typical lead-ship transition from design to production. “Our bid focused on reducing development and design activities, which delivers a lower overall cost,” said Samuelsen. “This is also significant from the standpoint of accelerating production.”



http://www.canadiandefencereview.com/news?news/2533


----------



## JMCanada

Could we open a poll to vote:

1. which team do you think will win  the CSC bid: Alion / BAE / Navantia-Saab (Dutch / Brits / Sp-Aussies) ?

2. Similarly ... which is YOUR preferred option?

Maybe it has already been done but I have not realized since I am new here.


----------



## Lumber

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Could we open a poll to vote:
> 
> 1. which team do you think will win  the CSC bid: Alion / BAE / Navantia-Saab (Dutch / Brits / Sp-Aussies) ?
> 
> 2. Similarly ... which is YOUR preferred option?
> 
> Maybe it has already been done but I have not realized since I am new here.



I'm down.


----------



## Ashkan08

http://www.navalreview.ca/2018/02/future-canadian-surface-combatant-the-only-option/

The lack of ice capability might be the only drawback the BAE type 26 frigate has.


----------



## Lumber

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> http://www.navalreview.ca/2018/02/future-canadian-surface-combatant-the-only-option/
> 
> The lack of ice capability might be the only drawback the BAE type 26 frigate has.



I think I like the Alion bid better.


----------



## Ashkan08

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think I like the Alion bid better.


To be honest, I do too. Just giving a reason why the Type 26 might not be the best choice considering Canada's climate.


----------



## JMCanada

I would like to point now to the "collateral" sides of the future award.

Lets consider that Australia has managed to get support for the disputes on the South China Sea, ... I mean, got from France the commitment to deploy vessels for the Freedom of navigation operations at the time of the Shortfin Barracuda being awarded. Similarly got from UK similar commitments (plus other military agreements for selling militar material to UK) on the Freedom of navigation patrolling ops. recently, when Type 26 has been awarded for the Sea 5000 project.

_Would/should Canada take the chance to negotiate with UK for their SSNKs to patrol Arctic waters?_   I think the structured bidding process and transparency will not allow for that, but would not it be a great opportunity to seize? This could be done with some kind of agreement for canadian staff to be deployed in the submarines, gaining in training and cooperatoin with other submarine forces, of course.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> _Would/should Canada take the chance to negotiate with UK for their SSNKs to patrol Arctic waters?_


Only if Canada is serious about acquiring nuclear-powered attack submarines.  For this to happen, there must be two major problems to be overcome: do all the political parties support acquiring nuclear submarines, and will the Americans allow Canada to buy British nuclear-powered submarines? At the very least, the Conservatives, the Liberals, and the NDP must be unwavering in their support.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada-class_submarine#Opposition_to_program


----------



## JMCanada

Well, we all know this is not going to happen... for some years ahead. However within 4-5 years, longer endurance fuel cell AIP submarines will be ready, either the german-dutch one (with methanol) or the spanish one (with bio-ethanol), may be even the improvement on Li-ion batteries will be sufficient for 30-40 days inmersion periods without snort. Then will be probably the momentum to start the purchasing of new submarines for the RCN.

Meanwhile, the option to patrol the Arctic with british SSNKs could close the gap, don't you see it like a feasible option?


----------



## Karel Doorman

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Well, we all know this is not going to happen... for some years ahead. However within 4-5 years, longer endurance fuel cell AIP submarines will be ready, either the german-dutch one (with methanol) or the spanish one (with bio-ethanol), may be even the improvement on Li-ion batteries will be sufficient for 30-40 days inmersion periods without snort. Then will be probably the momentum to start the purchasing of new submarines for the RCN.
> 
> Meanwhile, the option to patrol the Arctic with british SSNKs could close the gap, don't you see it like a feasible option?



Euhm,Swedish-Dutch one.


----------



## JMCanada

Well... I actually should have said german-norwegian Type 212cd ... but maybe the swedish-dutch (while not running on fuell cells) could get a similar submerged endurance.  :nod:

Thanks anyway for the correction.


----------



## Ashkan08

This is a bit off topic but why can't we just put some land based cruise missile launchers in the arctic? Together with the Surface combatants of course.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Royal Navy no longer operates SSKs (we got the last four, the Upholder-class)--now all are nuclear-powered SSNs, SSBNs:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.7249/j.ctt3fgzx8.9.pdf

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## JMCanada

Ok ... SSNs (not SSNKs) ... I meant the Astute class, of course.

EDITED: Nice document to learn from.


----------



## MarkOttawa

JMCanada--not trying to be snarky, just, er. astute .

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Furniture

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> To be honest, I do too. Just giving a reason why the Type 26 might not be the best choice considering Canada's climate.



We don't operate warships in ice now, why would we change that? We have AOPS for ice operations (which no other blue water navy does either).   

The type 26 as of right now looks like the most upgradeable ship on offer, why limit ourselves to the older continental AAW ship designs? 

I just hope whatever we buy we configure to work in the norther oceans, as well as the equatorial regions. We spend far more time deployed to tropical/equatorial waters than we spend in the ice.


----------



## Lumber

Furniture said:
			
		

> We don't operate warships in ice now, why would we change that? We have AOPS for ice operations (which no other blue water navy does either).
> 
> The type 26 as of right now looks like the most upgradeable ship on offer, *why limit ourselves to the older continental AAW ship designs? *
> 
> I just hope whatever we buy we configure to work in the norther oceans, as well as the equatorial regions. We spend far more time deployed to tropical/equatorial waters than we spend in the ice.



Proven design; the kinks have been worked out.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

I would have phrased that a little differently, and would have said, they are fully mature designs - from a construction point of view - with the kinks worked out.

As far as being "proven" design, we are currently in a bit of a lull similar to the one that followed the battle of Trafalgar and lasted until the arrival on the scene of HMS DREADNAUGHT.

At that time, the various navies of the world switched from sailing ships to steel/mechanized ones during a period of peace at sea (Pax Britannia) and many designs were tried - but mostly various navies just followed the lead of France and the UK, which built relatively similar warships (Admiral Popov's round battleship being a famous, or infamous, exception  ;D). None of them were ever "proven" in combat, and then Dreadnaught arrived on the scene throwing everything into chaos.

So, now, we are in a similar situation: The last lessons in warship design were learned as result of the Falkland war, more than 30 years ago, and none of the current warship designs have been tested in naval combat, and thus are all unproven designs. For all we know, someone will come up with a new "genius" idea in warship design in a few years and make all current design obsolete. You just never know.


----------



## Lumber

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I would have phrased that a little differently, and would have said, they are fully mature designs - from a construction point of view - with the kinks worked out.
> 
> As far as being "proven" design, we are currently in a bit of a lull similar to the one that followed the battle of Trafalgar and lasted until the arrival on the scene of HMS DREADNAUGHT.
> 
> At that time, the various navies of the world switched from sailing ships to steel/mechanized ones during a period of peace at sea (Pax Britannia) and many designs were tried - but mostly various navies just followed the lead of France and the UK, which built relatively similar warships (Admiral Popov's round battleship being a famous, or infamous, exception  ;D). None of them were ever "proven" in combat, and then Dreadnaught arrived on the scene throwing everything into chaos.
> 
> So, now, we are in a similar situation: The last lessons in warship design were learned as result of the Falkland war, more than 30 years ago, and none of the current warship designs have been tested in naval combat, and thus are all unproven designs. For all we know, someone will come up with a new "genius" idea in warship design in a few years and make all current design obsolete. You just never know.



You need a blue water navy to operate across the globe as Canada does; but, in my opinion, a blue water navy would have a very bad day in battle against a green-water navy comprised of dozens of small attack craft carrying numerous modern anti-ship missiles. It always blows me away when I compare a CPF/Tico/Arleigh which weigh between 5000- and 10,000 tons, and carry only 8 Anti-ship missiles, against a a Type-22/Skjold/Comabttante II missile boats which also all carry 8 anti-ship missiles, but which only weigh 250 tons. You can produce, crew and replace far more missile boats than you can full size warships. A swarm of these ships could fire more missiels at a task group than any task group could possibly defend against.

We don't need a ship to be able to counter this threat, because we don't have any real expectation of having to get into real combat, and we don't have the money or willpower to try and really prepare ourselves for that eventuality. Either we are going to avoid that conflict all together, or are we are going to expect the USN Air Wings to obliterate these vessels before they even get in range of our ships.

So, we don't need a ships that's optimized for modern combat, and there does not yet exist an HMS Dreadnought that has fundamentally altered the face of naval warfare (although I have a few design ideas in my head); what we need are vessels that can continue to dot the kinds of missions that we have been conducting (and conducting admirably I might add), and therefore, the tried and true DZP is, I think, the way to go.

If we go with the Type 26, we might, eventually, get a a more capable combat platform, but we will spend so many years working out the kinks that we'll have to skip out, for a few years, an all the overseas deployments and exercises that we're known for.
.
.
.
I also haven't had coffee yet today, so take this all with a grain of salt.


----------



## Furniture

Lumber said:
			
		

> If we go with the Type 26, we might, eventually, get a a more capable combat platform, but we will spend so many years working out the kinks that we'll have to skip out, for a few years, an all the overseas deployments and exercises that we're known for.



We haven't let a lack of systems/reliable propulsion prevent us from sending ships on international exercises before(Athabascan), why would we start now...


----------



## Journeyman

Lumber said:
			
		

> We don't need a ship to be able to counter this threat, because we don't have any real expectation of having to get into real combat, ….
> 
> So, we don't need a ships that's optimized for modern combat, a.....


   ???  Does this not beg the question of why taxpayers should even fund a Canadian military -- investing instead in the Coast Guard and a merchant marine?  :dunno:


----------



## Lumber

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ???  Does this not beg the question of why taxpayers should even fund a Canadian military -- investing instead in the Coast Guard and a merchant marine?  :dunno:



Yes, but the answer is simply; a show of making an effort in defence and security (and we're making far more than a minimum effort) helps to build healthy relationships with our international partners which leads to reciprocity in international diplomacy and trade.


----------



## Good2Golf

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yes, but the answer is simply; a show of making an effort in defence and security (and we're making far more than a minimum effort) helps to build healthy relationships with our international partners which leads to reciprocity in international diplomacy and trade.



Wouldn't nice pen-set gifts and removal of dairy supply chain management be cheaper?


----------



## GR66

Lumber said:
			
		

> ...
> We don't need a ship to be able to counter this threat, because we don't have any real expectation of having to get into real combat, and we don't have the money or willpower to try and really prepare ourselves for that eventuality. Either we are going to avoid that conflict all together, or are we are going to expect the USN Air Wings to obliterate these vessels before they even get in range of our ships.
> 
> So, we don't need a ships that's optimized for modern combat,
> ...



These comments do sound a bit like they might fall into the "famous last words" category.

I would tend to agree though that anti-surface warfare may be among the least likely of the threats that we are likely to have to face in a future conflict (possibly outside an allied task force).

My personal opinion is that a far more likely scenario is that our primary role in any future major conflict will be the same as it was in both World Wars...working to ensure that the USA is able to project its military forces across the ocean to where they are needed to be.  In this case the larger threats are likely to be submarines and long range strike aircraft.  

The best counter to the aircraft threat may possibly be other aircraft due to their quicker reaction time and range (as well as attacks on the static airfields launching the aircraft) while the RCN, together with our MPAs will need to face the submarine threat.

That does raise the perpetual question though of quantity vs. quality in our fleet.  Is 15 CSCs enough to cover the area we may need them to cover, or is a return to the "Corvette Navy" model a better path forward (possibly including UUVs, etc.).


----------



## Dale Denton

GR66 said:
			
		

> These comments do sound a bit like they might fall into the "famous last words" category.
> 
> I would tend to agree though that anti-surface warfare may be among the least likely of the threats that we are likely to have to face in a future conflict (possibly outside an allied task force).
> 
> My personal opinion is that a far more likely scenario is that our primary role in any future major conflict will be the same as it was in both World Wars...working to ensure that the USA is able to project its military forces across the ocean to where they are needed to be.  In this case the larger threats are likely to be submarines and long range strike aircraft.
> 
> The best counter to the aircraft threat may possibly be other aircraft due to their quicker reaction time and range (as well as attacks on the static airfields launching the aircraft) while the RCN, together with our MPAs will need to face the submarine threat.
> 
> That does raise the perpetual question though of quantity vs. quality in our fleet.  Is 15 CSCs enough to cover the area we may need them to cover, or is a return to the "Corvette Navy" model a better path forward (possibly including UUVs, etc.).



Agreed. 

Although I feel like someone said the same thing about Bonnie. Do we really need an Aircraft Carrier or should we just get some smaller frigates/destroyers? 

While I admit that I don't know **** about these things, I doubt being a 1 trick pony will help matters. What if the scenario isn't a repeat of our WW2 role? Although I am of the opinion that we should buy 1 for 1 AOPS to slowly replace the MCDVs. AOPS can be the new corvettes, and give us a big presence in the arctic should we chose to.


----------



## Ashkan08

GR66 said:
			
		

> These comments do sound a bit like they might fall into the "famous last words" category.
> 
> I would tend to agree though that anti-surface warfare may be among the least likely of the threats that we are likely to have to face in a future conflict (possibly outside an allied task force).
> 
> My personal opinion is that a far more likely scenario is that our primary role in any future major conflict will be the same as it was in both World Wars...working to ensure that the USA is able to project its military forces across the ocean to where they are needed to be.  In this case the larger threats are likely to be submarines and long range strike aircraft.
> 
> The best counter to the aircraft threat may possibly be other aircraft due to their quicker reaction time and range (as well as attacks on the static airfields launching the aircraft) while the RCN, together with our MPAs will need to face the submarine threat.
> 
> That does raise the perpetual question though of quantity vs. quality in our fleet.  Is 15 CSCs enough to cover the area we may need them to cover, or is a return to the "*Corvette Navy*" model a better path forward (possibly including UUVs, etc.).



Maybe something like the Sigma corvette 9113 the Indonesian navy uses? Each one is about half the length of the Type 26.

https://products.damen.com/en/ranges/sigma-frigate-and-corvette/sigma-corvette-9113


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't think the RN foresaw having to project themselves and land an amphibious force, into the South Atlantic. We didn't foresee Canada being in a ground combat mission for nearly a decade and few people predicted the Russian navy pounding Syria with ship launch cruise missile from the Black and Mediterranean Sea. So basically we are really bad at predicting where the next real fight will be and what it will look like. What you have is what you will bring.


----------



## Infanteer

Lumber said:
			
		

> in my opinion, a blue water navy would have a very bad day in battle against a green-water navy comprised of dozens of small attack craft carrying numerous modern anti-ship missiles.



The jeune école still lives, I see.


----------



## Kirkhill

So when we talk about "tried and true" existing solutions vs the Type 26 paper solution are we talking about the existing vessels or the Canadianized vessels being created for CSC competition?  And are we considering the likelihood that by the time the Irving yards start building the first unit the Brits, Aussies and probably even the Yanks will be sailing in them?


----------



## Edward Campbell

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't think the RN foresaw having to project themselves and land an amphibious force, into the South Atlantic. We didn't foresee Canada being in a ground combat mission for nearly a decade and few people predicted the Russian navy pounding Syria with ship launch cruise missile from the Black and Mediterranean Sea. So basically we are really bad at predicting where the next real fight will be and what it will look like. What you have is what you will bring.




Ah, the "come-as-you-are war" ... the concept has been around for eons but I like to give credit to then General (later President) Dwight D Eisenhower who, when he was NATO's first SACEUR, said that he didn't want millions and millions of allied soldiers standing shoulder-to-shoulder and nose-to-nose against Warsaw Pact troops across the Inner-German Border ... he said that he wanted those millions and millions of young allied men and women to be working in factories, making automobiles and refrigerators and raising families in safe, secure homes. He wanted, Ike said, to have just enough highly skilled, well equipped forces to be a "trip-wire" which, if it ever was tripped, would trigger a massive, devastating (meaning nuclear) allied response that would secure a quick victory.

It is pretty clear that the come-as-you-are war was what Brooke Claxton had in mind when he made what still are the most monumental changes to Canadian military organizations ~ including Paul Hellyer's integration/unification schemes ~ beginning in 1949/50: Claxton made quite fundamental changes to Canada's military, demanding a professional, regular force backed up by a militia, breaking with centuries if tradition in which a small cadre of regulars helped to train and manage a large militia that could be mobilized when needed. (By contrast, Mr Hellyer played with peripheral details like organizations and uniforms.) Claxton, under St Laurent's guidance, needed those changes because the _*grand strategy*_ that would guide the West for 70 years required a new military model: _forces in being_ ready for the come-as-you-are war ... we never looked back and i doubt anyone seriously wants to look back again.


----------



## Furniture

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So when we talk about "tried and true" existing solutions vs the Type 26 paper solution are we talking about the existing vessels or the Canadianized vessels being created for CSC competition?  And are we considering the likelihood that by the time the Irving yards start building the first unit the Brits, Aussies and probably even the Yanks will be sailing in them?



That's my thinking on the older designs as well. We aren't planning to buy exact copies of the ships, we are buying designs and changing them to suit our needs. Better to start with the most modern design in production, and go from there. The Aussies seemed to think it was the right choice as well.


----------



## Underway

Furniture said:
			
		

> That's my thinking on the older designs as well. We aren't planning to buy exact copies of the ships, we are buying designs and changing them to suit our needs. Better to start with the most modern design in production, and go from there. The Aussies seemed to think it was the right choice as well.



Aussies took the Type 26 because they believe its the best ASW platform.  Probably because of the engineering arrangement (with electric motors) allows for very quite submarine hunting.  They took the F100 (105) as the AAD platform, Aegis and SPY1 radar and 48 VLS tubes.  Its going to be an excellent combination.  We should be so lucky.


----------



## RDBZ

Underway said:
			
		

> Aussies took the Type 26 because they believe its the best ASW platform.  Probably because of the engineering arrangement (with electric motors) allows for very quite submarine hunting.  They took the F100 (105) as the AAD platform, Aegis and SPY1 radar and 48 VLS tubes.  Its going to be an excellent combination.  We should be so lucky.



With the AESA CEAFAR2-L and CEAMOUNT, the same Aegis CMS with CEC, greater displacement and room for additional Mk41 cells, I wouldn't be surprised if the new Hunter class matches or surpasses the Hobarts as an air warfare platform.


----------



## JMCanada

Well... having different radar and CMS, the Hunter class and the British type 26 start to be not so similar.

For the moment Brit. T-26 will mount (AFAIK) only 24 (3x8) mk41 cells plus 48 (12 cells x4) CAMM missiles which might not work properly with AEGIS: studies are being carried out for integration feasibility. 

With only 24+12 cells, T-26 will be well suited for self aerial-defence, but not to protect other vessels (area-coverage) depending on the scenario. Aussies rely for that on the Hobarts and Brits. on the type 45 AAW destroyers.

Hobarts have 48 mk 41 cells plus 8 Harpoon launchers  ... and everything is already tested and running. 

Regarding displacement, type 26 requires increased weight and volume because of her CODLOG quieter propulsion: need to install electric generators an motors . We should not expect much more available space for upgrades than on the other two rival platforms.


----------



## Lumber

Infanteer said:
			
		

> The jeune école still lives, I see.



lol Maybe, but from what I understand about the jeune école was it was an attempt to enhance and force multiply a conventional surface fleet (in this case, the French).

What I'm more referring to are those who have essentially forgone all ambitions of a conventional surface fleet, and instead have adopt numerous small fast attack craft (i.e. Iran and/or NK).


----------



## Underway

So which of these ships can take two helicopters.  We are talking the Cyclone of course so a big helo.  

Type 26 can do it if the flex deck is opened to the hangar, I've seen drawings of that from BAE.  Anyone know if either of the other two can do that?

I'm pretty sure the staffing plans for CSC have an option for two flight crews embarked, which would be similar to the 280's in their heyday.


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:
			
		

> So which of these ships can take two helicopters.  We are talking the Cyclone of course so a big helo.
> 
> Type 26 can do it if the flex deck is opened to the hangar, I've seen drawings of that from BAE.  Anyone know if either of the other two can do that?
> 
> I'm pretty sure the staffing plans for CSC have an option for two flight crews embarked, which would be similar to the 280's in their heyday.



What happens when the one in the "back" is determine to be unfit to fly, and the "working" helo gets stuck in front of it?

I heard the Egyptians aren't doing much with their Mistrals. Maybe we should look at taking the burden off their hands...


----------



## Dale Denton

Lumber said:
			
		

> What happens when the one in the "back" is determine to be unfit to fly, and the "working" helo gets stuck in front of it?
> 
> I heard the Egyptians aren't doing much with their Mistrals. Maybe we should look at taking the burden off their hands...



Is the benefit of having 2 large helo's worth it? Having to buy more Cyclones and all the trimmings when the future seems to be directed at Helo+Rotary UCAV instead? 

Dreams of Mistrals... 

I know its too late, but who would be opposed to 2-3 less CSC in exchange for a Mistral (hull built overseas with expensive refit here)? Genuinely asking you people.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They be a bitter fight because having those two ships would force the 3 services to work together and possibly change priorities. Politically they make great sense, as the ships can be provided as task force support vessels for piracy duties, disaster relief and coastal UN missions. The troops and helo's do not have to be Canadian. Canada can earn diplomatic brownie points with minimal domestic political risks. It would also mean that you would see them practicing landings in the Arctic with LAV's.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure the staffing plans for CSC have an option for two flight crews embarked, which would be similar to the 280's in their heyday.



A standard 280 det was three crews with two helos; it also had two shift maintenance.  Halifax is two crews with one helo.

The interesting one is the tankers; they had up to three helos but when in a TG as few as 1 crew plus an LSO. They also had second line aircraft maintenance.  Reason being is that they weren't meant to fly them, they were meant to keep serviceable ones for the other ships.  The biggest det I'm aware of would be 3 aircraft with 4 crews.

Canadian doctrine for TG employment of helos was and largely remains based around keeping two airborne 24/7.  Originally it was meant to keep two in the screen.  Even the maintenance cycle of the aircraft is based on that; that's why the Sea King had 20-25 hours between inspections; it meant two flying days then an inspection.  Therefore a normal TG would have 2 on the 280 covering 12 hours, two on two steamers covering the other 12, and 2 on the tanker for depth, filling in a flight here and there as well depending on how many crews they had.  In sustained ops you could swap with the tanker instead of doing the large inspections on the other decks.

The entire force structure of 12 Wing and the number of aircraft bought is based on that.  The maintenance program with the Cyclone is different; it is almost certain that 2nd line at Sea isn't coming back.  It may have changed in the last little while, but 12 Wing manning for Cyclone was based on "15 det equivalents in 11 dets;" ie, having 11 actual dets, but 4 of them or two helo dets.  It will be a long time before they are anywhere near that manning.

Most other countries don't fly like that anymore.  As MH is a "naturally reactive vehicle" they keep it on the deck in an alert state and then launch as required, do whatever needs doing, and recover, shut down, and reassume an alert state.  The Sea King maintenance requirements as developed didn't support that very well; time will tell with the Cyclone.


----------



## Edward Campbell

One of the reasons I love Army.ca is that, time and again, people with real knowledge provide _*informed*_ commentary about the issues.


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> A standard 280 det was three crews with two helos; it also had two shift maintenance.  Halifax is two crews with one helo.
> 
> The interesting one is the tankers; they had up to three helos but when in a TG as few as 1 crew plus an LSO. They also had second line aircraft maintenance.  Reason being is that they weren't meant to fly them, they were meant to keep serviceable ones for the other ships.  The biggest det I'm aware of would be 3 aircraft with 4 crews.
> 
> Canadian doctrine for TG employment of helos was and largely remains based around keeping two airborne 24/7.  Originally it was meant to keep two in the screen.  Even the maintenance cycle of the aircraft is based on that; that's why the Sea King had 20-25 hours between inspections; it meant two flying days then an inspection.  Therefore a normal TG would have 2 on the 280 covering 12 hours, two on two steamers covering the other 12, and 2 on the tanker for depth, filling in a flight here and there as well depending on how many crews they had.  In sustained ops you could swap with the tanker instead of doing the large inspections on the other decks.
> 
> The entire force structure of 12 Wing and the number of aircraft bought is based on that.  The maintenance program with the Cyclone is different; it is almost certain that 2nd line at Sea isn't coming back.  It may have changed in the last little while, but 12 Wing manning for Cyclone was based on "15 det equivalents in 11 dets;" ie, having 11 actual dets, but 4 of them or two helo dets.  It will be a long time before they are anywhere near that manning.
> 
> Most other countries don't fly like that anymore.  As MH is a "naturally reactive vehicle" they keep it on the deck in an alert state and then launch as required, do whatever needs doing, and recover, shut down, and reassume an alert state.  The Sea King maintenance requirements as developed didn't support that very well; time will tell with the Cyclone.



That makes way more sense.  I was not aware it was two crews per helo.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would it make sense to have the Astreix/JSS with 2 helo's and the capability to do deeper maintenance? More of fleet support than ASW protection. Basically they can cycle helo's through the escorts and have a spare.


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> Would it make sense to have the Astreix/JSS with 2 helo's and the capability to do deeper maintenance? More of fleet support than ASW protection. Basically they can cycle helo's through the escorts and have a spare.



Absolutely that would be the plan, to the extent that the Cyclone maintenance concept allows it.

Asterix has space for two helos, but I don't have any sources for how much aviation maintenance space there is.  Same goes for Protecteur and Preserver.  I also haven't heard if/when 12 Wing intends to build up a larger det for Asterix.  When manning allows it, and the full set of air trials for an embarked det are complete (vice the Ships Without Air Detachment [SWOAD] trials that have been done) my *guess* would be that it would make sense to build up a det that has 2 aircraft with 3 crews, and a split shift maintenance, in order to do more effective first line maintenance activities for a task group.

However, having this maintenance depth at Sea is not the same as 2nd line maintenance.  The old Preserver and Protecteur had avionics labs to do 2nd line recovery of spares, and could also do "streamlined" 2nd line periodic inspections (500 hour) with support from Shearwater.  I am only aware of this being done once, so it wasn't doctrine, but it could be done.  I've attached below, sorry for the long post.  However, the maintenance concept for Cyclone is different.  For example, 2nd line avionics recovery is not even done at Shearwater, it is passed back to the OEM.

So yes, that is the plan, but not to the extent it used to be.  Just as a note, an aircraft carrier does; for example, they have 2nd line engine bays including run-up facilities, and I remember anecdotally they actually carry OEM contractors at times. 



> Having obtained a suitably upgraded organic air capability, the Canadian Task Group came close to having to do without it. This situation arose in late October, over the issue of replacement of the Task Group. The decision reached by NDHQ was that the cost of refitting three more ships and five additional helicopters would be prohibitive, and crews would be rotated instead. This had profound operational implications, quite aside from the obvious withdrawal of each of the ships from patrol in sequence while the changeovers were affected. Unlike the air task group in Doha, which frequently rotated CF18s from the Canadian bases in Germany, 423 Squadron had no practical way to transport replacement aircraft to the Gulf without a relieving task group. On top of that, back in August, even as the upgrades were being undertaken at Shearwater, MAGHQ had predicted that, with the projected flying rate (proven in actual operations), “[a]ircraft technical requirements in terms of maintainability/sustainability [would be] problematic ... [and] there will be a requirement for one in-theatre periodic inspection per aircraft during a possible six-month deployment." Although direction had been requested from DMAEM, none had arrived.
> 
> Now, the problem of diminishing aircraft flying hours reached a crisis, and the investment made in the augmentation of the air maintenance detachment aboard PROTECTEUR reaped its dividend. In the short term, the afloat technicians had proven equal to the task of routine maintenance, keeping all of the aging and temperamental Sea Kings on the ready roster for an astounding 98 per cent availability, but the necessity for periodic inspections presented a longer-term problem. A regular 20‑day-long maintenance routine was required for flight safety reasons on all aircraft every 500 flying hours, and this was a major undertaking involving specialist technical support. Significantly, one had never before been conducted away from home base, let alone on a ship at sea. Together, the five task group helicopters were averaging 12 hours flying per day, or over 350 hours per month. The pace had been determined in part by the intention that the Task Group would return to Halifax in the early months of 1991. At the beginning of November, the total hours remaining were just over 1,250, sufficient to carry through to mid-February at the present rate, which in wartime was expected to rise.
> 
> Knowing now that there would be no replacement of the ships or their embarked aircraft until the summer of 1991 at the earliest, the initial reaction of Lieutenant-Colonel McWha was to order a drastic reduction in the hours flown by the air detachments. Henceforth, they were to fly only when necessary and otherwise remain at alert status, but that was only postponing the inevitable. Other than waiving the periodic inspection requirement, there was no alternative to in-theatre inspections. The situation was forced on 5 November when an airframe crack was discovered on one of the aircraft, “grounding” it aboard PROTECTEUR until a specialist metal technician from Shearwater could arrive to effect the repairs. Urgent communications passed from the task group ships at sea to the Canadian theatre headquarters in Manamah and thence to Shearwater and Ottawa, resulting in the decision to take this opportunity simultaneously to begin the 20‑day routine on the stricken helicopter immediately.
> 
> The only outstanding issue was where to undertake it. Both the US and Royal Navies also operated Sea Kings in the Gulf, but they were attached mostly to shore units, and there were sufficient differences between the models that making use of their facilities was not a viable option. In fact, PROTECTEUR’s facilities surpassed anything readily available elsewhere in the Gulf for the Sea Kings, and the embarked maintenance team was quickly set to the task. With their effective confinement on board because of the patrol schedule, the first inspection took only 15 days, and subsequent ones were reduced to 12 days. A sequence was worked out to have the remaining aircraft completed by February, which, with judicious scheduling and barring the outbreak of hostilities, would leave the five aircraft sufficient flying hours to resume the accustomed rate and support task group operations well into 1992.



Sic Itur Ad Astra: Canadian Aerospace Power Studies Volume 5 Wings for the Fleet: Fifty Years of the Canadian Sea King Edited by W. A. March, Chapter 6 Rethinking Maritime Air: Preparing and Maintaining Canadian Sea King Helicopters for Operations in the Persian Gulf 1990–1991 by Richard Gimblett, Page 75 http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2015/mdn-dnd/D4-7-5-2015-eng.pdf


----------



## Czech_pivo

Well, we've ordered/bought 28 of them.  If 15 go the 15 CSC's and 1 each go the 2 JSS, that leave's 11 onshore for training and deep maintenance.  Is that the correct ratio?  Does this mean that some are sitting idle with no jobs to perform? Or does this mean that we don't have enough of them?
From what I've been able to see, we used to have 24 on ships 10yrs ago, out of the 41 ordered.  Six on the Iroquois's, 6 on the replenishment ships and 1 on each Halifax. That's basically the exact same ratio (ship to land) - 58.5% on the Sea Kings' to 60% on the Cyclone's, so I'm going out on a limb here and saying that each JSS will only carry a single Cyclone.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Well, we've ordered/bought 28 of them.  If 15 go the 15 CSC's and 1 each go the 2 JSS, that leave's 11 onshore for training and deep maintenance.  Is that the correct ratio?  Does this mean that some are sitting idle with no jobs to perform? Or does this mean that we don't have enough of them?
> From what I've been able to see, we used to have 24 on ships 10yrs ago, out of the 41 ordered.  Six on the Iroquois's, 6 on the replenishment ships and 1 on each Halifax. That's basically the exact same ratio (ship to land) - 58.5% on the Sea Kings' to 60% on the Cyclone's, so I'm going out on a limb here and saying that each JSS will only carry a single Cyclone.



You're forgetting the Harry DeWolf class that has the capability of embarking a Cyclone.


----------



## Kirkhill

Aren't we also forgetting the vessels that are alongside or in for maintenance?

Of the "11-15" CSCs, "5-6" AOPS and "2-3" AORs how many will actually be at sea either on station or in transit?

15+6+3 = 24
11+5+2 = 18

Will there be 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of the fleet at sea at any one time?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> You're forgetting the Harry DeWolf class that has the capability of embarking a Cyclone.



Good point. But, I do wonder how often they will be used with AOPS. At least initially, I heard the plan was to fly with CCG helo’s and Air Dets. Then, there were some rumblings about Griffons. I got the impression from all this that the Cyclones were going to be too much in demand to be tasked to do whatever the DEWOLF’s will be doing.


----------



## Lumber

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Aren't we also forgetting the vessels that are alongside or in for maintenance?
> 
> Of the "11-15" CSCs, "5-6" AOPS and "2-3" AORs how many will actually be at sea either on station or in transit?
> 
> 15+6+3 = 24
> 11+5+2 = 18
> 
> Will there be 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of the fleet at sea at any one time?



It's more complicated than that; just because a ship is at sea does not mean that she has an air det and helo embarked.

In fact, I've only ever sailed with a helo in 3 situations:
1. Air Workups;
2. SHOAL Trials (barf); and 
3. Deployments.

Sometimes we seem to sail with a helo for Task Group exercises, but not always.

So, our demand for ships at sea could be a lot higher than our demand for embarked helos. For example, we could have 4 CPFs and a JSS at sea from the East coast alone, 2 of which are down off the US coast participating in a TGEX, 1 CPF doing trials with the JSS off of Halifax, and 1 on deployment. In this scenario, it's very possible that only the deployed CPF has a helo.

In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:

"The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."


----------



## Stoker

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Good point. But, I do wonder how often they will be used with AOPS. At least initially, I heard the plan was to fly with CCG helo’s and Air Dets. Then, there were some rumblings about Griffons. I got the impression from all this that the Cyclones were going to be too much in demand to be tasked to do whatever the DEWOLF’s will be doing.



That is correct, they will embark with a CCG helo for the 4 months in the Arctic. However they will be embarking other places as well.


----------



## Baz

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Aren't we also forgetting the vessels that are alongside or in for maintenance?
> 
> Of the "11-15" CSCs, "5-6" AOPS and "2-3" AORs how many will actually be at sea either on station or in transit?
> 
> 15+6+3 = 24
> 11+5+2 = 18
> 
> Will there be 1/4, 1/3 or 1/2 of the fleet at sea at any one time?



As I said, the authorized manning for 12 Wing *was* as of my last interaction with it, 3 years ago) based on 15 det equivalents in 11 dets.  That means 15 aircraft, with 7 dets having 2 crews and a "single" maintenance org (11 maintainers and 8 aircrew) with 1 helo, and 4 dets with 3 crews and an augmented maintenance org (forget the actual manning).  This totals 15 aircraft.  Of the remainder, some are back at 423/443 for the remaining people on the squadrons (ie command, ops, and standards and readiness), some are at 406 (the training squadron, whose pipe has to keep flowing to produce dets), and some are at 12AMS in deep maintenance.  The number of aircraft, 28, was the minimum to maintain that org; notice that there are none for attrition.  Originally the EH-101 buy was for 35 plus 15 SAR, but it was cut to 28 before the 93 election, and then obviously cancelled afterwards.  The restarted project was for 28 aircraft.

During non surge ops the dets are deployed 1 in 4; it doesn't mean they are not at sea, but it means they are not on international ops.  So that means at any given time, in non-surge ops, you have approximately 2 single helo dets and 1 two helo dets available for international deployment.  This is also true for the Navy; historically you have have half(ish) of the ships at high readiness, with one task group ready to deploy, 1 ship actually on international ops, and one either getting ready to leave or just coming back.  There is a combined RCAF and RCN committee that plans to match dets and ships based on RCN needs.

From my understanding, the army is also familiar with this construct; it can *sustain* 1 out of 4 deployed.  One is getting ready to go, one is deployed, one coming back, and one regenerating.

My point is, counting aircraft and hulls doesn't give the answer; you need to take into account force generation, maintenance, deployment cycles... it's also not a static organization, it is tailored to the needs of current ops.

It is going to take a long time for 12 Wing to build up to authorized manning, and I'm positive as they learn about the aircraft they'll optimize det organization and number of dets.  It is also going to take the RCN a long time to build up authorized strength *once* they get the hulls as well.  I would think that they will retain the capability to create 2 helo dets for two reasons; depth in the TG, and flexibility if Protecteur / Preserver deploy on ops like humanitarian assistance.


----------



## Baz

Lumber said:
			
		

> It's more complicated than that; just because a ship is at sea does not mean that she has an air det and helo embarked.
> 
> In fact, I've only ever sailed with a helo in 3 situations:
> 1. Air Workups;
> 2. SHOAL Trials (barf); and
> 3. Deployments.
> 
> Sometimes we seem to sail with a helo for Task Group exercises, but not always.
> 
> So, our demand for ships at sea could be a lot higher than our demand for embarked helos. For example, we could have 4 CPFs and a JSS at sea from the East coast alone, 2 of which are down off the US coast participating in a TGEX, 1 CPF doing trials with the JSS off of Halifax, and 1 on deployment. In this scenario, it's very possible that only the deployed CPF has a helo.
> 
> In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:
> 
> "The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."



The current reality for det availability unfortunately doesn't match demand, even given that the RCN is currently stretched as well.  You would like to have dets on, for example, the TGEX.  Those don't count towards the 1 in 4 deployed.  As a matter of fact, it is also important for the Wing; part of force generation is embarked training, ie participating in exercises.  But lately manning hasn't allowed what would be liked.


----------



## Baz

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> That is correct, they will embark with a CCG helo for the 4 months in the Arctic. However they will be embarking other places as well.



Hopefully I'm not taking up to much of the conversation...

That is what the combined RCAF and RCN helo allocation committee is for; to determine which ships *need* dets for ops, and which ones can *provide* dets with good training opportunities, and then balance out the allocation correctly.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> You're forgetting the Harry DeWolf class that has the capability of embarking a Cyclone.



I didn't forget them, I just remember being told previously on the AOPS thread that the Cyclone's won't be on the AOPS's.  

I was just trying to point out that 10-12yrs ago we had a ratio of being able to deploy 60% of the Sea King's and having 40% back home doing training and maintenance.  Of course the 60% was based on the premise that the entire fleet could absorb 24 Sea King's. Going forward, I made the assumption that in 25yrs, when the last of the 15 (hopefully) CSC's are built, we'd keep the same ratio, 60%.  If we have 2 Cyclones per JSS and 1 per AOPS, we'd only then have 3 or 5 Cyclone's (depending if 5 or 6 AOPS are built) back on land doing training or deep maintenance.  Even I as a total lay person realise that this would be terrible planning.....

So, either we didn't order enough Cyclone's as previously we had 41 Sea Kings with a smaller fleet overall (meaning we didn't have 5/6 AOPS-like ships capable of taking a Cyclone/Sea King on-board or, we are sticking with the 60/40 split and there will be only 1 Cyclone per JSS and none on the AOPS's.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I didn't forget them, I just remember being told previously on the AOPS thread that the Cyclone's won't be on the AOPS's.
> 
> I was just trying to point out that 10-12yrs ago we had a ratio of being able to deploy 60% of the Sea King's and having 40% back home doing training and maintenance.  Of course the 60% was based on the premise that the entire fleet could absorb 24 Sea King's. Going forward, I made the assumption that in 25yrs, when the last of the 15 (hopefully) CSC's are built, we'd keep the same ratio, 60%.  If we have 2 Cyclones per JSS and 1 per AOPS, we'd only then have 3 or 5 Cyclone's (depending if 5 or 6 AOPS are built) back on land doing training or deep maintenance.  Even I as a total lay person realise that this would be terrible planning.....
> 
> So, either we didn't order enough Cyclone's as previously we had 41 Sea Kings with a smaller fleet overall (meaning we didn't have 5/6 AOPS-like ships capable of taking a Cyclone/Sea King on-board or, we are sticking with the 60/40 split and there will be only 1 Cyclone per JSS and none on the AOPS's.



Like was already explained in multiple posts the CCG will embark while in the Arctic, other than that in other areas the Cyclone could be operated and probably will and not all deployments warrant a Cyclone. As for the number of Cyclones purchased and their use I would say that was factored into the planning process so rest easy.


----------



## Baz

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I didn't forget them, I just remember being told previously on the AOPS thread that the Cyclone's won't be on the AOPS's.
> 
> I was just trying to point out that 10-12yrs ago we had a ratio of being able to deploy 60% of the Sea King's and having 40% back home doing training and maintenance.  Of course the 60% was based on the premise that the entire fleet could absorb 24 Sea King's. Going forward, I made the assumption that in 25yrs, when the last of the 15 (hopefully) CSC's are built, we'd keep the same ratio, 60%.  If we have 2 Cyclones per JSS and 1 per AOPS, we'd only then have 3 or 5 Cyclone's (depending if 5 or 6 AOPS are built) back on land doing training or deep maintenance.  Even I as a total lay person realise that this would be terrible planning.....
> 
> So, either we didn't order enough Cyclone's as previously we had 41 Sea Kings with a smaller fleet overall (meaning we didn't have 5/6 AOPS-like ships capable of taking a Cyclone/Sea King on-board or, we are sticking with the 60/40 split and there will be only 1 Cyclone per JSS and none on the AOPS's.



Again, not the best comparison:

When we ordered 41 Sea Kings, it wasn't to meet the current deployment conops.  Remember, at the time, we had an aircraft carrier and were also developing flying big helicopters off little ships.

A good time snap would be when I first joined 423, at he beginning of '93.  Although we were revering from op friction, we had *approximately* this org:
- at 423, on the east coast, 5 steamer dets, 1 2 helo 280 det, and one 2 helo tanker det
- at 443, on the west coast, 1 steamer sdet, 1 2 helo 280 det, and one 2 helo tanker det
That's pretty close to the planned force structure; only difference is there will be less dets east (4+1+1) and more west (3+1+1).

So, 14 helos in dets, and there were *around* 32 left (using http://www.rwrwalker.ca/CAF_Sea_King_detailed_list.htm); we lost a few more after that.

It was also anticipated that the new aircraft would need less deep maintenance, and in fact the Cyclone maintenance requirements were spec'd for that.  Time will tell...

Leadmark 2050 explains that the RCN's ambition is to provide on high readiness task group, consisting of  1 CSC, 2 or 3 Halifax, 1 Protecteur / Provider, several CH-148, and 1 Victoria (Canada in a New Maritime World LEADMARK 2050, Page 43 http://navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/rcn_leadmark-2050.pdf).  Of those, you could expect sustained 1 ship deployed and 1 going or coming back.  So the basic structure that 12 Wing org is based on is still correct.

The Harry DeWolfs through a slight curve ball, but that is were balancing of needs comes in.

So no planning mistake, the basic structure on both sides remains sound.  Unless attrition jumps up and bites...


Edditted to add: or, put more simply, what Chief Stoker said...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Contracting out helicopter services for the Astreix would alleviate some of the demand on the helo's as well. Contracted helo does personal and cargo. If they have a Cyclone aboard it can provide some protection or do boarding party support, etc.


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> Contracting out helicopter services for the Astreix would alleviate some of the demand on the helo's as well. Contracted helo does personal and cargo. If they have a Cyclone aboard it can provide some protection or do boarding party support, etc.



Other nations will also do similar, but contracted out from a local airport.  So, for example, if deployed in the Persian Gulf, have a contracted helo in Bahrain to do HDS (Helicopter Delivery Service).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I understood both the RFA and the USN use contracted helicopters based on their vessels?


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> I understood both the RFA and the USN use contracted helicopters based on their vessels?



They may well do, but I've never saw it.  I do know people who have been exchange officers on board RN Sea King dets on RFAs.  All the USNS (auxiliaries are not USN) I saw where either CH-46 Sea Knights or SH-60s.

But definitely I've seen that the USN uses contracted helos from ashore in the Persion Gulf.  The used to have Sea King dets for that (the example I saw were Italy and the Gulf).


----------



## Baz

Mods: perhaps move this into the CH-148 thread?


----------



## Underway

@Baz:  How many flight crews per det?  Or is the det number flexible (Ie: AOR might take one det but its larger compared to a CPF....).  So for example you said earlier that there are 8 flight crew pers per det, which means two flight crews total (two in the front and two in the back).  Or am I getting this mixed up.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> @Baz:  How many flight crews per det?  Or is the det number flexible (Ie: AOR might take one det but its larger compared to a CPF....).  So for example you said earlier that there are 8 flight crew pers per det, which means two flight crews total (two in the front and two in the back).  Or am I getting this mixed up.



A "normal" det is two crews so 8 aircrew (2 pilots, 1 ACSO, and 1 AESOP per crew).

A 280 det was normally 3 crews if they sailed with 2 helos; if one helo it was a "normal" det.

A tanker det could have 1-3 helos, and as low as 1 crew plus an LSO (which is a pilot), or as high as 4 crews.

When I say 15 det equivalents in 11 dets, the four dets that have 2 helos would have 3 crews normally.

All of this is subject to mission tailoring, but "normal" dets normally stay normal.


----------



## dapaterson

ACSO- Advanced Coffee System Operator.


----------



## Baz

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ACSO- Advanced Coffee System Operator.



As I don't drink the stuff I never made it for anyone else... I'm not sure I even know how.  I prefer 200lbs of self loading baggage, thank you very much!


----------



## dapaterson

Well, it's not as if you can trust a pilot with complex technology like a Keurig, after all...


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> I understood both the RFA and the USN use contracted helicopters based on their vessels?



Erickson Helicopters has a contract with the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command to supply embarked AS330 Puma Helicopters on a number of T-KAE and other USNS replenishment vessels.  A friend of mine is a retired-USN bos’n now a civilian mate on a T-KAE and the Pumas are in integral part of the Ship’s VERTREP capability. 

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## Kirkhill

What the heck....

Hand all the tankers, auxilliary support and Coast Guard navigation aids over to civilian companies - Federal Fleet Services, CHC, Provincial Airlines,  NavCan.

Unless there are missiles with launchers on board why on earth do you need people in uniform?

You could even hire IMP to put maintenance teams on ships at sea.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What the heck....
> 
> Hand all the tankers, auxilliary support and Coast Guard navigation aids over to civilian companies - Federal Fleet Services, CHC, Provincial Airlines,  NavCan.
> 
> Unless there are missiles with launchers on board why on earth do you need people in uniform?
> 
> You could even hire IMP to put maintenance teams on ships at sea.




Considering the capabilities of some private military contracting firms, there is some merit in that notion.

It is not, of course, without risk ...






... consider the FRA Sir Galahad which was sunk by Argentine _Skyhawks_ during the Falklands war with the loss of 48 sailors and soldiers.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Considering the capabilities of some private military contracting firms, there is some merit in that notion.
> 
> It is not, of course, without risk ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... consider the FRA Sir Galahad which was sunk by Argentine _Skyhawks_ during the Falklands war with the loss of 48 sailors and soldiers.



With respect, I believe that was more down to The Taffs' deciding to stay warm and dry for a bit longer rather than disembarking and letting the Sir Galahad getting underway again.  I don't think it would have made much difference if the ship had been flying a Red, White or Blue Ensign or the Jolly Roger.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Erickson Helicopters has a contract with the US Navy’s Military Sealift Command to supply embarked AS330 Puma Helicopters on a number of T-KAE and other USNS replenishment vessels.  A friend of mine is a retired-USN bos’n now a civilian mate on a T-KAE and the Pumas are in integral part of the Ship’s VERTREP capability.
> 
> :2c:
> 
> Regards
> G2G



Just a minor correction, G2G: It's T-AKE, not T-KAE.  ;D

The "T-" indicates that the ship is operated by the Military Sealift Command (hence, by civilians), while the AKE is the ship's type designator, indicating a "advanced dry cargo ship" as the type.


----------



## Kirkhill

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Considering the capabilities of some private military contracting firms, there is some merit in that notion.
> 
> It is not, of course, without risk ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... consider the FRA Sir Galahad which was sunk by Argentine _Skyhawks_ during the Falklands war with the loss of 48 sailors and soldiers.



Further to the discussion of civilian support - 








> A Call To Serve
> 
> *Trevor Lane was helping to paint his neighbor's house when the news came over the
> radio that Argentina had occupied the Falklands.*  *He had been with P&O for eight years
> and had risen to navigator on CANBERRA.*  He was now home on leave while the ship
> completed her annual world cruise.  "I almost instinctively knew that that was going to
> affect me."
> *Lane knew that in times of war, the government had authority to requisition merchant
> ships and had seen Royal Navy personnel coming on board CANBERRA from
> time-to-time for inspections and to see how the ship operated.  Thus, it was apparent
> that CANBERRA was part of the Royal Navy's contingency planning.*
> Although the navigator who was on CANBERRA at the moment was senior to Lane,
> Lane had been with CANBERRA since he had been a cadet.  "I was part of the
> establishment, if you like, on the CANBERRA."  Furthermore, his colleague was just
> completing a lengthy world cruise.  If Lane did not relieve him, his friend would have to
> continue on with the ship.  Moreover, the town in which Lane lived along the south
> coast of England was known as "P&O Village" because so many P&O officers and
> employees lived there. * It would have been difficult to show his face at the local pub, if
> he did not volunteer.  Thus, when the personnel department called, Lane agreed to go.*
> "Military personnel joined the ship in Gibraltar and they were already making plans
> aboard the ship.  *When they got to Southampton and discharged the passengers*, an
> amazing refit that took place, which implied that they had plans in place to convert the
> ship very quickly.  *They cut off large parts of it and built three helicopter decks in three
> days.*  They took things like cocktail bars in the forward end of the ship and put
> scaffolding jacks throughout the bar [to act as pillars to support the weight.] Then they
> extended the deck above it and took down all the rails and that became the main
> helicopter deck.  They took one of the main swimming pools in the middle of the ship
> and put huge girders in the middle, covered that and cut down the side rails.  They had
> another helicopter deck up by the funnels.  They did this fantastic conversion in three or
> four days."
> 
> Although CANBERRA normally carried 1,700 passengers on a cruise, "they embarked a
> whole brigade - - nearly 4,000 troops.  It was called Three Commando Brigade, and it
> was made up of paratroopers, marines and some naval auxiliary staff and some RAF and
> helicopter pilots."
> 
> *The ship set out from England with the ship's P&O captain and a Royal Navy officer
> sharing command.  Lane was not a member of the Royal Navy Reserve and thus
> technically, he was only under the command of the civilian captain.  However, the navy
> wanted direct authority over the ship's navigator.  P&O did not want to cede full
> authority.  "They ended up giving me Royal Navy stripes on one shoulder and regular
> merchant navy stripes on the other.  That was the compromise."*



http://beyondships.com/PO-Canberra-Falklands.html

And not to forget Atlantic Conveyor and the Norland - all civilian crews - all exposed to enemy fire.   The RFA were at least hired with the expectation that they could be bombed.


----------



## Good2Golf

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just a minor correction, G2G: It's T-AKE, not T-KAE.  ;D
> 
> The "T-" indicates that the ship is operated by the Military Sealift Command (hence, by civilians), while the AKE is the ship's type designator, indicating a "advanced dry cargo ship" as the type.



OGBD, I plead autocorrect by some crappy DJ, dang’it! ;D


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

At least it didn't come out as TKO then.


----------



## MarkOttawa

See the timelines for the Royal Navy's two types (Type 31e smaller) of new frigates:

1) Type 26:



> Why will the Royal Navy not have its first Type 26 frigate operational until 2027 [when will first CSC be ready?]
> 
> Defence Procurement Minister, Guto Bebb stated in Parliament on 23rd April that the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow is due to be accepted from the builders in the summer of 2025. Eighteen months of further trials and training should see her become operational in 2027. Here we ask why the navy must tolerate such a leisurely eight-year construction schedule.
> 
> The Type 26 promises to be a superb submarine hunter and, if adequate investment is made in equipping them with the right weapon fit, they have the potential to be one of best surface combatants in the world. They will be the backbone of our anti-submarine capability and escort for the QEC aircraft carriers, in a world that everyone agrees is becoming more dangerous...
> 
> *A lack of urgency*
> 
> Not only should these vessels have been ordered at least 5 years ago, we now find that an extraordinarily leisurely build schedule has been agreed upon. Since the 2015 SDSR, the in-service date for the first T26 has been officially described as in the “mid-2020s”. Using historical precedent, many had assumed a construction time of around 5-6 years, expecting HMS Glasgow would probably begin sea trials in 2023. A comparable complex warship HMS Daring, the first Type 45 destroyer, was laid down March 2003 and accepted by RN in December 2008, a build time of 5 years and 9 months. The Type 45 was arguably more complex and innovative than the T26, with 80% of its equipment new to RN service. T26 is a sophisticated design but relatively low risk. The ‘mission bay’ concept and Mk 41 VLS are new to the RN but already in use with other navies. Significant de-risking work on the design and major components has already been conducted using virtual reality and land-based test rigs. There will be some challenging systems integration work and a bespoke propulsion system but the majority of its key weapons, sensors, decoys, combat system and engines are already proven, and in many cases, already in service on other platforms.
> 
> ...Whatever the reason for the slow construction, it does not look good in the brochure for the T26 Global Combat Ship design that BAE Systems is looking to export to Australia and Canada. As a light cruiser-sized vessel, T26 comes with space and power generation facilities to support future upgrades but the £3.7Bn build contract for the first three ships certainly does not allow for major changes during construction.
> 
> *Why won’t these frigates be built faster?*
> 
> There are no problems with the available space or manufacturing facilities in Glasgow, neither are there issues with the supply chain or the overall complexity of the ship. It is not BAE Systems dragging their feet, rather the MoD is deliberately slowing delivery. The shipbuilding facility and workforce has therefore been sized and scaled to meet the requirements of the customer. The _reality is that constricted annual budgets force the MoD to make short-term savings by spreading the cost over a longer time period_ [emphasis added]. Stretching out procurement programmes with artificially-induced delays may reduce the annual expenditure, but over the lifetime of the project always adds significant additional costs...
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/why-will-the-royal-navy-not-have-its-first-type-26-frigate-operational-until-2027/



2) Type 31e:


> Making sense of the Royal Navy’s frigate building schedule
> 
> In an earlier article [see above], we examined the slow build and delivery schedule for the first Type 26 frigates. With this infographic [please go to link below], we attempt to assess how the projected construction schedule fits with the decommissioning of the Type 23 frigates.
> 
> This is very much an outline projection using elements of guesswork, based on the limited information available today and is likely to change. There are several important assumptions made in the timeline. Type 31s will be laid down in a drumbeat of approximately 1 per year and as simpler ships, their trials and introduction into service should be much faster than the Type 26. It has been stated that the first three Type 26s will be under construction for about 8 years with first of class trials and work up lasting almost 2 years. The first three ships are being laid down at around 18-24 month intervals. It is assumed the later ships will be laid down at about the same rate but constructed and brought into service slightly faster, although this would appear to be imperative, it is uncertain at this time.
> 
> *Conclusions*
> 
> Each of the five Type 31e frigates will have to be constructed, complete sea trials and worked up in around 4 years (the contract will be awarded in early 2019) if they are to be ready to replace the first five Type 23s on time. This is very demanding and does not provide any slack, should any significant construction snags or technical problems arise [_first to be laid down 2019, in service 2023_]...
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/making-sense-of-the-royal-navys-frigate-building-schedule/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## JMCanada

Now compare that to the fact that V. de Quebec is nowadays deployed in eastern med. along with De Ruyter ( zeven provincien class) and C. Colon (F-100).

How much risk and delay is the MOD ready or willing to take?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Most of what you need to know from _FrontLine Defence_, excerpt:



> CSC 2018 Evaluation Stage
> ...
> Although rumours are swirling about the possibility of two variants on a common platform, a DND spokesperson confirms that “the current requirement is that all 15 CSC ships will have the same capabilities: anti-air warfare, anti-submarine warfare, anti-surface warfare, electronic warfare as well as command and control.”
> 
> The DND email to FrontLine goes on to say that “Funding has been set aside to deliver the full complement of ships the Royal Canadian Navy needs, in order to provide capability across the full range of operations. This will replace both the recently retired Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates with a single class of ship capable of meeting multiple threats on both the open ocean and the highly complex coastal (littoral) environment.”
> 
> One rumour suggests that an initial tranche would be built “to facilitate narrowing the production gap at Irving.” But the official word from DND is that “In recognition of the duration of the design and construction for the ships, the competitive procurement required bidders to bid on major equipment for the first three ships. These competitive prices will then be used as the basis for negotiation of equipment which will be installed in subsequent ships.”
> 
> How the Government expects to receive the best pricing for the most expensive single procurement in Canadian military history based on only 3 of the 15 was not explained.
> 
> Whichever way quantities and variants play out, the chosen design must be cost-effective and fully capable in the current global environment, be adaptable to the future maritime threat environment, and have growth margins to allow for role changes and upgrades in technology, particularly weapon systems (hence the criticality of this process).
> 
> Insiders are saying the _estimated completion of the winning design and contractor team selection process is now expected to be in November 2018 (though more likely early 2019), with ship construction to start the early 2020s_ [emphasis added].
> 
> A note of caution comes from Jean-Denis Fréchette, the Parliamentary Budget Officer. For every year that the awarding of the contract is delayed beyond 2018, his staff estimates the program will cost taxpayers an extra $3 Billion due to inflation...
> https://defence.frontline.online/article/2018/5/10490-CSC-2018-Evaluation-Stage



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## AirDet

Lumber said:
			
		

> In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:
> 
> "The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."



That sounds about right. But I'll take that to it's natural conclusion for you...

The only reason that Frigate even exists is to provide a heliport for the Helo!  :evilrifle:


----------



## kratz

[quote author=AirDet]
The only reason that Frigate even exists is to provide a heliport for the Helo!  :evilrifle:
[/quote]

Stand down Trigger.  :cowboy: /s 
Aircrew enjoy SDA added on top of their other allowances.


----------



## Good2Golf

kratz said:
			
		

> Stand down Trigger.  :cowboy: /s
> Aircrew enjoy SDA added on top of their other allowances.



Yeah!  Double-dipping Internet-surfing crew-resting Prima Donnas!


(Said the ex triple-dipping (PLT/AIRCRA/LDA) semi(on account of doing some (air)field time)-Prima Donna...  ;D )


----------



## NavyShooter

Lumber said:
			
		

> In fact, I heard a very depressing statement the other day that rings some what true. Essentially this person said:
> 
> "The entire MARLANT organization, with all its schools, personnel management, maintenance facilities, intelligence facilities, HQs, and support units, totalling over 5000 people, is here just to put 1 Frigate to see on deployment for 6 months out of the year."




This is only somewhat accurate - in terms of major international deployers, yes, one at a time, in serial is the way we do it.  Usually.


However, if you actually look at what we support, our MARLANT organization in the Halifax area (plus the NFS(A) det here that belongs to MARPAC) actually has a frigate on deployment to a NATO/UN/Etc tasking for 11 out of 12 months in a year.  


We also support FDU deploying 4-5 times a year on various tasks and deployments, as well as MCDV's doing an average of 3x deployments (2+ months for 2x ships) per year, plus the other 6 Frigates undergoing their TRP's getting them on the road to readiness for deployment to replace the one that's gone.  On top of that we have the submarines, with the specialized work that goes into supporting and maintaining them.  (We had a sub deployed on the west coast for over 4 months which got considerable support from the MARLANT area as well.)


You are severely understating the availability of spots in the parking lot in HMC Dockyard. 


NS


----------



## Lumber

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> This is only somewhat accurate - in terms of major international deployers, yes, one at a time, in serial is the way we do it.  Usually.
> 
> 
> However, if you actually look at what we support, our MARLANT organization in the Halifax area (plus the NFS(A) det here that belongs to MARPAC) actually has a frigate on deployment to a NATO/UN/Etc tasking for 11 out of 12 months in a year.
> 
> 
> We also support FDU deploying 4-5 times a year on various tasks and deployments, as well as MCDV's doing an average of 3x deployments (2+ months for 2x ships) per year, plus the other 6 Frigates undergoing their TRP's getting them on the road to readiness for deployment to replace the one that's gone.  On top of that we have the submarines, with the specialized work that goes into supporting and maintaining them.  (We had a sub deployed on the west coast for over 4 months which got considerable support from the MARLANT area as well.)
> 
> 
> You are severely understating the availability of spots in the parking lot in HMC Dockyard.
> 
> 
> NS



Yes yes, all of these things... but what are all of these things?... could we say categories most of them as Force... Generation? 

We're sending 3 ships to Europe in the fall, for example  (and that's from the unclassified fleet schedule, so no one get your panties in a bunch about opsec), which is impressive, but they're going for Force Generation, not Force Employment.

So, yes, we have more that one ship sailing 6 months out of the year, but all of that sailing is for the purpose of force generating in preparation to force employ 1 Frigate 6 months out of the year.

If we had to, how many ships do you things we could deploy together on a 6-8 months named operation?


----------



## dapaterson

Lumber said:
			
		

> If we had to, how many ships do you things we could deploy together on a 6-8 months named operation?



I don't think it qualifies as a crisis until _Oriole_ is the ready duty ship.


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I don't think it qualifies as a crisis until _Oriole_ is the ready duty ship.



Or they get Haida ready to deploy


----------



## Dale Denton

Off topic, but has anyone ever lobbied to have Haida sail again? You think it has more of a place in history than Oriole, would be a better trophy ship to do port visits in than a tallboat IMHO.


----------



## YZT580

Would probably cost as much to get up steam in the Haida as a new one.  Even the props are gone, I think and every part needed would have to be made from scratch.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yes yes, all of these things... but what are all of these things?... could we say categories most of them as Force... Generation?
> ..



The navy doesn't have a neat box on force employment/generation like the army and airforce.  Unless we are actively shooting, we're still doing force generation in theatre while on HR.  To be honest, deploying was less busy than any of the TGEXs or various other 'force generation' sails I've ever done, and you always have the fun that goes along with things catching on fire or otherwise failing catastrophically in new and fun ways regardless of your posture, so the only real difference between force employment sails and force generation sails is you tend to leave the wall with more stuff working on HR.


----------



## Infanteer

How does the Navy define Force Generation and Force Employment?

To me, if a warship is at sea with ammunition, it can be employed.  Is there confirmation gateways ships must achieve before being considered "available for employment?"


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How does the Navy define Force Generation and Force Employment?
> 
> To me, if a warship is at sea with ammunition, it can be employed.  Is there confirmation gateways ships must achieve before being considered "available for employment?"



You will find this interesting as I just found it out from being in Esquimalt the past few months and having a few old pals that explained things to me.

Unlike the Army, the Navy has this organization called Sea Training, who are responsible for Ship's Standing Orders(SSOs), which is the document that governs everything on a Royal Canadian Navy Vessel.  Sea Training are like OCTs at CMTC except they work directly for the Fleet Commander and are there to ensure that Vessels are complying with SSOs which are essentially "Best practices" that are defined by Sea Training.  They have actual power and are SMEs in their respective fields and blowing them off will get you in huge poopoo.

What this ensures is that every ship in the RCN functions the exact same way and that there is one standard and commonality across the RCN.  You won't see three different brigades with three entirely different HQ Setups as that would go against SSOs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How does the Navy define Force Generation and Force Employment?
> 
> To me, if a warship is at sea with ammunition, it can be employed.  Is there confirmation gateways ships must achieve before being considered "available for employment?"


When a ship is just coming out of a docking work period, there are a number of trials that need to happen, plus training for the ship's company.  That's when you are in a reduced readiness, and generally don't have the equipment required to do much (but would be able to respond to a SAR or something if you are in the area or similar).

There is a set of training and equipment required to get to a standard readiness, some stuff required for an embarked helo, and the full suite to get up to a fully booted and spurred warship.  It's tiered to what kind of ops you can do, so a bit of a spectrum for employment.

Force generation/force employment is a bit fuzzy, but generally most of the time if the ships are under coastal control they are doing force gen, and are chopped out to CJOC if you are doing force employment.  But even on deployments, you still do 'force generation' (training serials while in theatre, task group exercises etc), and are always available while doing force generation sails to support real world stuff.

We always had an issue getting trainees in and out of theatre while dealing with CJOC as a result, as they expect us to keep the same crew the entire time, which isn't how we work.


----------



## FSTO

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> You will find this interesting as I just found it out from being in Esquimalt the past few months and having a few old pals that explained things to me.
> 
> Unlike the Army, the Navy has this organization called Sea Training, who are responsible for Ship's Standing Orders(SSOs), which is the document that governs everything on a Royal Canadian Navy Vessel.  Sea Training are like OCTs at CMTC except they work directly for the Fleet Commander and are there to ensure that Vessels are complying with SSOs which are essentially "Best practices" that are defined by Sea Training.  They have actual power and are SMEs in their respective fields and blowing them off will get you in huge poopoo.
> 
> What this ensures is that every ship in the RCN functions the exact same way and that there is one standard and commonality across the RCN.  You won't see three different brigades with three entirely different HQ Setups as that would go against SSOs.



I'm glad you explained how the RCN works from an Army perspective. I joined the Joint Battlespace Management Capability project last summer and was quickly exposed to the way the Army conducts its business through my interactions with JTFW, JTFC and FOIE. I'm still somewhat confused how the Army brigades talk to each other. Or do they even talk to each other?


----------



## Infanteer

Fascinating, thanks guys.  So, a ship doing some ASW training over off the UK is Force Generation and responds to its naval chain of command.  It could, the next day, be chopped to CJOC and deployed to the Med for Force Employment.

Again, I'm assuming there is a spectrum of risk for operational employment based on how much of the "readiness training" a ship has done in Force Generation.  Is there formal events where "Sea Training" comes down to "check ride" a ship?



			
				FSTO said:
			
		

> I'm still somewhat confused how the Army brigades talk to each other. Or do they even talk to each other?



Not really.  They belong to different Divisions and rotate through different periods of readiness.  Brigades don't really work together, they take over from each other.  There has long been a valid argument to combine the Brigades under a single Division Commander who can rope the three Armies into one direction.


----------



## FSTO

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Fascinating, thanks guys.  So, a ship doing some ASW training over off the UK is Force Generation and responds to its naval chain of command.  It could, the next day, be chopped to CJOC and deployed to the Med for Force Employment.
> 
> Again, I'm assuming there is a spectrum of risk for operational employment based on how much of the "readiness training" a ship has done in Force Generation.  *Is there formal events where "Sea Training" comes down to "check ride" a ship?
> *


Yes, its called Work-ups and there are several different types of them. Someone more current or from Sea Training itself can give you more detail than I.


----------



## dimsum

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> What this ensures is that every ship in the RCN functions the exact same way and that there is one standard and commonality across the RCN.  You won't see three different brigades with three entirely different HQ Setups as that would go against SSOs.



Given the amount of jetty-jumping (attachments to other ships) due to manning levels, having all the ships run the same way is a necessity.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Infanteer said:
			
		

> How does the Navy define Force Generation and Force Employment?
> 
> To me, if a warship is at sea with ammunition, it can be employed.  Is there confirmation gateways ships must achieve before being considered "available for employment?"



You would benefit from wandering over to the Naval Staff and having a chat them on how they manage the FG/FE issue. Also, PM me if you need to be put in touch with Sea Training to see how they operate. It occurs to me that the Army could learn some lessons here.


----------



## CBH99

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Not really.  They belong to different Divisions and rotate through different periods of readiness.  Brigades don't really work together, they take over from each other.  There has long been a valid argument to combine the Brigades under a single Division Commander who can rope the three Armies into one direction.




Funny you word it that way, because it's so true.

It makes perfect sense for the RCN to have the exact same procedures & standards throughout the fleet, as people can "jetty jump" from one ship to another, and plug themselves right in.  Excellent way of doing things, and makes perfect sense given the RCN's size & manning issues.

When I was in the Army, we would occasionally work with folks from the RCR - who had a very different way of doing things, even in garrison.  And working, taking over, or having them take over - with the R22/French battalions - holy crap.  Other than the same uniforms, you'd think we were 2 completely different armies.


----------



## dimsum

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Not really.  They belong to different Divisions and rotate through different periods of readiness.  Brigades don't really work together, they take over from each other.  There has long been a valid argument to combine the Brigades under a single Division Commander who can rope the three Armies into one direction.



Ah, but which one becomes the standard?   :stirpot:


----------



## Navy_Pete

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Again, I'm assuming there is a spectrum of risk for operational employment based on how much of the "readiness training" a ship has done in Force Generation.  Is there formal events where "Sea Training" comes down to "check ride" a ship?


In the last few years they have updated our orders and issued a CFCD that outlines it all.  There is a set of Ship Standing Orders (SSOs) that covers off the day to day stuff and how to respond to emergencies.  If you go to the MARLANT website on the DWAN you can find them on the Sea Training (Atlantic) area.  That includes the various readiness levels and the training needed.  It starts at individual training and rolls up to collective training at the unit level, so is pretty comprehensive.  There is an equipment component as well with a whole set of trials for the ship systems to pass.  

Aside from class specific requirements though, it is pretty critical for sailors to jump from ship to ship and be able to slide into the normal routine, as that happens all the time. 

Getting off topic, but the same concept will apply to CSC.  With the modern ships being intended to be more modular, capabilities theoretically roll on with a a system and crew component, and bolt on to the core crew.  Will be interesting to see when they select the ship how far they take that concept.


----------



## Swampbuggy

This thread is fascinating, but it certainly illustrates how thinly stretched the fleets must be. Looking ahead to the concept of Task Group, with potentially 4 surface warships and an AOR, it would seem to be a fairly lofty goal.  My takeaway from all of this, is that 15 CSC, 5-6 AOPS and 4 SSK’s won’t be quite enough to fulfill deployments and coastal protection/emergency response. There will have to be another platform to stay closer home. Right now it’s the MCDV, but there needs to be a discussion soon about what comes next, I would think.


----------



## NavyShooter

The answer to that Swamp is the AOPS.

In terms of readiness levels, having taken MON from a hulk in the 'loving' hands of ISI, to a warship having attained Standard Readiness level Work Ups, I can speak with some detail about how that process went - I realize that for the sake of PER points, someone has 'led change' and we now have BSSRTs or something like that, but basically, there were 5 states of readiness for a ship:

1.  Safe alongside 
2.  Safe at Sea 
3.  Reduced Readiness 
4.  Standard Readiness 
5.  High Readiness 

A ship with "Safe at Sea" or higher could act as a deployer, but depending on the materiel, equipment, and personnel state, they would only be able to bring certain capabilities to the table.  

As an example, a ship that has only attained "Safe at Sea" could be sent with a boat-load of humanitarian aid to a disaster zone, and respond effectively.  Sending that same ship to the Persian Gulf would probably not be such a good plan.

The higher the readiness level, the more 'employable/deployable' the ship is.  

I could go into more depth, but, suffice to say that in my career, I've taken multiple ships through the whole series of readiness states, at least 4 times.  My last ship we went from having no power or even a functional PA system onboard all the way to integrated weapons system tracking and engagements.  

NS


----------



## Lumber

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> This thread is fascinating, but it certainly illustrates how thinly stretched the fleets must be. Looking ahead to the concept of Task Group, with potentially 4 surface warships and an AOR, *it would seem to be a fairly lofty goal. * My takeaway from all of this, is that 15 CSC, 5-6 AOPS and 4 SSK’s won’t be quite enough to fulfill deployments and coastal protection/emergency response. There will have to be another platform to stay closer home. Right now it’s the MCDV, but there needs to be a discussion soon about what comes next, I would think.



That's not a loft goal, that's actually a complete reality.

Right now VDQ is on deployed in Europe, while Calgary and Asterix are deployed to SE Asia. Come October, HMC Ships Toronto, St. John's AND Halifax, as well as I believe 2 of the MCDVs (not sure which two, I want to say Summerside and Glace Bay) will _*all*_ be deploying to Europe. So, by the end of October, we will have 5 frigates, 2 MCDVs and an AOR all at sea the same time (doing a mix of FG and FE). 

That's 46% of our major combatants (counting Asterix as a major combatant) all forward deployed at the same time! 

Actually, just checking the unclass sched right now, and it looks like for about a week in October, HMC Ships Regina, Vancouver, Edmonton and Whitehorse will all be at sea at the same time as the others I listed, so bump that number up to 60% of our heavies nad 33% of our small guys, all at sea at the same time.

How's them apples, eh Army? (and by apples I mean overall operational readiness of the RCN...)


----------



## Swampbuggy

Lumber said:
			
		

> That's not a loft goal, that's actually a complete reality.
> 
> Right now VDQ is on deployed in Europe, while Calgary and Asterix are deployed to SE Asia. Come October, HMC Ships Toronto, St. John's AND Halifax, as well as I believe 2 of the MCDVs (not sure which two, I want to say Summerside and Glace Bay) will _*all*_ be deploying to Europe. So, by the end of October, we will have 5 frigates, 2 MCDVs and an AOR all at sea the same time (doing a mix of FG and FE).
> 
> That's 46% of our major combatants (counting Asterix as a major combatant) all forward deployed at the same time!
> 
> Actually, just checking the unclass sched right now, and it looks like for about a week in October, HMC Ships Regina, Vancouver, Edmonton and Whitehorse will all be at sea at the same time as the others I listed, so bump that number up to 60% of our heavies nad 33% of our small guys, all at sea at the same time.
> 
> How's them apples, eh Army? (and by apples I mean overall operational readiness of the RCN...)



That’s with the current fleet of 24 surface warships, but I’m looking to when the MCDV’s are rotated out. 

So, for a scenario, I’ll use MARPAC, with the assumption that the CSC split will leave them with 7 out of the 15 vessels. And, as it looks right now, MARPAC will have 2 out of 5/6 AOPS. 

If, as the MND states, the goal is to be able to deploy a task group of 4 CSC and an AOR from each fleet, what does that leave guarding the gates back home? Out of the remaining 3 CSC, isn’t the plan to have 1 in long term maintenance, 1 in short term/RAMP and 1 doing work ups? Seems thin, especially if 1 or both of your West Coast AOPS are sent North for the summer?

Right now, the 6 MCDV’s each coast has shoulder a heavy load, can they be replaced by only 5-6 AOPS across the board? 

This isn’t a rhetorical question, from me. I’d really like to know how they can do what they state they want to do and still leave the appropriate amount of coverage back home. 

If it’s all in scheduling, then it must really limit the options with even a 3-4 vessel reduction.


----------



## Kirkhill

Swamper - If I'm not mistook, a number of the Navy types on this site have stated at regular intervals that the MCDV is not being retired but retained and refurbished and will serve alongside the AOPS.

Or perhaps I misunderstand them and you.

 :cheers:


----------



## Swampbuggy

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Swamper - If I'm not mistook, a number of the Navy types on this site have stated at regular intervals that the MCDV is not being retired but retained and refurbished and will serve alongside the AOPS.
> 
> Or perhaps I misunderstand them and you.
> 
> :cheers:



That’s 100% right...for now. It was how the fleet’s readiness was being discussed that got me wondering how they manage to do it all with 24 surface vessels, currently. In the next 5 years the AOPS will bring the total to 30 vessels, but this will include a far greater presence in the Arctic, so the demand on the fleet will still be very high. Then, in say 12-15 years, the MCDV will be retired and all these tasks will remain to be done by 12 fewer ships. That’s kind of worrisome, wouldn’t you say? I see a need coming for a fleet of smaller, cheaper, mainly coastal vessels to augment the AOPS and CSC and allow them to be sent wherever need dictates and still have a effective, efficient response team at home. I know the MCDVS will be here for a long time yet, but given how slowly the wheels turn in procuring new vessels, I believe that conversation should take place within the next 5 years, IMHO.


----------



## Dale Denton

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Then, in say 12-15 years, the MCDV will be retired and all these tasks will remain to be done by 12 fewer ships. That’s kind of worrisome, wouldn’t you say? I see a need coming for a fleet of smaller, cheaper, mainly coastal vessels to augment the AOPS and CSC and allow them to be sent wherever need dictates and still have a effective, efficient response team at home. I know the MCDVS will be here for a long time yet, but given how slowly the wheels turn in procuring new vessels, I believe that conversation should take place within the next 5 years, IMHO.



How about this as an alternative: 

As the CSCs start coming online, make the CPFs replace the MCDVs. Yes, they are more expensive and intensive to run, but they'll be cheaper to run than building new OPVs (or starting a 15 year replacement project for them). And yes, they are overkill for the job, but why not (you could keep them in a low-readiness state considering the job)? As each CSC is brought in, thats 1 more CPF to start O-OPV (Overkill-OPV) patrolling. As the later CSC builds come on, you can start to retire the first CPFs, and by that time the 15 year MCDV project would have started (hopefully) to cut steel.


----------



## blacktriangle

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> How about this as an alternative:
> 
> ...



No. 

Have you been on either class of vessel? I'm sure the Navy will be along soon to pick this apart if any of them feel the need...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> How about this as an alternative:
> 
> As the CSCs start coming online, make the CPFs replace the MCDVs. Yes, they are more expensive and intensive to run, but they'll be cheaper to run than building new OPVs (or starting a 15 year replacement project for them). And yes, they are overkill for the job, but why not (you could keep them in a low-readiness state considering the job)? As each CSC is brought in, thats 1 more CPF to start O-OPV (Overkill-OPV) patrolling. As the later CSC builds come on, you can start to retire the first CPFs, and by that time the 15 year MCDV project would have started (hopefully) to cut steel.


No.
We will be luckily to keep the 12 Frigates we have floatable until the CSCs come, much less keep them past that point.


----------



## dapaterson

Operating cost differential between CPF and MCDV is an order of magnitude; crewing is nearly the same.


----------



## Swampbuggy

As far as it goes, the replacement for an MCDV doesn’t have to be anything over the top, like using a CPF would be. I’d say something along the lines of the USCG Sentinel class. It’s a version of the same vessel that became the HERO class for the CCG, but a little bigger and I think a little more durable in heavy seas? Building 6-7 of those with twin fast launch RHIBS, an RWS and a 25kt speed requirement shouldn’t be overly expensive. 

It should be adequate for Canadian coastal defence/interdiction and frees up the CPF/CSC/AOPS to go wherever else the Navy’s business sends them. 

My point to this whole thread wasn’t really to find an MCDV replacement, but rather to find out what we have available for home water defence when the big guys are gone and the MCDV’s are in the Caribbean or Africa. If it’s not OPSEC, can anyone say what the basic level of Naval defence Canada requires in home waters?


----------



## FSTO

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Can anyone say what the basic level of Naval defence Canada requires in home waters?



Don't ask any of our political leaders. They have no clue that we even have a coastline!


----------



## Swampbuggy

FSTO said:
			
		

> Don't ask any of our political leaders. They have no clue that we even have a coastline!



🤣

But also,

😭...


----------



## Cloud Cover

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> can anyone say what the basic level of Naval defence Canada requires in home waters?



#@Hiltontheshark
 He’s got us covered.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Orca's Class vessels armed with Newbies learning to navigate


----------



## Spencer100

a phone to the pentagon


----------



## Lumber

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> can anyone say what the basic level of Naval defence Canada requires in home waters?



Several thousand miles of Ocean between us an the nearest potentially hostile nation.

Some newfie fisherman with a working VHF during trappin' seasun'.

1 x Filipino monkey...


----------



## Swampbuggy

Thanx guys, I’ll sleep much better tonight. 👀


----------



## blacktriangle

What Spencer100 said.


----------



## Spencer100

Plus it works in both possible situations  first "we are being invaded, please take care of that". Or the second US is invading " we would like to talk terms, please".


----------



## MilEME09

How bad is the issue of illegal fishing boats from Spain off our east coast? I remember that being an issue in the head lines years ago? Could a case still be made we need more ships to prevent illegal fishing? in our EEZ?


----------



## dapaterson

If only we had some group responsible to Guard our Coast.  Whatever could we call them?


----------



## Baz

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> How bad is the issue of illegal fishing boats from Spain off our east coast? I remember that being an issue in the head lines years ago? Could a case still be made we need more ships to prevent illegal fishing? in our EEZ?



It was called the Turbot War... has receded into the past.

I sailed twice with ready duty ship at the time, the mighty warboat Nipigon (it wasn't a happy wardroom).  Both times left on a Fri night and came back on the Mon morning when they changed their minds (7-11 and 14-18 Apr 95; checked my log).  We even had ROE the second time...


----------



## GR66

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If only we had some group responsible to Guard our Coast.  Whatever could we call them?



Sounds good to me.  Give the OPVs to the Coast Guard and replace the Kingston-Class with another MCM vessel.  No point having a navy if an enemy can keep our ships bottled up in port by laying mines.

I'd rather see the RCN supplement the CSC's with a multi-purpose corvette.  Something that has good range, has ASW capabilities (towed array sonar and capability to embark a Cyclone if required) but cheaper and less crew requirement than the CSC.  

Maybe something like this:  https://saab.com/naval/submarines-and-warships/naval-surface-ships/nextgenerationcorvette/

I could live with Canada having a fleet something like this:

12-15 x CSCs
12 x Corvettes
6 x AOPS
8-12 x MCM's
2 x Asterix
2 x JSS
6-8 x SSKs 

I'd love to add 2 x Amphibious Assault Ships to give us the ability to project ground forces as well, but I think the above would do a pretty good job of protecting Canada's maritime approaches and be a major asset to our allies as well.

The above force might sound like dreaming but when it comes down to it we in North America are basically an island.  Our Navy (and the RCAF) will always be our best defense and also be key to our being able to project force overseas.  Ultimately if the budget is limited and choices have to be made I'd choose to build up our Naval and Air forces over our land forces.


----------



## Underway

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Fascinating, thanks guys.  So, a ship doing some ASW training over off the UK is Force Generation and responds to its naval chain of command.  It could, the next day, be chopped to CJOC and deployed to the Med for Force Employment.



Yes, pretty much.  The coming exercise in Europe (unclass sched) has _Halifax_, _Toronto_ and _VDQ_ all working there.  _VDQ_ is on "deployment".  _Toronto_ and _Halifax_ are on workups to get to higher readiness tiers.  _VDQ_ could be called off for NATO and depending on equipment loadout _Toronto_ or _Halifax_ could be redirected to a real operation immediately (ie: Swiss Air Disaster).  It wouldn't be the first time a RCN asset has gotten a rapid addition of kit and supplies to go do a mission.

My OC from 2PPCLI once mentioned some envy with the RCN until Afghanistan, were far more operationally capable then the army.  As soon as a ship leaves the wall you are essentially on operations, intensity may vary...



			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Again, I'm assuming there is a spectrum of risk for operational employment based on how much of the "readiness training" a ship has done in Force Generation.  Is there formal events where "Sea Training" comes down to "check ride" a ship?



Yes they are called IMSRTs (lazily pronounced emserts) or traditionally "workups".  IIRC there are other levels/variations of "workups" but the final hurdle to high readiness are IMSRTs.

Coles Notes Version: Sea Trainers embark on a ship and supervise/assist with the delivery of Combat Readiness Requirements that cover everything from damage control rounds, multiple attacks on the ship, to pyrotechnic demonstrations and training.  Certain % of different trades and positions must be present to get that CRR checked off the list.  Some are individual, some are team, some are ship CRR's.  This is done over the course of about 20 days at sea, with some CRR's being able to get written off before the formal IMSRTs depending on the ships training schedule (ie: may already have qualified with the 57mm gun shoot during recent trials).  

Sea Training are also there to help the ship through IMSRTs by implementing training, giving tips/advice from their senior experienced people and coach you along.  This philosophy may be new to some old salts, but its the direction that they are heading right now.  The kick in the pants option is still there but not the prefered way to start with.

Their evaluation of the ship on IMSRTs and recommendation holds a lot of weight with the Admiral on whether a ship can deploy and in some cases may lead to the replacement of key positions if those pers are not performing to standard. 

Personally I believe that the Sea Training organization is one of the main reasons RCN ships on deployment are looked upon as valuable and key performers in multinational operations despite perhaps equipment age or limitations in some cases.  They work hard to create SOP's and standards and then ensure the fleet meets those high standards and follows the SOP's.  They can be a bit stodgy and slow to change sometimes but they are an extremely important part of Force Generation.


----------



## Swampbuggy

GR66 said:
			
		

> I could live with Canada having a fleet something like this:
> 
> 12-15 x CSCs
> 12 x Corvettes
> 6 x AOPS
> 8-12 x MCM's
> 2 x Asterix
> 2 x JSS
> 6-8 x SSKs



I like the list, but it seems a bit ambitious for the RCN at this point. For myself, I’d like to see:

13-14 CSC
6-7 140-180’ Armed Cutter for OPV
6 AOPS
6-8 MCDV refit and fully eqpt for MCM
2 ASTERIX (crewed by FFS)
2 PRO CLASS AORS
7 SSK

I think this is a reasonable and attainable fleet mix for the RCN. I don’t think it’s likely, however.


----------



## NavyShooter

Reality check on the fleet - I'll be happy if we get 15x CSC...the rest...not a priority for any government that's been in power in years.

I honestly do not expect to see steel cut on a CSC while I'm still in uniform.

NS


----------



## Swampbuggy

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Reality check on the fleet - I'll be happy if we get 15x CSC...the rest...not a priority for any government that's been in power in years.
> 
> I honestly do not expect to see steel cut on a CSC while I'm still in uniform.
> 
> NS



I understand your skepticism, though, as a civilian, I haven’t had to live with the lack of adequate equipment the way that you have. It’s really too bad, because I think my “fantasy list” above isn’t really too outlandish. It’s lesser in scope than what the RAN is in the process of achieving, though our situations are quite different in geopolitical terms.


----------



## Cloud Cover

8 CSC in the form of Destroyers with AAD and land strike. 
6 AOPS with significantly enhanced surveillance kit (EW/ESM/SIGINT) 
4 MCDV
4 SSK
2 JSS
1 Asterix


----------



## CBH99

Whiskey...

Your ideal fleet looks pretty similar to the fleet we already have.  Why minus the 7 CSC and 8 MCDV in your fleet, when the rest of the fleet is what we have now?  (Just curious)


----------



## Underway

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> 8 CSC in the form of Destroyers with AAD and land strike.



So this is interesting.  For ages now I have been saying all indications are that the ships will have the ability to be modified for AAW or GP variants.  Apparently I was wrong according to the government's recent information releases.

All the ships will be the same variant with the ability for AAW, GP or other things with all essentially the same sensors.  This is an interesting choice.  There are pro's and cons to this approach, and I wonder if doctrine has a say here.  The flexibility of new sensors and plug and play systems really change the game.  Strike length VLS add weapons/role flexibility.  With the right sensor suit you can easily switch between Task Group Air Defence to Self Defence missiles, or Strike missiles, or even ASROC.  

The idea that all the ships in a TG (4 by doctrine) could do AAW and protect each other, and still have a good ASW capability compared to a specialized AAW destroyer and 3 GP frigates.  Which grouping would be more effective?  There is certainly more flexibility/redundancy in the former TG design, but the later TG design is a proven concept and specialized ships one would assume perform better at their specific tasks.

I also wonder if this is a specific decision by the CAF/RCN to shield its A. Budget (one class of ship is easier to manage maint wise) and B. prevent capability loss like what happened with the 280's.


----------



## Cloud Cover

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Whiskey...
> 
> Your ideal fleet looks pretty similar to the fleet we already have.  Why minus the 7 CSC and 8 MCDV in your fleet, when the rest of the fleet is what we have now?  (Just curious)



I feel that 15 ships is no better than 8. Either way  it's a still a small navy. 

And I'm  thinking of ships we can actually crew in 10 years without shooting for the moon.
 I would hope the CSC is a maximum effort, all round capable ship that can bring the fight to the enemy as part of a coalition (and win it in their waters). That means fighting in every dimension with devastating ability. 
Accordingly, in order to remain a small blue water navy, something would have to drastically shift, I would think that would be fewer blue water surface surface combat fleet hulls and placing all of the roles of the Kingston class (except MCM) onto a potentially upgraded version of the AOP's with a significant surveillance and communications/data sharing suite. 

Cheers

Edit: implicit in that model is removal of the 4 ship TG from future doctrine.  It's 1 or 2 plus a tanker or JSS. There would be no independent power projection, but there would be an opportunity to significantly swing the balance of capability to an allied TF.  A Type 26+++ ship.


----------



## jmt18325

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I feel that 15 ships is no better than 8. Either way  it's a still a small navy.



Well in the context of the world's fleet of large surface combatants, 15 actually puts us in pretty good standing in terms of numbers.


----------



## GR66

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I feel that 15 ships is no better than 8. Either way  it's a still a small navy.
> 
> And I'm  thinking of ships we can actually crew in 10 years without shooting for the moon.
> I would hope the CSC is a maximum effort, all round capable ship that can bring the fight to the enemy as part of a coalition (and win it in their waters). That means fighting in every dimension with devastating ability.
> Accordingly, in order to remain a small blue water navy, something would have to drastically shift, I would think that would be fewer blue water surface surface combat fleet hulls and placing all of the roles of the Kingston class (except MCM) onto a potentially upgraded version of the AOP's with a significant surveillance and communications/data sharing suite.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Edit: implicit in that model is removal of the 4 ship TG from future doctrine.  It's 1 or 2 plus a tanker or JSS. There would be no independent power projection, but there would be an opportunity to significantly swing the balance of capability to an allied TF.  A Type 26+++ ship.



I'd argue that cutting back the CSC's to 8 hulls effectively takes the RCN out of the blue water navy category in a major war.  With only four combatant hulls on each coast and accounting for less than 100% availability at any time that leaves less than one doctrinal Task Group to defend each of our entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines.  

You suggest cutting the Task Group size in half (or even to a single ship), but even if that is sound doctrine (I have no idea the implications of that, I'll leave it to the experts to comment) it still leaves a maximum of 4 x warships to defend each of our coasts.  That leaves zero ships with which to project power and therefore effectively no blue water capability.  And as has been pointed out by several experienced naval types in this forum the AOPS, no matter how much lipstick you choose to put on them in terms of extra sensors or bolt on weapons, is not and never will be a combatant.  

I'd argue that if we only get 12 x CSCs giving us 6 per coast for a single TG plus spares, or one 4-ship Task Group per coast for coastal defence and a third 4-ship Task Group for deployment it is not enough for what we'll need in a major war.  15 x CSCs is probably the absolute minimum number of combatants we would need in a real shooting war giving us two 3-ship TG's for defence of Canadian territorial waters on each coast and a 3-ship TG for deployment.  I think even that leaves us paper thin and doesn't take into account any losses or less than 100% availability.

That's why if I were PM for a day I would like to see something like 12 x ASW capable corvette-type minor combatants added to the fleet to supplement the CSCs.  And while even if we were to increase our defence budget to the 2% of GDP goal it may seem like shooting for the stars, as I noted in my original post I'd be willing to give up some other capabilities in order to fund that.  Because to be totally honest, having the naval capability to ensure that US military reinforcements and supplies reach a conflict zone will have much greater military benefit in a major war than putting a Canadian Brigade Group on the ground would.

 :2c:


----------



## MilEME09

Why look at just surface vessels in that case? what if we had 12 submarines added to the mix? 6 per coast, or 3 or 4 per task group that you created here GR66. Operating as 2 sub wolf packs would be able to patrol a large area on top of a surface fleet.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Why look at just surface vessels in that case? what if we had 12 submarines added to the mix? 6 per coast, or 3 or 4 per task group that you created here GR66. Operating as 2 sub wolf packs would be able to patrol a large area on top of a surface fleet.



Submariners are allergic to each other. They work alone- not in packs.


----------



## blacktriangle

That's a good thing because I'm sure in a few years we will only have one anyways... 

 ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Spectrum said:
			
		

> That's a good thing because I'm sure in a few years we will only have one anyways...
> 
> ;D



Do you have any, actual, first hand knowledge of Canada's submarine program?

I do.

The most difficult class of Submarine that I have ever worked against is the Victoria Class. Period, full stop.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

The problem with most peoples views concerning the Navy in Canada is that they neglect to take in to consideration that we need two separate fleets based on simple geography and that these fleets cannot mutually support each other.

With this in mind, eight Major Warships split between two coasts is not enough as it leaves you with zero flexibility in emergencies.  The bare minimum is probably 12 and this is the absolute bare minimum.  

It is the same with Submarines.  We probably don't have enough right now and simple arithmetic tells me bare minimum is probably six with three per coast, eight would be better but six is doable.


----------



## Lumber

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> It is the same with Submarines.  We probably don't have enough right now and simple arithmetic tells me bare minimum is probably six with three per coast, four would be better but six is doable.



Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you _could_ make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.


----------



## GR66

Lumber said:
			
		

> Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you _could_ make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.



Is there some major design flaw in Chinese subs which doesn’t allow them to work in the Atlantic in case of a war?


----------



## YZT580

Lumber said:
			
		

> Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you _could_ make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.


  If this were the case, you could home port everything on one coast and have half the fleet.  Problem with that is transit time.  The northwest passage, regardless of what Al Gore says, is not navigable most of the time so responding to a 'hot spot' on the other coast would require circumnavigating NA through Panama.  If Panama is closed or blocked you have two choices: global circumnavigation or down around SA.  Both options would require significant time and support such as a fleet tanker and we only have one.  What Humphrey wrote is true.  We need two complete fleets including two submarine fleets and what we have now is probably the bare minimum we should ever consider.  Plus the support vessels of course.


----------



## JMCanada

Considering factors such as difficulty for manning and budget, IMHO Canada should soon procure 4 ocean and arctic capable submarines. With soon I mean to be operative by mid 2020s (around 2025).

Then... on a longer term, with about 5 years delay or as much as the Victoria class can be operative, a second program for about 8 more, coastal type, submarines. These would replace the Victoria class and make a submarine total fleet of 12 with the previous ones.

In my perspective, the first batch of 4 ocean-going submarines would allow for:
- one deployed either in Arctic or Pacific
- another one ready or also deployed in the same areas.
- third in preparation for operations or minor maintenance
- 4th in major maintenance or refit.

The Victoria class would then cover the coasts and be used for training.

For this 4 Arctic boats I see several  options: British Astute class (nuclear), French Barracuda (either nuke or AIP as for RAN), German type 216 (which is merely a design on paper) and Japanese Soryu.

For several reasons, including diversification of suppliers and to help our allies to maintain a sustainable defence industry, my favourite option would be the japanese, provided necessary modifications are introduced to cope with Arctic requirements (ice-breaking & submerged endurance).

There should be as well some kind of return to canadian industry.


----------



## Lumber

YZT580 said:
			
		

> If this were the case, you could home port everything on one coast and have half the fleet.  Problem with that is transit time.  The northwest passage, regardless of what Al Gore says, is not navigable most of the time so responding to a 'hot spot' on the other coast would require circumnavigating NA through Panama.  If Panama is closed or blocked you have two choices: global circumnavigation or down around SA.  Both options would require significant time and support such as a fleet tanker and we only have one.  What Humphrey wrote is true.  We need two complete fleets including two submarine fleets and what we have now is probably the bare minimum we should ever consider.  Plus the support vessels of course.



No, that is not true at all. You could NOT home port the entire fleet on one coast. We have an actual demonstrated need for surface vessels on both coasts. The same cannot be as easily said about a submarine force.

Canada could carry on with a navy that has NO submarines at all; we could not carry on with a navy of ONLY submarines. 

Ergo, while it would be nice to have a large enough navy and submarine force to have subs not only based, but operating simultaneously on both coasts, it is not imperative to our national interests for it to be so.

We could get on just fine by having all our subs on one coast. Not so with the surface fleet.


----------



## Cloud Cover

GR66 said:
			
		

> I'd argue that cutting back the CSC's to 8 hulls effectively takes the RCN out of the blue water navy category in a major war.  With only four combatant hulls on each coast and accounting for less than 100% availability at any time that leaves less than one doctrinal Task Group to defend each of our entire Atlantic and Pacific coastlines.
> 
> You suggest cutting the Task Group size in half (or even to a single ship), but even if that is sound doctrine (I have no idea the implications of that, I'll leave it to the experts to comment) it still leaves a maximum of 4 x warships to defend each of our coasts.  That leaves zero ships with which to project power and therefore effectively no blue water capability.  And as has been pointed out by several experienced naval types in this forum the AOPS, no matter how much lipstick you choose to put on them in terms of extra sensors or bolt on weapons, is not and never will be a combatant.
> 
> I'd argue that if we only get 12 x CSCs giving us 6 per coast for a single TG plus spares, or one 4-ship Task Group per coast for coastal defence and a third 4-ship Task Group for deployment it is not enough for what we'll need in a major war.  15 x CSCs is probably the absolute minimum number of combatants we would need in a real shooting war giving us two 3-ship TG's for defence of Canadian territorial waters on each coast and a 3-ship TG for deployment.  I think even that leaves us paper thin and doesn't take into account any losses or less than 100% availability.
> 
> That's why if I were PM for a day I would like to see something like 12 x ASW capable corvette-type minor combatants added to the fleet to supplement the CSCs.  And while even if we were to increase our defence budget to the 2% of GDP goal it may seem like shooting for the stars, as I noted in my original post I'd be willing to give up some other capabilities in order to fund that.  Because to be totally honest, having the naval capability to ensure that US military reinforcements and supplies reach a conflict zone will have much greater military benefit in a major war than putting a Canadian Brigade Group on the ground would.
> 
> :2c:



All good points and probably quite valid.  With respect to the colourized bit above, I'm actually suggesting that there be no Canada Task Group at all. We can send one or 2 ships to some other Task Group. I realize quite well this is a complete departure from established traditions and operating principles of the RCN, but I will wager that in 20 years the surface fleet will not be much different than what I have set out above. 15 ships (which the RCN and the government state are a minimum) is as much a number as 88 fighters when we plan on only deploying 6 fighters at a time. 
Also, the type of surface ship, the principal surface combatant, would be something far more capable than the Type 26 in its current form. Land strike, surface strike, NGS, ASW, AAW, EW, BMD. Not "fitted for" or "planned" but actually fitted out completely.


----------



## Cloud Cover

GR66 said:
			
		

> Is there some major design flaw in Chinese subs which doesn’t allow them to work in the Atlantic in case of a war?


Good one. If they ever started routine submarine deployments in the Atlantic, the USN would snap!! I do expect them in the arctic soon, if they haven't been there already via submarine.


----------



## GR66

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Good one. If they ever started routine submarine deployments in the Atlantic, the USN would snap!! I do expect them in the arctic soon, if they haven't been there already via submarine.



Germany sent commerce raiders into the Pacific during both World Wars.  They also had submarines deployed in the Pacific and Indian oceans during WW2.  In case of conflict it would make sense for China to send even one or two subs into the Atlantic.  The uncertainty they would raise would force the US/NATO to keep ships there in order to try and track them down instead of being able to send them to support the main effort in the Pacific.


----------



## Czech_pivo

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Good one. If they ever started routine submarine deployments in the Atlantic, the USN would snap!! I do expect them in the arctic soon, if they haven't been there already via submarine.



All they need to do is to negotiate access to a naval base in Venezuela and viola, Chinese ships/subs in the Atlantic....don't think that it can't happen. 
Realistically they would most likely establish a naval base somewhere in the Indian Ocean and maybe Africa first before creating one in Venezuela, oh wait, they've done that already in Sri Lanka and Djibouti.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Lumber said:
			
		

> Subs are such a different beast though... I feel like you _could_ make the argument to homeport all your subs on 1 coast, whichever ocean is currently the hotspot <coughchinacough>.



But then you are making the assumption that Subs are only being used for that one specific mission, which I don't think is a good assumption to make.

The Aussies can homeport their submarine force in one location because not only do they have more subs, they also are an island and you can sail around to the otherside relatively quickly.  A Submarine can leave Perth today and be in Sydney in under 10 days.

We have no such luxury, a sub moving from Victoria to Halifax would probably take a minimum of 30 days to get there if they go through Panama. If Panama isn't an option, it is probably close to 80 days to go around Cape of Good Hope.  

Either way, we need two separate fleets with a General Purpose Combat Capability across the spectrums of Sub-Surface, Surface and Air Warfare.



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> All good points and probably quite valid.  With respect to the colourized bit above, I'm actually suggesting that there be no Canada Task Group at all. We can send one or 2 ships to some other Task Group. I realize quite well this is a complete departure from established traditions and operating principles of the RCN, but I will wager that in 20 years the surface fleet will not be much different than what I have set out above. 15 ships (which the RCN and the government state are a minimum) is as much a number as 88 fighters when we plan on only deploying 6 fighters at a time.
> Also, the type of surface ship, the principal surface combatant, would be something far more capable than the Type 26 in its current form. Land strike, surface strike, NGS, ASW, AAW, EW, BMD. Not "fitted for" or "planned" but actually fitted out completely.



I still think eight ships isn't enough and the ships you are talking about getting considering the Capabilities you mentioned, would be akin to a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser.  I reckon we would need a substantial budgetary increase to man those ships and they would be totally unsuitable for many tasks our Navy has to carry out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not to mention it's easy to track ship movements through the Panama canal and an enemy will know that sub departing Panama is likely going to have refuel and reprovision nearby, allowing them to estimate fairly accurately how long before the sub reaches the operating theatre.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Missile defence capability for CSC?



> Royal Danish Navy Orders SM-2 Block IIIA for Iver Huitfeldt-class Frigates
> 
> The Danish Defence Acquisition and Logistics Organization (Danish: Forsvarets Materiel- og Indkøbsstyrelse, FMI) placed an order for Raytheon SM-2 Block IIA missiles for the Royal Danish Navy (Søværnet) on October 2, 2018, according to the European online tenders platform Ted.
> 
> According to the announcement:
> FMI wants to acquire up to 50 Standard Missile 2 Block IIIA (SM-2) missiles. The SM-2 missiles are self-defense missiles that are used to combat attacking enemy targets. The SM-2 missiles are fired from the Navy frigates. The acquisition can only be carried out through the US Navy via Foreign Military Sales (FMS). The SM-2 missiles are specially designed for shooting air targets [...] The armed forces shall use the SM-2 missiles in connection with the Navy's area air defense frigate to combat attacking enemy targets.
> 
> According to the Ted announcement, the total value of the procurement (excluding VAT) is 143 million U.S. Dollars.
> 
> The SM-2 Block IIIA will be intended for the Royal Danish Navy's Iver Huitfeldt-class frigates. The three 138,9 meters air defence frigates, Iver Huitfeldt (F361), Peter Willemoes (F362), and Niels Juel (F363) are displacing 6,645 tonnes. They entered service with the Royal Danish Navy in 2012 and 2013. Each frigate can carry up to 32x SM-2 missiles (as well as 24x ESSM). These ships share their Anti-Air Warfare suite with the Royal Netherlands Navy’s De Zeven Provincien-class frigates and the German Navy’s Sachsen-class frigates. The Thales sensors of this suite include the long range surveillance radar SMART-L and the multi-function radar APAR. _At least one ship of the class will be upgraded for Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) and Integrated Air and Missile Defense (IAMD) to act as a a BMD sensor and offer this capability to the NATO BMD system_ [emphasis added]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/october-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6551-royal-danish-navy-orders-sm-2-block-iiia-for-iver-huitfeldt-class-frigates.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That's only 15 per ship plus 5 spares


----------



## Spencer100

They can share.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I still think eight ships isn't enough and the ships you are talking about getting considering the Capabilities you mentioned, would be akin to a Ticonderoga Class Cruiser.  I reckon we would need a substantial budgetary increase to man those ships and they would be totally unsuitable for many tasks our Navy has to carry out.



A Tico would be a waste of money. A Type 26 with the 48Cell launcher repurposed for the SeaSparrow + a 32 Cell Strike Length Mk41 Launcher.  16 SSM instead of 8.  A 5" 62 Caliber Gun. Space for unmanned CUSV. 1 Cyclone.  All of these can supposedly fit on a Type 26.   I still do not see the point in having 15 surface combatants when the RCN  can barely crew the 12 FFG that they have.  Canada calls itself a maritime power but  has very little demonstrable maritime power. Why not opt for actual powerful ships in realistic numbers rather than powerful slogans like Task Groups and Blue Ocean navy or "protecting the longest coastline in the world".


----------



## YZT580

Perhaps with a modern fleet that is well equipped and a government that makes joining the navy an attractive proposition as a career and at the same time recognises and honours its military establishment the manpower shortage will disappear.


----------



## GR66

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Perhaps with a modern fleet that is well equipped and a government that makes joining the navy an attractive proposition as a career and at the same time recognises and honours its military establishment the manpower shortage will disappear.



Silly goose...that's not the Canadian way!


...sadly.


----------



## YZT580

We did it once.  In the early 60's we had 62 commissioned ships, including 2 escort carriers and somewhere approaching 20,000 naval personnel and that with a population of half what it is now   They did it by making the navy a worthwhile career, getting rid of the British disciplinary tradition, and by building a modern fleet.  I think we even had 20 destroyer escorts as they were called then.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

We also had 30+ of the best MPAs in the world, a Brigade and Air Div in Europe...times have changed.  The world is at peace now, didn't ya know?   8)


----------



## Lumber

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> A Tico would be a waste of money. A Type 26 with the 48Cell launcher repurposed for the SeaSparrow + a 32 Cell Strike Length Mk41 Launcher.  16 SSM instead of 8.  A 5" 62 Caliber Gun. Space for unmanned CUSV. 1 Cyclone.  All of these can supposedly fit on a Type 26.   I still do not see the point in having 15 surface combatants when the RCN  can barely crew the 12 FFG that they have.  Canada calls itself a maritime power but  has very little demonstrable maritime power. Why not opt for actual powerful ships in realistic numbers rather than powerful slogans like Task Groups and Blue Ocean navy or "protecting the longest coastline in the world".



Huh? We have 7 of 12 Frigates, Asterix, and 4 MCDVs all at sea right now. Tell me again how we can't crew our ships, or that we have very little demonstrable maritime power?


----------



## Cloud Cover

It seems to me that it would be a herculean effort to put 7 Hals to sea (with air dets), fully armed and ready to rumble (which they are not). 

Again, I'm going back to 8, and just 8, extensively equipped principal surface combatants with just one or 2 that are deployed or can be quickly deployed and actually have a chance at surviving an encounter with a peer adversary to an allied group.


----------



## Kirkhill

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> 8 CSC in the form of Destroyers with AAD and land strike.
> 6 AOPS with significantly enhanced surveillance kit (EW/ESM/SIGINT)
> 4 MCDV
> 4 SSK
> 2 JSS
> 1 Asterix



Can I suggest, as others have, replacing the MCDVs with comparably manned light corvettes?  Fitted for not with a heavy suite of weapons and sensors and heavily automated with a minimal crew.

Designed for rapid construction and low hull costs.

4 would be enough to work the kinks out of the build and initial operational programmes.  The weapons and sensors would be procured and deployed using the Danish Stanflex model.

Budget and crews would determine if additional numbers were to be built.


----------



## Jackal2018

By no means I'm saying war is coming soon. But with world tensions rising, should a war break out and Canada be involved, how would the timeline for the new ships change if at all?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Can I suggest, as others have, replacing the MCDVs with comparably manned light corvettes?  Fitted for not with a heavy suite of weapons and sensors and heavily automated with a minimal crew.
> 
> Designed for rapid construction and low hull costs.
> 
> 4 would be enough to work the kinks out of the build and initial operational programmes.  The weapons and sensors would be procured and deployed using the Danish Stanflex model.
> 
> Budget and crews would determine if additional numbers were to be built.



Something similar to this perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viana_do_Castelo-class_patrol_vessel


----------



## Kirkhill

Or similar

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River-class_patrol_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen-class_patrol_vessel
http://www.navy.gov.au/offshore-patrol-vessel-opv
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protector-class_offshore_patrol_vessel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comandanti-class_patrol_vessel


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Or this?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel-class_cutter?wprov=sfti1
> 
> ***Staff edit**
> The link works, after adding a space. * :facepalm:



Nope, we have the similar Hero class, they roll to much and give up to much for speed. Without length and HP, you can't have speed (unless you go catamaran) There is no free lunch in ship design.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Or this?  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentinel-class_cutter?wprov=sfti1
> 
> ***Staff edit**
> The link works, after adding a space. * :facepalm:



Thanks for the repair...and the face palm!!  😉


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Nope, we have the similar Hero class, they roll to much and give up to much for speed. Without length and HP, you can't have speed (unless you go catamaran) There is no free lunch in ship design.



Interesting. I hadn’t heard that about the HERO class. Would you say they rolled worse than an MCDV? I know the SENTINEL is longer and heavier than the HERO. I take it you don’t feel it’s enough to make a difference in sea keeping. But, would that really be the end of the world in a short term patrol vessel/quick response craft? I don’t propose to use these like MCDV’s to send to Africa or even on CARIBBOPS, but keep closer to our coasts. At any rate, it’s probably a moot point. I don’t think a small patrol vessel or corvette is going to happen any time soon.


----------



## YZT580

Just because you are staying close to shore doesn't mean that the waves are smaller.  And the Navy gets called out for rescue response which normally does not occur during calm summer days.  There have been many days when you started tossing your cookies even before passing sentinel hill in St. Johns.  No, what you want is a sea going hull.

Historically, the corvettes in WW2 were absolute hell in a blow.


----------



## Swampbuggy

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Just because you are staying close to shore doesn't mean that the waves are smaller.  And the Navy gets called out for rescue response which normally does not occur during calm summer days.  There have been many days when you started tossing your cookies even before passing sentinel hill in St. Johns.  No, what you want is a sea going hull.
> 
> Historically, the corvettes in WW2 were absolute hell in a blow.



So, in that case, what best determines the ability to handle the big water? Is it that anything below the size of, say, an ANZAC class frigate is undesirable as a secondary OPV? Or can you have a vessel under 1000 tonnes and under 200 ft long with stable sea keeping in the North Atlantic? How does the MCDV handle it, given it’s size and somewhat blunt Hull design? Reading up on the SENTINEL, it was designed to be able to operate in Sea State 4 and survive in State 5. It does have anti roll fins, as well. I’m not sure if the HERO does.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hull length and beam, along with type of bow, stern and top hamper (stability) all play a part. Sometimes a very long ship suffers as it gets caught in two different waves, placing a great deal of strain on it, this is a big problem for bulkers.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hull length and beam, along with type of bow, stern and top hamper (stability) all play a part. Sometimes a very long ship suffers as it gets caught in two different waves, placing a great deal of strain on it, this is a big problem for bulkers.



Yes, I think that was one of the issues that sank the EDMUND FITZGERALD.


----------



## Cloud Cover

This smaller vessel is no slouch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunschweig-class_corvette


----------



## Colin Parkinson

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> This smaller vessel is no slouch: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braunschweig-class_corvette



Updated Israeli version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_6-class_corvette


----------



## Half Full

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Do you have any, actual, first hand knowledge of Canada's submarine program?
> 
> I do.
> 
> The most difficult class of Submarine that I have ever worked against is the Victoria Class. Period, full stop.


I can second SeaKing Tacco's assessment of the Victoria class's capabilities!


----------



## NavyShooter

I'm a W Eng Tech - SONAR background.

Despite my techie background, I understand the operations side well enough.  On MON a few years ago, off Norfolk, we did a test with one of the subs.  I won't say the distance, but I will state that I watched it effectively disappear when they brought down their DG and secured to silent running.  

It was...a hole in the ocean.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nice to hear you couldn't hear them, better yet knowing our ASW types are no slouches either


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Updated Israeli version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_6-class_corvette



I’ve always liked the BRAUNSCHWEIG, though I’ve heard the German’s are having second thoughts about it’s place in the fleet. It’s a bit bigger than what I had in mind. Maybe something along the lines of a USN CYCLONE class would be a good compromise.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting, about the same size as the MCDV, fast so it' likely gives up scantlings and hull strength for speed. I suspect they aren't that comfy to live on either.


----------



## AlexanderM

Colin P said:
			
		

> Updated Israeli version https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sa%27ar_6-class_corvette


Looks good, has some teeth.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Just "go" for "Hollands",big enough,comfy,great radar,no teeth(but you can see everything that's commin towards you),lmao(just kidding)


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> Interesting, about the same size as the MCDV, fast so it' likely gives up scantlings and hull strength for speed. I suspect they aren't that comfy to live on either.



It is certainly a much lighter vessel than the MCDV, and because it’s not built like a minesweeper, it’s hull form is more optimised for speed. Something along this line could be built anywhere, without having to worry about the 1000 tonne prohibition included in the NSS.  It’s a complimentary vessel in that it would fill roles unsuitable or too expensive to dedicate a frigate or AOPS to. 6-7 of these, with 6 AOPS and 6 refit MCDVS would make a good mix for the lower end of the fleet.


----------



## Cloud Cover

the "updated Israeli version" is 1/3 paid for by Germany, which helps things (1) the Germans will ensure no cost overruns and (2) Israel gets the Audi of corvettes. Nice!!


----------



## JMCanada

I would like to point to the numbers and types of combatants foreseen in other, similar, navies.
I refer to UK, France, Italy and to some extent to Australia.

All of them are working as to have a fleet of about 12 (Aus) to 19 (UK) combatants, not just patrol boats, ready by about 2030s.

All the europeans will include in these numbers 3 types of frigates/destroyers: AAW (Type 45, Horizon both french or italian type & Hobart) , ASW (type 26, Fremm and Hunter class) which may be called as well multipurpose, and light/multipurpose frigates (type 31, FTI, PPA).

For logistics, commonality, training and manning reasons i may agree that only two types of combatants may be the best choice, like the aussies have done. But there should be at least 2 types.

Specially considering the long time provided for delivery of the 15 CSC. By the time the last 4-5 units are being laid off, some systems will no longer be state-of-the-art and some new requirements may have come up to be included in the combatants.

Therefore I would like that either...
1) CSC are provided in two types, as originally depicted but now seems to have been forgotten, or

2) CSC (of only one type) should be limited to 9-12 units and by mid-production DoD should start the requirements and design process for a 2nd type of 4 to 6 updated combatants fitted for new roles.

IMHO.  :


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Specially considering the long time provided for delivery of the 15 CSC. By the time the last 4-5 units are being laid off, some systems will no longer be state-of-the-art and some new requirements may have come up to be included in the combatants.


The surface combatant will probably be a very flexible design so that future blocks will always be a modified and improved version of the previous block—similar in concept to the _St. Laurent_, _Restigouche_, _Mackenzie_, and _Annapolis_-class ships.  _St. Laurent_ was laid down on 22 November 1950.  _Annapolis_ was completed on 19 December 1964.  That is twenty ships built in a bit more than fourteen years.  

These four classes of ships had the same hull and propulsion machinery but different weapons and sensors.  The surface combatants will probably have the same or similar hulls and propulsion machinery but different weapons, sensors, computers, software, and other equipment.  In other words, what will be done is probably going to be similar to what has been done.


----------



## Dale Denton

Uzlu said:
			
		

> The surface combatant will probably be a very flexible design so that future blocks will always be a modified and improved version of the previous block—similar in concept to the _St. Laurent_, _Restigouche_, _Mackenzie_, and _Annapolis_-class ships.  _St. Laurent_ was laid down on 22 November 1950.  _Annapolis_ was completed on 19 December 1964.  That is twenty ships built in a bit more than fourteen years.
> 
> These four classes of ships had the same hull and propulsion machinery but different weapons and sensors.  The surface combatants will probably have the same or similar hulls and propulsion machinery but different weapons, sensors, computers, software, and other equipment.  In other words, what will be done is probably going to be similar to what has been done.



I agree that this is likely. Plus with the added benefit that once the last Batch is complete, the 1st Batch will be up for Refit/Modernization, thus creating more work for a particular privileged shipyard.


----------



## Kirkhill

Here's a question:

When measured over the timescale of decades how much does hull form really change?

My sense is that hull form changes do not bring orders of magnitude change in capability but rather bring marginal changes.... marginal changes in speed, in stability, in power requirements, in fuel efficiency.  
Therefore one hull form can be used as the basis for a large number of ships over an extended period of time.   The built hulls may wear out but the replacement hulls will look very similar even if their internal spaces are divided differently to accommodate different machinery, equipment and operations.

This suggests to me that planning to build a similar hull at a given yard over a period of decades, doesn't preclude constant upgrades and modifications in the ships based on those hulls.

The Arleigh Burkes (Flights I, II, IIA and III - first commissioned in 1988 with 82 planned and 65 currently active - some thought given to a Flight IV that would have carried production out to the 2040s - or a 5 to 6 decade hull form continuity) would seem to be examples of this.   I would note that the flights have also been subdivided and older flights have been modernized so the basic hull form has supported multiple ship designs over its life.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If you optimize the hull for speed in a smaller vessel, often it comes at the cost of hull life. Corrosion and cracking are big issues for a lot of these smaller vessels, an example is the USCG Island Class, hull cracking was very common. Reduced Scantlings to save weight, also mean that corrosion weakens the vessel much quicker. There is no free lunch in hull design, so if you want a corvette style vessel that can be an escort/ASW vessel, then it's likely not going to make a good minehunter.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin P said:
			
		

> If you optimize the hull for speed in a smaller vessel, often it comes at the cost of hull life. Corrosion and cracking are big issues for a lot of these smaller vessels, an example is the USCG Island Class, hull cracking was very common. Reduced Scantlings to save weight, also mean that corrosion weakens the vessel much quicker. There is no free lunch in hull design, so if you want a corvette style vessel that can be an escort/ASW vessel, then it's likely not going to make a good minehunter.



I’d like to see a few corvettes, MCDVS and OPVs. If you had 6 of each, it would cover all the bases. In addition to the heavy hitters, of course.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can you please elaborate on the MCDV. What configuration and requirement for such a ship, if a new build. I was thinking something small, similar dimensions to the Kingston class but with full range of equipment an d proper acoustics for the hull. By no means a low end ship for a highly complicated mission. 
And of course, an full EW/ SIGINT  suite, a feature I think every fleet ship should be fitted with in a navy of  such small numbers.


----------



## Swampbuggy

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Can you please elaborate on the MCDV. What configuration and requirement for such a ship, if a new build. I was thinking something small, similar dimensions to the Kingston class but with full range of equipment an d proper acoustics for the hull. By no means a low end ship for a highly complicated mission.
> And of course, an full EW/ SIGINT  suite, a feature I think every fleet ship should be fitted with in a navy of  such small numbers.



For myself, if the RCN were to build a 6 unit flight of “corvettes”, and that were to happen any time soon, I’d look into keeping the 6 best of our current MCDVS. If they could be refit and given the equipment to be dedicated MCM vessels, maybe you get another 20 years of service out of them. I doubt any of that will happen, though. There’s probably a better chance of Irving getting to build another couple AOPS and then the RCN retiring a few MCDVS in the next 7-10 years, IMHO.


----------



## Uzlu

It looks like the winner is going to be announced today.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:
			
		

> It looks like the winner is going to be announced today.



I'm sure we'll screw it up somehow and a lawsuit or two will be launched and a delay of 2-4yrs will occur during which time Irving will get another 2 AOPS.  After this delay and additional cost of the 2 more AOPS's, the CSC programme will be reduced to only 10-12 ships to be built over the 30yr timeframe, at which time the few remaining Halifax's will be 50+yrs old and will suffer complete degradation forcing the mothballing of the remaining ones.  This will ultimately leave the RCN with only 7-8 CSC's built with another 2-3 in the works during the years of 2035-36. And yes, the Victoria's will be still operational during this time period but all are restricted to shallow water diving.

Am I being a black cloud? Yes. But when I look to the last 30yrs for examples I know that I'm not off the mark.  EH101, C-27J, Victoria Class, F-35/CF-18, Joint Support Ships (total support for Vice-Admiral Norman), tanks, truck, rifles, uniforms (loved that forest green in Afghanistan during the early years), etc, etc.

I know that I'm going to ruffle alot of feathers by writing all of this - I want to be clear, I am not knocking a single member or the collective group of the Canadian Armed Forces - I'm pissed off at the Politicians, the Bureaucrats and above all - the Canadian public - who allow this to fester for decades and decades and do not a damn thing about it.  I stand with the simple soldier/airman/sailor who just tries his/her best on a daily basis and has to put up with all this crap. Total respect for them.


----------



## jmt18325

Type 26 is the winner...


----------



## Uzlu

> It could be 2023 before construction actually gets underway at the go-to yard for warships — Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-designer-canada-defence-1.4869268


----------



## MarkOttawa

Official news release on Type 26 winning, _quelle surprise_:



> Government of Canada delivers on its commitment to the Navy by announcing next steps in fleet procurement
> ...
> The Government of Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. have identified Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. as the preferred bidder to provide the design and design team for the Royal Canadian Navy’s future Canadian Surface Combatants.
> 
> While this represents a significant milestone in the competitive process, more work is required before a contract is awarded.
> 
> Lockheed Martin Canada Inc. must now go through the “due diligence process,” which includes:
> 
> negotiations with the company on intellectual property rights
> an assessment of combat systems performance
> an assessment of the company’s financial capability to deliver the project, together with the verification of various other administrative matters
> 
> Should the preferred bidder not successfully demonstrate to Canada and Irving Shipbuilding Inc. that it meets all of the due diligence requirements, then the next highest ranked compliant bidder will become the preferred bidder. The new preferred bidder will then have to successfully demonstrate that it meets all of the due diligence requirements.
> 
> The identification of the preferred bidder follows a rigorous bid evaluation process. This process has been, and will continue to be, overseen by an independent Fairness Monitor. To date, the Fairness Monitor has submitted a series of interim reports on the Canadian Surface Combatant procurement process, and each of these reports have not identified any fairness deficiencies.
> 
> More recently, the Fairness Monitor provided the following statement to Public Services and Procurement Canada:
> 
> “As the Fairness Monitor for the Canadian Surface Combatant project, we have monitored the evaluation of proposals submitted in response to the Request for Proposals and have identified no fairness deficiencies. It is our opinion that the evaluation of proposals was conducted in a fair manner. Decisions were made objectively and free from personal favouritism or improper influence, and the process encompassed the elements of openness, competitiveness, transparency and compliance with the Request for Proposals.”
> 
> A _contract award is expected this winter, with construction beginning in the early 2020s_ [emphasis added, _on verra_].
> 
> The Canadian Surface Combatant project is the largest, most complex procurement ever undertaken by the Government of Canada. These ships will form the backbone of our Royal Canadian Navy and will be Canada’s major surface component of maritime combat power for decades to come.
> 
> The Government of Canada remains committed to being open and transparent at each stage of the procurement process.
> Contacts
> 
> Media Relations
> Public Services and Procurement Canada
> 819-420-5501
> media@pwgsc-tpsgc.gc.ca
> 
> Media Relations
> Department of National Defence
> 613-996-2353
> mlo-blm@forces.gc.ca
> 
> Sean Lewis
> Director, Communications
> Irving Shipbuilding Inc.
> 902-484-4595
> lewis.sean@irvingshipbuilding.com
> ...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2018/10/government-of-canada-delivers-on-its-commitment-to-the-navy-by-announcing-next-steps-in-fleet-procurement.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Privateer

I was interested to see that Australia has also gone with the Type 26 for its next class of frigates.  Interesting that there could be a near-common CAN/AUS/UK frigate class.  All the better for inter-ally posting experiences!


----------



## MarkOttawa

The Irving Gap!



> Lockheed Martin selected as preferred designer [actually bidder I'd say] for Canada's next generation of warships
> ...
> "The former naval officer in me is very excited," said Pat Finn, a retired rear admiral who heads up the Department of National Defence's material branch. "I've been around this for a long time."..
> 
> Some design changes are expected after the federal government selects an official winner and a contract is in place.
> 
> How many changes will be required is a critical question; Finn would only say he doesn't anticipate cutting steel on the new warships for up to four years.
> 
> That fuzzy timeline means the program is already months behind schedule. The design competition was launched almost two years ago, when the Liberal government said selecting a foreign, off-the-shelf design would be cheaper and faster than building a warship from scratch.
> 
> Finn acknowledged there will be a production gap at the Irving yard in Halifax of about 18 months between construction of the navy's Arctic offshore patrol ships and the frigate replacements.
> 
> He added, however, that the federal government is looking at a variety of options to keep the yard humming, including refit work on the existing frigates and possibly building an additional patrol ship, or ships.
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-designer-canada-defence-1.4869268



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

For now, at least it's a step in a direction rather than hiding behind a file cabinet.


----------



## MilEME09

So why cant they just start the CSC 18 months early?


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> So why cant they just start the CSC 18 months early?


Probably because the design will not be ready.  Strictly speaking, it is not the Type 26, but a modification of the Type 26.  But we are not talking about a few very trivial modifications.  I think, because the modifications are likely to be many and major, the Canadian version of the Type 26, if built, is much more like a clean-sheet-of-paper design than a modified off-the-shelf design.


----------



## RDBZ

It will be interesting to see how well BAE supports the design and construction of three very different variants of the GCS base design concurrently.


----------



## Cloud Cover

How hard can it be to delete a missile vls and insert a hair salon and some non-pronoun heads?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They could identify parts that won't be altered and start on them


----------



## Lumber

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> How hard can it be to delete a missile vls and insert a hair salon and some non-pronoun heads?



As hard as they can make it ($) to milk the government or if as much as they can.


----------



## JMCanada

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Probably because the design will not be ready.  Strictly speaking, it is not the Type 26, but a modification of the Type 26.
> (...) the Canadian version of the Type 26, if built, is much more like a clean-sheet-of-paper design than a modified off-the-shelf design.



Even if they were identical to the british type 26... has anybody seen one afloat? 
Strictly speaking (IMHO) it is not an off-the-shelf vessel since none has been yet commissioned nor launched.

EDITED: That is the other side of betting for the newest design on the race.

The best part is that the process (to start production) has gone one step forward.


----------



## STONEY

Remember this is just the first step. Everyone wants things to move swiftly but this just cannot happen. For example the main diesel engines its manufacturer might have a 2-3 year order book so we will go to the back of the line , then it has to be built, tested and shipped and arrive in Canada at the right time to be installed in the engine room module at the proper time in the build process. The complete power system of the ship will have to be redone, remember a Canadian lightbulb does not work in a British lamp so millions of parts of the ship have to be planned ordered and arrive on time, and this takes years of planning.
     Cheers ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Even if they were identical to the british type 26... has anybody seen one afloat?
> Strictly speaking (IMHO) it is not an off-the-shelf vessel since none has been yet commissioned nor launched.
> 
> EDITED: That is the other side of betting for the newest design on the race.
> 
> The best part is that the process (to start production) has gone one step forward.




Not afloat - construction as of Jan 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIZk8UWuMP0


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Even if they are variants for the different countries at issue (Aus/UK/Can), it remains that, with a proposed line of 37 ships (9/13/15, in the order of nations I used at the beginning) the type 26 will automatically become a major class of warship by the power of sheer number.

Since the UK has not exactly been known to develop second rate warship for its own needs, we can confidently say that the Type 26 is about to become a major player on the naval scene.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Do you have any, actual, first hand knowledge of Canada's submarine program?
> 
> I do.
> 
> The most difficult class of Submarine that I have ever worked against is the Victoria Class. Period, full stop.



Serious question;  that was with a SeaKing.  How would that outcome have differed with a Cylone?

I've flown on quite a few subs - the most challenging for us wasn't the Victoria.  We have a pretty good toolbag to use compared to a Seaking though...


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Probably because the design will not be ready.  Strictly speaking, it is not the Type 26, but a modification of the Type 26.  But we are not talking about a few very trivial modifications.  I think, because the modifications are likely to be many and major, the Canadian version of the Type 26, if built, is much more like a clean-sheet-of-paper design than a modified off-the-shelf design.



Non-navy type here...I see ships on my sensors, and haven't sailed.

What would some examples of possible/probable minor and/or major modifications be?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Serious question;  that was with a SeaKing.  How would that outcome have differed with a Cylone?
> 
> I've flown on quite a few subs - the most challenging for us wasn't the Victoria.  We have a pretty good toolbag to use compared to a Seaking though...




Based on what I have heard/observed, the outcome would have been significantly different. The Cyclone has a much bigger tool bag than a Sea King, obviously.

With that said, my point stands. I have had relatively easy days vs othe classes of submarines, even in a Sea King. I have never, ever had an easy day against a Victoria.


----------



## Sub_Guy

Oh man the Victoria.   The passive ranges I’ve gotten from that thing (all hulls) on battery would blow your mind..   It blew my mind.  

Even on Block II tracking it was relatively simple.

I’m looking forward to seeing the T26 out there.  I just hope the costs don’t escalate to the point where we end up with fewer than 15.


----------



## Uzlu

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> What would some examples of possible/probable minor and/or major modifications be?


Major: combat system and hull.





> Underestimating the effort required to make changes to an existing warship design is not surprising when given some thought. Warships are not like ice breakers or patrol ships; they are very dense with complicated interactions among all the systems.
> 
> The word “dense” in this context refers to how jam-packed the ship is with equipment, cabling, redundancy requirements, water and smoke tight compartments, and extra layers of protection. Warships don’t generally have extra space to easily add stuff, though a good ship design does provide some displacement margin to add equipment during the lifetime of the ship.
> 
> Nevertheless, the effort to make a design change to a warship is not linear: changing one item, function or feature will necessarily have multiple knock-on changes multiplying the cost and effort of the change. This is a risk that is often underestimated when making changes to the design that Canada eventually selects.


Source: Parliamentary Budget Officer


----------



## Dale Denton

Any rumours over naming the class?

Anyone have any good suggestions? 

I hope they go with something other than geographic. Why not after WW2 RCN Destroyers, continuing after Haida since she's the ceremonial flagship?

Or after accomplished ships from the RN (with Canadian ties) and RCN? HMS Ajax, HMS Dominion, any Tribals?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If DND put out an offer to name the ships after FN tribes and used the names of those that agreed, it might be a useful reconciliation effort. Particularity nations with a history of warfighting.


----------



## ringo

IMHO CSC will be Province class. 10 Provinces 10 ships, maybe 2 more Yukon and Labrador but I doubt more than 10 will be built, indeed it might be wise to go with Province class as government would certainly look bad building less than 10 ships.


----------



## Gorgo

Let it be done this way:

P	FFG-342		HMCS ONTARIO
A	FFG-343		NCSM QUÉBEC
A	FFG-344		NCSM NEW BRUNSWICK
A	FFG-345		HMCS NOVA SCOTIA
P	FFG-346		NCSM MANITOBA
P	FFG-347		HMCS BRITISH COLUMBIA
A	FFG-348		HMCS PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
P	FFG-349		HMCS ALBERTA
P	FFG-350		HMCS SASKATCHEWAN
A	FFG-351		HMCS NEWFOUNDLAND
P	FFG-352		HMCS YUKON
A	FFG-353		HMCS LABRADOR


----------



## NavyShooter

But....that's only 12....we need more than that...


----------



## ringo

HMCS Northwest Territories and HMCS Nunavut would be next, but IMHO navy will be lucky to get 10 ships.
Halifax class was to have had a third batch of 6 ships, IIRC Mulroney cancel third batch.


----------



## Lumber

I'd put dollars to donuts that they name the AA variants IRO, ATH, and ALG... maybe even a HUR....


----------



## Czech_pivo

For my 2 cents (or 1.3 cents USD).  I'd love to see a HMCS Tecumseh and a HMCS Joseph Brant, along with Haida, Huron, Iroquois, Cree, etc, etc. I'm calling out Tecumseh and Brant because those two personally contributed so much to the early years of pre-Canadian history.


----------



## kratz

Under our Naval naming conventions two of the suggested names are not possible, without serious disruption.
Two ships can not hold the same name while in service.

- HMCS HADIA, recently designated our national flagship, would have to be decommissioned and paid off.
Losing the designation and recent protection that came with the title.

- HMCS TECHUMSE, Naval Reserve in Calgary, would have to be decommissioned and paid off.
Losing this NRD reduces the RCN's inland community presence, contributing to an increase in Canadian's Maritime blindness.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Non-navy type here...I see ships on my sensors, and haven't sailed.
> 
> What would some examples of possible/probable minor and/or major modifications be?



Hull itself won't change; equipment selection may result in different structural reinforments being required, but that's about it.

Some obvious examples are the hotel power loads; if the RN uses 220V 50Hz in the base design that needs changed. That's relatively straightforward, but changes all the associated cable runs, breakers, plugs etc, so goes everywhere.  That's probably major because of the scope, but generally those systems are straightforward, so not really complicated, and it's effectively stand alone, (after you get past the step down transformers), but does also effect all the equipment selection for stuff like fridges, laundry etc. 

If we were to do something dumb like use a different steering system, main engine or other base component that would be a major change. Also, you end up losing the advantage of having other uses of the same equipment (for through life maintainability and part support issues).

Assuming we'll have our own combat suite fitted with a Canadian CCS, but all of that is big enough it will be a single lead doing the integration, and is a major effort anyway.

Minor is relative, but could be something as simple as changing the paint scheme to use our colours.  Depends how they define it I guess (cost?). Even moving a light switch or a handle is a minor change, and for simple stuff like that it could be twenty minutes of blue colour labour to actually do the work and hours of white colour labour to document it. Seems dumb, until you spend ten times that years later when you go to install something and find a light switch in the way.


----------



## YZT580

For information, why not leave the power system alone?  Everything from computers to TVs and washingmachines are available in either voltage and would completely standardise the build internationally.  The cost of re-design would exceed the price of supplying every crew member with a personal 220 kit and still leave money in the bank.


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:
			
		

> For information, why not leave the power system alone?  Everything from computers to TVs and washingmachines are available in either voltage and would completely standardise the build internationally.  The cost of re-design would exceed the price of supplying every crew member with a personal 220 kit and still leave money in the bank.



Was typing a reply similar to this, but YZT just popped this up...so...^This!


----------



## Navy_Pete

YZT580 said:
			
		

> For information, why not leave the power system alone?  Everything from computers to TVs and washingmachines are available in either voltage and would completely standardise the build internationally.  The cost of re-design would exceed the price of supplying every crew member with a personal 220 kit and still leave money in the bank.



Because the supply chain is based in Canada. The cost of redesign is pretty low (in the grand scheme) and will also save some weight/material costs to install (220 runs on larger gauge wire, breakers cost more etc). You don't need to change the cable runs or anything, you just change the breaker specs, some details on the domestic power generation (transformers etc) and off you go. If they were smart, they may have already done that as part of the design for export phase, but it's the kind of thing a junior EE could do. 

If you don't do that, every single thing you plug into an outlet becomes special order (without a transformer/power inverter).  So aside from the fitted ships equipment, like washer/dryers, fridges, tvs, that would include any electronic equipment the crew brings on. It would be an absolute nightmare for the supply chain, cost a fortune, and be a huge QOL issue for the crew.  Also, you'd have a huge number of adapters plugged in which would be a safety issue and draw a whack of extra power.

Seems like a minor thing that shouldn't be complained about, but remember this is people's home. Imagine having to live on base, but having all the plugs in the shacks have weird plugs that don't let you plug any of your stuff into, and then live there for months at a time without being able to leave.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Because the supply chain is based in Canada. The cost of redesign is pretty low (in the grand scheme) and will also save some weight/material costs to install (220 runs on larger gauge wire, breakers cost more etc). You don't need to change the cable runs or anything, you just change the breaker specs, some details on the domestic power generation (transformers etc) and off you go.



???

Ummmmm...


----------



## garb811

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Seems like a minor thing that shouldn't be complained about, but remember this is people's home. Imagine having to live on base, but having all the plugs in the shacks have weird plugs that don't let you plug any of your stuff into, and then live there for months at a time without being able to leave.


Sounds like one of my tours and something everyone posted outside of North America faces...
Edit to add: Come to think of it, all I needed for my personal entertainment electronics was a plug adapter instead of a full blown power converter as the systems' power supplies were already designed to handle the difference.


----------



## Furniture

garb811 said:
			
		

> Sounds like one of my tours and something everyone posted outside of North America faces...
> Edit to add: Come to think of it, all I needed for my personal entertainment electronics was a plug adapter instead of a full blown power converter as the systems' power supplies were already designed to handle the difference.



So every time a ship slips her lines pay the crew hardship on top of sea duty allowance.  

Like stated up thread, everything on the ship that isn't fitted would require a converter TVs, printers, coffee makers, treadmills, etc. That makes replacing them expensive since most ships spend most of their time in/around Canada and the USA. 

It's easy to suggest sailors just suck it up at sea when you will never have to sail yourself. I've never heard a sailor tell the army they can just leave their tents behind because back on tour in Afghanistan a tarp was sufficent.


----------



## Navy_Pete

A plug adapter was fine for a laptop, sitting at a desk, but doesn't work for anything else with bigger draws or doesn't have it's own power supply.

NATO standard power is 450 V 60 Hz, so all you normally need to do for domestic power is step it down to 220/110V.  There are a few ways to get 50 Hz for the domestic side, but it adds in extra steps with some extra gear, and KISS makes a huge difference over a long time frame for costs (like a 40 year time).

Like I said, they probably already had that figured out when they designed the Type 26, and is a pretty easy change that was probably part of the proposal requirements anyway.


----------



## garb811

Furniture said:
			
		

> So every time a ship slips her lines pay the crew hardship on top of sea duty allowance.
> 
> Like stated up thread, everything on the ship that isn't fitted would require a converter TVs, printers, coffee makers, treadmills, etc. That makes replacing them expensive since most ships spend most of their time in/around Canada and the USA.
> 
> It's easy to suggest sailors just suck it up at sea when you will never have to sail yourself. I've never heard a sailor tell the army they can just leave their tents behind because back on tour in Afghanistan a tarp was sufficent.


You obviously haven't talked to anyone in one of the 3rd Bns, they tell themselves to leave the tents behind so don't need a sailor to do that for them.


----------



## Infanteer

Furniture said:
			
		

> I've never heard a sailor tell the army they can just leave their tents behind because back on tour in Afghanistan a tarp was sufficent.



What's a tent?


----------



## Uzlu

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Hull itself won't change;


BAE claims that the Type 26 has a top speed of 26+ knots.
https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/global-combat-ship


FrontLIne Defence appears to be suggesting something different for the Canadian variant.


> Current plans state a top ship speed of 28+ knots


https://defence.frontline.online/article/2018/5a/10488-TEAM-LOCKHEED
If the hull will not change, then power must be increased.  Because where is this extra two knots coming from?


----------



## Lumber

Why can a WW2 battleship go 35 knots, but a state of the art modern ASW frigate can't go more than 26 (or 28)? I mean, even the CPFs can go 30+ knots, why are we going backwards?


----------



## STONEY

The RN, RAN & RCN versions of the Type 26 will all have different Radars, Sonars , Fire control, Combat Management System ,Weapons and hence have different power requirements. They also have different engines. The Brits have RR gas turbines and mtu diesels while the Aussies call for GE turbines and god knows what Canada will get. It is really confusing as several different source sites quote different speeds & tonnages for the type 26 . I guess we are just going to wait for the Canadian contract award to find out what exactly our contract specifies and how it compares to other national types.

Cheers


----------



## calculus

Just curious. Where have you seen that the Aussie Type 26 will have GE GTs? I've only ever seen any of the variants (UK, AUS, and CAN) described as having RR MT30s. Other than commonality with existing ships (which is quite important, granted) I don't see why they would take the technical risk to integrate a different engine. The latest and greatest version of the LM2500 (the +G4) is still less powerful than the MT30, at 35MW, vice 36MW (48,000 HP) for the MT30 on the UK T26. There is also a 40MW (53,333 HP) version of the MT30. Perhaps this is what the AUS and CAN versions will come with, which might explain the speed discrepancies between the different variants (26 Kn for UK, 27 Kn for AUS Hunter Class, and 28+ for the CSC)

https://defense-update.com/20180629_australian-hunter-class-frigate.html

https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/rr-mt30-brochure-uk-2016.pdf


----------



## Swampbuggy

calculus said:
			
		

> Just curious. Where have you seen that the Aussie Type 26 will have GE GTs? I've only ever seen any of the variants (UK, AUS, and CAN) described as having RR MT30s. Other than commonality with existing ships (which is quite important, granted) I don't see why they would take the technical risk to integrate a different engine. The latest and greatest version of the LM2500 (the +G4) is still less powerful than the MT30, at 35MW, vice 36MW (48,000 HP) for the MT30 on the UK T26. There is also a 40MW (53,333 HP) version of the MT30. Perhaps this is what the AUS and CAN versions will come with, which might explain the speed discrepancies between the different variants (26 Kn for UK, 27 Kn for AUS Hunter Class, and 28+ for the CSC)
> 
> https://defense-update.com/20180629_australian-hunter-class-frigate.html
> 
> https://www.rolls-royce.com/~/media/Files/R/Rolls-Royce/documents/customers/marine/rr-mt30-brochure-uk-2016.pdf



Pleased correct me if I’m mistaken, but isn’t there a RR marine engine plant here in Canada? Peterborough, maybe? If so, wouldn’t it make sense just to stick with the MT30?


----------



## Uzlu

Lumber said:
			
		

> Why can a WW2 battleship go 35 knots, but a state of the art modern ASW frigate can't go more than 26 (or 28)? I mean, even the CPFs can go 30+ knots, why are we going backwards?


The answer is complex.  But here are a few things to keep in mind.  A small ship always needs more horsepower per ton than a large ship for a given speed.  A small hull has limited room to put in large amounts of horsepower.  

A high-powered engine tends to be relatively inefficient at low cruising power and thus affects endurance.  After 1945, Western naval doctrine required escorts to be able to make relatively high speeds in very rough water. This means heavier hull construction and increased freeboard, which increased hull weight and thus requires more power.  Sonar is less effective above about 20 or 25 knots.  

In anti-submarine warfare, long-range weapons have decreased the value of fast tactical speeds.  The emphasis is now on maintaining slower top speeds in rough seas rather than maintaining higher top speeds in very calm seas.  So while modern frigates and destroyers appear slower than their counterparts before 1946, they are actually—in real-world usage—faster.


----------



## Greene

Hi all, This is my first post but I've been reading the forums for a long time.

It doesn't look like anyone else has posted about this yet -- on canadascombatshipteam.com there's an article about MDA's role in the project. Part way through they say: "Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s solution for CSC *leverages components from the USN Aegis integrated naval weapons system* to track and guide naval defensive measures to intercept enemy targets..." Could this be similar to what Australia's doing for their Hunter class by combining Aegis with their Saab combat system? If so, does this mean a big boost for the CSC's proposed AAW capabilities? 

Sorry - haven't figured out how to insert hyperlinks properly, but here's a link to the whole article: http://canadascombatshipteam.com/canadas-combat-ship-team-mda-solution-equals-unprecedented-economic-outcome-for-canada


----------



## RDBZ

Greene said:
			
		

> Hi all, This is my first post but I've been reading the forums for a long time.
> 
> It doesn't look like anyone else has posted about this yet -- on canadascombatshipteam.com there's an article about MDA's role in the project. Part way through they say: "Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s solution for CSC *leverages components from the USN Aegis integrated naval weapons system* to track and guide naval defensive measures to intercept enemy targets..." *Could this be similar to what Australia's doing for their Hunter class by combining Aegis with their Saab combat system?* If so, does this mean a big boost for the CSC's proposed AAW capabilities?
> 
> Sorry - haven't figured out how to insert hyperlinks properly, but here's a link to the whole article: http://canadascombatshipteam.com/canadas-combat-ship-team-mda-solution-equals-unprecedented-economic-outcome-for-canada



For the RAN the combat system will be Aegis, with SAAB developing an interface layer between that and non-Aegis "native" sensors and weapons like the CEAFAR and CEAMOUNT radars.  It probably leverages off work they did to integrate earlier versions of CEAFAR, MU-90 etc into the 9LV CMS.


----------



## Dale Denton

Why wait until IndoDefence 2018 to release this, and not submit this for CSC?



https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/november-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6660-indodefence-2018-damen-unveils-6000-tons-omega-frigate.html


Glorious Sea Pyramid-looking.


> Omega frigate /  FFI early specifications:
> Length: 144 meters
> Breadth: 18.8 meters
> Displacement: 6100 tons
> Max. speed: 29 knots
> Range: 5,000 nautical miles @ 18 knots
> Endurance: 30 days at sea
> Stabilisation: Rudder roll (similar to LCF)
> Crew: 122 sailors (accommodations for up to 160)
> Storage space for 3x 12 meters RHIBs
> Hangar space for 2x medium lift helicopters and/or UAV.


----------



## Good2Golf

No metal cut for it, let alone a proven design.  ???


----------



## Karel Doorman

probably these will replace the M-class frigate.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> No metal cut for it, let alone a proven design.  ???



Not entirely new

_Damen explained to us that the Omega / FFI frigate is based on the proven LCF / De Zeven Provinciën-class frigate hull form. The vessel features an hybrid propulsion system consisting of 4x diesel engines (two can be used for economic speed, four for sprint) plus 2x electric engines. The diesel engines are separated forward and aft for increased survivability. Power generation aboard the ship takes into account future weapon systems such as directed energy weapons._


----------



## AlexanderM

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Why wait until IndoDefence 2018 to release this, and not submit this for CSC?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/november-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6660-indodefence-2018-damen-unveils-6000-tons-omega-frigate.html
> 
> 
> Glorious Sea Pyramid-looking.


You'd think the fact that it's based on an existing hull would have made it a design which could have been submitted.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I wonder if any damage control lessons from the latest Norwegian Frigate collision will be added to the design criteria?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

What lesson would that be, Colin?

"Don't be tied alongside when tug boats maneuver large merchant ships in the Harbour?"

HMCS Winnipeg already learned that one for us all.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I was thinking about how the crew responded, is the crew numbers enough, did their drills and equipment work as intended? Did any of the design assumptions contribute to the flooding or did they work as intended?


----------



## Kirkhill

I'm thinking that no matter how many systems and bodies you have in place it doesn't really matter.

Just as any tank can be destroyed with a big enough mine so any ship can be sunk with a big enough hole.


----------



## NavyShooter

Looking at the hole that's visible on the images I've seen of the ship, well, they basically opened a LOT of compartments to the sea in very short order.  The only saving grace was how close they were to shore and how they ran the ship aground.  

Looks like a 4-ish foot gash that runs along the starboard quarter of the ship.  Heard they lost steering right away, and propulsion shortly after.  All power lost shortly after the grounding.  The fact that the whole crew is still alive is about the best thing that came of this in my opinion.

What could they change in design to make the ship more survivable?  Maybe returning to the days of a 6" armour belt?  Alas, that's pointless in today's missile age.  Damage control?  Nope this was, from the beginning a Survival Stations event, not a DC event.

NS


----------



## Pelorus

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> What lesson would that be, Colin?
> 
> "Don't be tied alongside when tug boats maneuver large merchant ships in the Harbour?"
> 
> HMCS Winnipeg already learned that one for us all.



Right now this Norwegian website contains more details than any other public source, with a number of anonymous inputs from officials (local VTMS, etc.), and it is being cited by stories run by the BBC and other major news agencies:

https://www.aldrimer.no/fregatten-anropt-og-advart-gjentatte-ganger/

As in any other significant transportation disaster, the details will be sketchy and uncorroborated for some time until official investigations are done and press releases made.

Now I certainly don't speak any Norwegian, and Google Translate is struggling a bit with the text, but for any reader with a background in navigation and seamanship it seems pretty likely from this article's account that the incident resembles the _Fitzgerald_ much more than _Winnipeg_, especially this section:



> The frigate on its way south may have adjusted its course to the port to pass starboard to starboard. Unfortunately, it is practiced to some extent, the source says and adds: - The tanker on board has probably taken for granted that the frigate controlled the situation.



In light of this, given a full ship's company embarked, and a collision occurring at 0400 or so, I'd say it's a near miracle that they walked away from this with only a handful of injuries and no fatalities.

Although I've sailed extensively in company with the Royal Norwegian Navy, I don't know enough about their practices in Fjords near their home port to speculate as to whether they would have had SSD closed up, or if they were far enough away from home to still be in normal steaming watches. I'm very interested to learn the details as they become available.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

boot12 said:
			
		

> Now I certainly don't speak any Norwegian, and Google Translate is struggling a bit with the text, but for any reader with a background in navigation and seamanship it seems pretty likely from this article's account that the incident resembles the _Fitzgerald_ much more than _Winnipeg_, especially this section:



Quite right boot12.

I was going only based on the original report as it was presented in our own Milnet forums (Newsroom/Current Operations/Ex in Norway?) by Eye in the Sky on November 8 at 07:41 (reply #14).

The Press release he quotes said (and I quote from the press release): a Navy "frigate was rammed by a tanker while it was docked in a harbour on the country's west coast ..." 

I see now that it is a different scenario, more akin to the Fitzgerald one.

Oh!, and BTW - I do have a bit of a background in navigation and seamanship according to the RCN when it decided it was OK to give me command of a few ships.    ;D


----------



## Pelorus

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Quite right boot12.
> 
> I was going only based on the original report as it was presented in our own Milnet forums (Newsroom/Current Operations/Ex in Norway?) by Eye in the Sky on November 8 at 07:41 (reply #14).
> 
> The Press release he quotes said (and I quote from the press release): a Navy "frigate was rammed by a tanker while it was docked in a harbour on the country's west coast ..."
> 
> I see now that it is a different scenario, more akin to the Fitzgerald one.
> 
> Oh!, and BTW - I do have a bit of a background in navigation and seamanship according to the RCN when it decided it was OK to give me command of a few ships.    ;D



Apologies, that was intended as a general statement, certainly not directed towards you. I just meant that with the shoddy Google translation it may not be very clear unless one has the background to read between the lines a bit.

I haven't come across anything yet with the exact location of the incident, but it sounds like the tanker had a pilot embarked still, so I suspect that the initial reports of it being a berthing incident stem from a journalist's misinterpretation of the incident happening near a port.


----------



## Underway

Greene said:
			
		

> It doesn't look like anyone else has posted about this yet -- on canadascombatshipteam.com there's an article about MDA's role in the project. Part way through they say: "Canada’s Combat Ship Team’s solution for CSC *leverages components from the USN Aegis integrated naval weapons system* to track and guide naval defensive measures to intercept enemy targets..." Could this be similar to what Australia's doing for their Hunter class by combining Aegis with their Saab combat system? If so, does this mean a big boost for the CSC's proposed AAW capabilities?



It's a bit misleading to say that.  It's like calling a function for a program you did years ago.  No need to reinvent the wheel, just cut in the old function to the new program.  Does that leverage components?  Yup.  There could be a single part or line of code taken from Aegis and Lockheed would call that "leveraging components" in their marketing.


----------



## Underway

Editorial from the Canadian Naval Review regarding the CSC program for those interested in a basic overview of the entire program so far.


----------



## Underway

Defence News take on the selection of Type 26 as the prefered bidder.  Article repeated below for the click impaired.

With Russia in its crosshairs, Canada moves to buy a sub hunter
By: David B. Larter     October 29

PARIS — The Royal Canadian Navy is moving toward Britain’s Type 26 frigate design, a multimission ship designed to cut through the water quietly, hunt submarines, and defend against hostile missiles and aircraft.

The Canadian government announced mid-October that a team led by Lockheed Martin Canada had been selected as the “preferred designer.” That team was offering up British defense firm BAE Systems’ Type 26 design.

To some, the selection of the Type 26 design was a surprise given that Britain only just began cutting steel for the first one last summer, and as with any new ship and design, there is a high potential for cost overruns and delays.

But the Arctic nation’s selection of a ship that is a purpose-built sub hunter could be a sign that it is willing to accept those risks because of the strategic threat Russia poses to Canada’s interests at the rapidly thawing top of the world.

“For the Canadians, anti-submarine warfare is a big deal,” said Bryan Clark, a retired U.S. submarine officer and analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. “If you are worried about the Russian sub threat and the air threat, then, yeah, the Type 26 makes sense.”

Indeed, BAE executives here said a big part of Type 26 is its anti-submarine warfare-friendly design elements.

“That was a huge discriminator for us,” Anne Healey, a vice president with BAE Systems, told a roundtable of reporters at the Euronaval conference. “We are extremely quiet and we are probably the world’s most advanced frigate … and that’s a key element of what sets us apart and what’s valued by the Canadian Navy.”

The ASW features were also a big factor for Australia, which is locked in a standoff with China over its actions in the South and East China seas, vital sea lanes for the Pacific nation.

The shift toward ASW is part of an industry trend, said Gary Fudge, a vice president with Lockheed Martin Canada.

“For the last 15 years, most allied navies have put their efforts into anti-air warfare, whereas the threat that has emerged in the last 15 years is largely in submarine technologies,” Fudge said. "So we wake up 15 years later finding that the focus has gone into anti-air, but the real threat is in submarines.

“The number of submarines produced in the 15 years is phenomenal, and now the world has woken up and it doesn’t have the same ASW capability anymore and it hasn’t kept pace with the anti-air warfare technology. So Canada is very interested in getting back on track.”

All told, Canada wants to buy up to 15 frigates with a notional total program cost of $60 billion all in. And while the selection of Lockheed and BAE is a big win for the companies, the project could still fall through as the program enters an evaluation phase where Lockheed’s bid will be examined, and Canada’s requirements will be reviewed to ensure that Type 26 is the best bet.

The final decision should come some time over the winter, according to a report by the Canadian Broadcast Corporation.

But assuming the contract moves forward, it would mean three of the “Five Eyes” countries — the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada — will operate Type 26 frigates. (The United States — which passed on the Type 26 design during its frigate competition — and New Zealand are the other two counties in the intelligence sharing pact.)

Risk

Clark, the CSBA analyst, said the selection of Type 26 was in some ways surprising because of the potential for cost overruns.

“It’s not yet a proven ship, and you are taking a ship that is not even built yet and making it the basis of your frigate program,” Clark said. “It is a little surprising, especially for a country that might lack the wherewithal and the funding for potential cost and schedule overruns.”

But BAE thinks Canada will be in good shape because the British and Australian programs are underway, meaning Canada should be able to avoid early mistakes through shared lessons learned. Furthermore, not much in the way of design changes were needed to meet the Canadian requirement.

“The amount of design change that we are doing is only 10 percent, so it’s going to represent a very low risk in terms of the alterations that are being made,” Healey said.

By way of comparison, the U.S. Navy had to change about 40 percent of the design of its DDG Flight IIA to incorporate the new SPY-6 radar in Flight III.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think now that they've developed anti ship missiles that the subs can fire, you need a swiss army knife for any ship.  If you don't have a solid ASW platform in the design stage you are pretty much hooped and not something you can recover from without fundamental changes from the keel up.  With AAW there are enough decent plug and play systems you can bolt on and upgrade over time that you can scale your capability to a certain extent over the life of the ship, and we're realistically never going to plan to be in any kind of intensive AAW threat area on our own, so makes sense to share that responsibility.

In any case, just will be glad we'll have ships that have more service time than the crew, and hopefully have a better chance at being supportable if we use common equipment with the other navies.


----------



## Uzlu

> Shipbuilding work to stay in Halifax: Sajjan
> 
> There are also concerns of layoffs due to a forecasted 36-month gap between the end of the construction of the Harry DeWolf class Arctic offshore patrol ships (AOPS) and the beginning of the construction of the Canadian surface combatants, which the government says has now been reduced by 18 months due to a recent confirmation that the navy will buy a sixth Harry DeWolf-class vessel.
> 
> In terms of mitigating that gap, Sajjan said that’s the responsibility of both the federal government and Irving.
> 
> On the government’s end, Sajjan said, they’ve not only guaranteed five AOPS and announced the purchase of a sixth, but they’ve also fully funded the 15 ships scheduled as part of the Canadian surface combatant program.
> 
> “That gives Irving Shipyards the full confidence that they will actually have the 15 ships where in the past that was not the case. There wasn’t enough money when we formed government for 15 ships, in fact, I think there was only enough money for nine. We provide assurance to Irving shipyard that the funding is actually going to be there, which provides a lot of confidence to the workers as well,” he said.
> 
> Sajjan said DND is cognizant of the challenges an “up and down” workforce in shipbuilding can create like loss of experience and increased cost. But he said some of that responsibility falls on the shipyard.
> 
> “At the end of the day, this is a joint responsibility ... (they need to be) making sure that they keep those gaps small as possible for us to be able to work with the scheduling.”
> 
> On that front, things have been working quite well, Sajjan said.


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/shipbuilding-work-to-stay-in-halifax-sajjan-259855/


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I think now that they've developed anti ship missiles that the subs can fire, you need a swiss army knife for any ship.  If you don't have a solid ASW platform in the design stage you are pretty much hooped and not something you can recover from without fundamental changes from the keel up.  With AAW there are enough decent plug and play systems you can bolt on and upgrade over time that you can scale your capability to a certain extent over the life of the ship, and we're realistically never going to plan to be in any kind of intensive AAW threat area on our own, so makes sense to share that responsibility.



It depends I think.  There are certainly systems you can bolt on to improve your ASW.  Better towed arrays, hull mounted sonars and most importantly have a good ASW helicopter embarked. The subs are going to always know where you are before you know where they are, no matter the platform you are sailing on the surface.  Making a really quiet surface ship reduces that advantage which in turn reduces the strategic mobility of the sub as it might not detect you in time to maneuver into attack range.  But it's not the end of the world.

Keel up design advantages are really nimbleness, high tactical speed, and lack of importance as a target.  Not being the main target is a sub hunters best friend!


----------



## Uzlu

> Failed warship bidder sues to scuttle deal
> 
> Alion Canada, one of the firms involved in the $60-billion dollar procurement of Canada’s new fleet of warships, has launched a Federal Court appeal to overturn a recent decision to select Lockheed Martin as the preferred bidder.
> 
> According to an application for judicial review filed in Ottawa on Friday, Alion Canada, a Nova Scotia-based wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. parent company, is asking the court to prohibit the federal government and Irving Shipbuilding from entering into a contract with Lockheed Martin Canada on the grounds that Lockheed’s bid was noncompliant.
> 
> Last month, Public Services and Procurement Canada announced that after a lengthy, and sensitive competition, Lockheed Martin Canada was selected as the preferred bidder to design replacements for the navy’s frigate and destroyer fleets, beating out two other bids: Alion Canada, which offered up Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Class air defence and command frigate, and Navantia/SAAB’s design based on the F-105 anti-submarine frigate design for the Spanish navy.
> 
> But now Alion is alleging that the BAE Systems Type 26 Global Combat Ship design offered by Lockheed, which is currently also being constructed for the U.K. and Australian navies, is incapable of meeting three critical and mandatory requirements of the Request for Proposals that the firms crafted their bids around: two requirements concern the vessels’ speed, and one deals with the number of crew berths.
> 
> “The RFP required (Public Services and Procurement Canada) and Irving to reject Lockheed’s bid because of its non-compliance,” the application reads.
> 
> Instead, the document says, the federal government and Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding announced Lockheed as the preferred bidder and has entered into the conditions precedent period. This is the step immediately prior to awarding the definition subcontract between Irving, the prime contractor and shipbuilder, and Lockheed, the warship designer.
> 
> “(Alion) submitted a fully-compliant and conforming bid, at enormous expense, (and) expected that their bid, and the entire procurement process, would be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions in the RFP,” Alion says in the document.
> 
> “This was not the case and the applicants have been denied the fair treatment they were owed.”
> 
> As such, Alion is asking a federal court to set aside the decision to select Lockheed as the preferred bidder, and to prohibit the government from issuing the necessary approvals to award the Canadian Surface Combatant definition subcontract to Lockheed.
> 
> The respondents named in Alion’s application include Irving Shipbuilding, Lockheed Martin Canada, Navantia, SAAB Australia, and the Attorney General of Canada.
> 
> Alion’s legal actions come after months of rumblings and speculation from industry about bid-rigging: that the Type 26 was always the preferred ship of the Royal Canadian Navy, and that a number of amendments were made to the RFP to tailor it to Lockheed’s bid. These concerns centered around changes to the RFP that allowed Lockheed to offer a “paper” design that had not yet been in the water, even though Ottawa announced it was streamlining the National Shipbuilding Strategy back in 2016, axing plans for a fully Canadian designed ship and opting instead for a proven, off-the-shelf design to cut costs and mitigate risks.
> 
> These amendments, 88 in total, are referenced in Alion’s federal court application.
> 
> “While the RFP originally set out a requirement for a relatively mature and proven vessel platform, the amendments to the RFP effectively diluted the requirements and resulted in (PSPC) and Irving being able to accept an increasingly unproven vessel platform, like the one offered by Lockheed,” it reads.
> 
> The other parties named in Alion’s application have yet to publicly responded to the proceedings.


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/failed-warship-bidder-sues-to-scuttle-deal-261443/

Earlier in this thread, I predicted that there would have to be a major modification of the Type 26 to meet the Royal Canadian Navy’s requirement for 28+ knots.  https://army.ca/forums/threads/120223/post-1552778.html#msg1552778


----------



## Underway

So the article has been updated...



> Alion Canada, one of the firms involved in the $60-billion dollar procurement of Canada’s new fleet of warships, has launched a Federal Court appeal to overturn a recent decision to select Lockheed Martin as the preferred bidder.
> 
> According to an application for judicial review filed in Ottawa on Friday, Alion Canada, a Nova Scotia-based wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. parent company, is asking the court to prohibit the federal government and Irving Shipbuilding from entering into a contract with Lockheed Martin Canada on the grounds that Lockheed’s bid was non-compliant.
> 
> Last month, Public Services and Procurement Canada announced that after a lengthy, and sensitive competition, Lockheed Martin Canada was selected as the preferred bidder to design replacements for the navy’s frigate and destroyer fleets, beating out two other bids: Alion Canada, which offered up Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Class air defence and command frigate, and Navantia/SAAB’s design based on the F-105 anti-submarine frigate design for the Spanish navy.
> 
> But now Alion is alleging that the BAE Systems Type 26 Global Combat Ship design offered by Lockheed, which is currently also being constructed for the U.K. and Australian navies, is incapable of meeting three critical and mandatory requirements of the request for proposals that the firms crafted their bids around: two requirements concern the vessels’ speed, and one deals with the number of crew berths.
> 
> But now Alion is alleging that the BAE Systems Type 26 Global Combat Ship design offered by Lockheed, which is currently also being constructed for the U.K. and Australian navies, is incapable of meeting three critical and mandatory requirements of the request for proposals that the firms crafted their bids around: two requirements concern the vessels’ speed, and one deals with the number of crew berths.
> 
> “The RFP required (Public Services and Procurement Canada) and Irving to reject Lockheed’s bid because of its non-compliance,” the application reads.
> 
> Instead, the document says, the federal government and Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding announced Lockheed as the preferred bidder and has entered into the conditions precedent period. This is the step immediately prior to awarding the definition subcontract between Irving, the prime contractor and shipbuilder, and Lockheed, the warship designer.
> 
> “(Alion) submitted a fully-compliant and conforming bid, at enormous expense, (and) expected that their bid, and the entire procurement process, would be administered in accordance with the terms and conditions in the RFP,” Alion says in the document.
> 
> “This was not the case and the applicants have been denied the fair treatment they were owed.”
> 
> As such, Alion is asking a federal court to set aside the decision to select Lockheed as the preferred bidder, and to prohibit the government from issuing the necessary approvals to award the Canadian Surface Combatant definition subcontract to Lockheed.
> 
> The respondents named in Alion’s application include Irving Shipbuilding, Lockheed Martin Canada, Navantia, SAAB Australia, and the Attorney General of Canada.
> 
> Alion’s legal actions come after months of rumblings and speculation from industry about bid-rigging: that the Type 26 was always the preferred ship of the Royal Canadian Navy, and that a number of amendments were made to the RFP to tailor it to Lockheed’s bid. These concerns centred around changes to the RFP that allowed Lockheed to offer a “paper” design that had not yet been in the water, even though Ottawa announced it was streamlining the National Shipbuilding Strategy back in 2016, axing plans for a fully Canadian designed ship and opting instead for a proven, off-the-shelf design to cut costs and mitigate risks.
> 
> The amendments, 88 in total, are referenced in Alion’s federal court application.
> 
> “While the RFP originally set out a requirement for a relatively mature and proven vessel platform, the amendments to the RFP effectively diluted the requirements and resulted in (PSPC) and Irving being able to accept an increasingly unproven vessel platform, like the one offered by Lockheed,” it reads.
> 
> David Perry, senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, told The Chronicle Herald he’s not surprised in the slightest that one of the other bidders is challenging the process in court.
> 
> “I mean there’s just far too much money and potential opportunity at stake for it not to be worth anyone’s while to at least try,” he said.
> 
> But, Perry said, he does find the premise of Alion’s appeal somewhat strange.
> 
> “(Alion) is basically saying that they know what (Lockheed) was able to substantiate better than either than the government/Irving did,” Perry said.
> 
> Large military procurements are a very technical and comprehensive process, and Perry said all requirements would have been laid out very clearly in the RFP. Bidders would have had to prove quite clearly to the teams evaluating the bids that they’re able to adequately meet all the requirements.
> 
> “Just to get to the point where Lockheed is right now they had to prove that they could do what Alion is saying they couldn’t,” he said.
> 
> Furthermore, Perry said it’s highly unlikely that anyone from Alion has managed to get their hands on a full copy of Lockheed’s bid. Because of the money on the line and the amount of incredibly sensitive corporate intelligence contained within a bid like this, Lockheed — one of the world’s biggest defence companies — would have guarded that information pretty closely.
> 
> “People in industry talk to each other a lot (and) have a good general idea of what others are doing, but as for if they have seen the bid, I would be astounded if that was the case.”
> 
> The Chronicle Herald reached out to Alion, Irving Shipbuilding Lockheed Martin Canada and and Public Services and Procurement Canada and all declined comment while the matter is before the courts.
> 
> Lockheed has responded to rumblings that it doesn’t meet all the RFP requirements in the past. In September, before they were announced as the preferred bidder, the Twitter account for the Lockheed/BAE team posted: “BAE System’s Type 26 meets all requirements in the CSC proposal, including speed.”
> 
> Both Irving and Public Services and Procurement Canada have expressed numerous times in response to concerns about the Canadian Surface Combatant competition that they are committed to a fair, open and transparent procurement process.



I've been following the Type 26 program development for years.  The tonnage has varied from between 5000 to 8000 tons depending on when you read the information and how outdated the website is.  The number of missiles has varied.  The crew complement has varied.  And that is just for the UK version of the ship.  The Hunter Class (Australian version) goes 27+, and is 8800 tons.  So its heavier (by 1900 tons!) and goes faster than the UK version.  There is no reason that the 26+ or 27+ can't be more than 28 knots.  And as far as crew complement goes the navy wants a minimum of 190 pers.  The Type 26 can take up to 208.  And I'm sure the flex deck can add more.

I don't see this going anywhere.


----------



## CBH99

Underway,

Question.  You state that the Navy wants a _*minimum*_ of 190 personnel to man the ships??

I'm assuming that is for damage control & redundancy purposes?  I'd have thought the fewer personnel the better, to an extent (keeping damage control capabilities in mind) -- so to assist the Navy in manning it's platforms?


----------



## FSTO

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Underway,
> 
> Question.  You state that the Navy wants a _*minimum*_ of 190 personnel to man the ships??
> 
> I'm assuming that is for damage control & redundancy purposes?  I'd have thought the fewer personnel the better, to an extent (keeping damage control capabilities in mind) -- so to assist the Navy in manning it's platforms?



The whole reduced manning of ships idea is an unattainable panacea. As proven by the USN LCS debacle there is a delta where crew fatigue and ship's overall maintenance at sea suffers if there is not the requisite personnel onboard to do the jobs required.


----------



## Uzlu

> Alion added that its own proposed design, which was based on a Dutch frigate, met all of the navy’s requirements. It also said that it has received no information about why Lockheed’s bid was selected over its own, despite requests for answers.


https://globalnews.ca/news/4686905/legal-challenge-canadian-warships/


----------



## Stoker

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Underway,
> 
> Question.  You state that the Navy wants a _*minimum*_ of 190 personnel to man the ships??
> 
> I'm assuming that is for damage control & redundancy purposes?  I'd have thought the fewer personnel the better, to an extent (keeping damage control capabilities in mind) -- so to assist the Navy in manning it's platforms?



I think its 190 bunks with a actual crew complement of quite a bit lower. Same thing is happening with the Kingston Class and AOPS I believe,


----------



## Underway

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> I think its 190 bunks with a actual crew complement of quite a bit lower. Same thing is happening with the Kingston Class and AOPS I believe,



Not quite AOPS levels but yah.

190 pers comes from the RCN's evaluation of taskings, jobs and deployment types and has been stated a few times at various presentations/town halls when discussing the future fleet.  The RCN requires at a minimum 190 crew on a future frigate to do the full gamut of warfare tasks in a combat environment.  This includes a full Air Det.  This is the absolute floor.  More is better but less degrades fighting the internal and external battles simultaneously.

So of course that means CSC can, should and will operate with less core crew much (most?) of the time as missions/taskings vary along a spectrum all the way up to warfighting.


----------



## Uzlu

A trade challenge in addition to that Federal Court challenge.  The following article contains an error.  The _De Zeven Provinciën_-class frigates are already in service in only one country.





> Failed bidder files trade challenge against Ottawa's frigate design pick
> 
> The federal government's decision to select a group of companies led by Lockheed Martin Canada to design and support the construction of the navy's new frigates is now facing a trade challenge, on top of a Federal Court challenge filed last week.
> 
> Alion Science and Technology Corp. and its subsidiary, Alion Canada, have asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to look into the procurement deal. They're telling the tribunal that Lockheed Martin's design will need substantial changes to meet the federal government's requirements, which would mean higher costs and more delays.
> 
> The company last week separately asked the Federal Court for a judicial review and an order quashing the decision, which saw Public Services and Procurement Canada select Lockheed Martin Canada as the preferred bidder on the $60 billion program.
> 
> Alion pitched the De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate, a Dutch-designed warship that is already in service in other countries.
> 
> *More delays?*
> 
> Depending upon how they play out, said defence procurement expert Dave Perry, both challenges have the potential to further delay the frigate program. Federal procurement officials had hoped to nail down a fully fledged design contract with Lockheed Martin by the winter.
> 
> Perry, who works with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he expects those negotiations to continue — unless the Federal Court orders them to halt.
> 
> "Unless there is a compelling reason to stop, they are going to keep going," he said. "There is a recognition of the urgency across the board."
> 
> That urgency is partly due to the program's legacy of delays, which have stretched the design competition out for almost two years.
> 
> Public Services and Procurement Canada would not comment on the matter because it is before the courts, but a senior official, speaking on background Thursday, said the federal government has up to 20 days to respond to the court challenge.
> 
> The official — who was not authorized to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the file — said there is flexibility built into the timeline and the government is optimistic it can meet its goal of an early 2019 contract signing.
> 
> Perry said there are aspects of both the court challenge and the application to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal that he finds puzzling.
> 
> Alion claimed in its court filing that the winning bid was "incapable of meeting three critical mandatory requirements" of the design tender.
> 
> *Speed bump*
> 
> The company said, for instance, that the Type 26 cannot meet the mandatory speed requirements set out by the navy and that both Public Services and Procurement Canada and Irving Shipbuilding, the yard overseeing the construction, should have rejected the bid outright.
> 
> Perry said the criteria cited by Alion were among the first the federal government evaluated.
> 
> "The rest of Lockheed Martin's bid wouldn't have been looked at if the Crown and Irving was not satisfied that the bid met each of those [initial] criteria," he said. "It's a weird dynamic."
> 
> Alion's trade tribunal application argues in considerable detail that in order for the Type 26 to meet Ottawa's speed requirement, it will have to undergo considerable redesign.
> 
> The court application also cites the fact that the design tender was amended 88 times and those changes "effectively diluted the [warship] requirements" and allowed the government and Irving to select "an unproven design platform."
> 
> Unlike its two competitors, the Type 26 has yet to enter service with the Royal Navy. Competitors have privately knocked it as "paper ship."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-lockheed-alion-federal-court-1.4916881


----------



## Good2Golf

Not sure ‘paper ship’ is accurate anymore.  Construction of First Type 26 / City-class Frigate Progressing Well

Question:  If the Federal court and CITT challenges are not upheld, can the Government of Canada counter-sue Alion for any delay to the program that the challenges caused?

Regards
G2G


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:
			
		

> Not quite AOPS levels but yah.
> 
> 190 pers comes from the RCN's evaluation of taskings, jobs and deployment types and has been stated a few times at various presentations/town halls when discussing the future fleet.  The RCN requires at a minimum 190 crew on a future frigate to do the full gamut of warfare tasks in a combat environment.  This includes a full Air Det.  This is the absolute floor.  More is better but less degrades fighting the internal and external battles simultaneously.
> 
> So of course that means CSC can, should and will operate with less core crew much (most?) of the time as missions/taskings vary along a spectrum all the way up to warfighting.



I know that the British and Australian ships will be somewhat different but just out of curiosity, how does the above number of 190 crew compare to their (Brits/Ozzies) initial estimates for crew needs?  
I


----------



## Czech_pivo

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> *I'm sure we'll screw it up somehow and a lawsuit or two will be launched and a delay of 2-4yrs will occur* during which time Irving will get another 2 AOPS.  After this delay and additional cost of the 2 more AOPS's, the CSC programme will be reduced to only 10-12 ships to be built over the 30yr timeframe, at which time the few remaining Halifax's will be 50+yrs old and will suffer complete degradation forcing the mothballing of the remaining ones.  This will ultimately leave the RCN with only 7-8 CSC's built with another 2-3 in the works during the years of 2035-36. And yes, the Victoria's will be still operational during this time period but all are restricted to shallow water diving.
> 
> Am I being a black cloud? Yes. But when I look to the last 30yrs for examples I know that I'm not off the mark.  EH101, C-27J, Victoria Class, F-35/CF-18, Joint Support Ships (total support for Vice-Admiral Norman), tanks, truck, rifles, uniforms (loved that forest green in Afghanistan during the early years), etc, etc.
> 
> I know that I'm going to ruffle alot of feathers by writing all of this - I want to be clear, I am not knocking a single member or the collective group of the Canadian Armed Forces - I'm pissed off at the Politicians, the Bureaucrats and above all - the Canadian public - who allow this to fester for decades and decades and do not a damn thing about it.  I stand with the simple soldier/airman/sailor who just tries his/her best on a daily basis and has to put up with all this crap. Total respect for them.



Well I hope that I'm wrong on the rest of my rant as the first item is now coming true....


----------



## NavyShooter

Prescient, however, I think you're wrong on the rest.

I think the CSC is going to die on the vine completely - especially if we end up with another Liberal Government next year.

My (terribly pessimistic) prediction is:
-CSC will cease progress - project will be cancelled.
-AOPS will become the defacto Frigate Replacement.  Production of AOPS will go from 6 to 15.  The last 9 will be modified to include a slightly improved operations suite - maybe move to a 40mm gun vs 25mm, add CIWS on hangar top, and shift the 2D RADAR from the Halifax Class to the AOPS to give it some 'coverage'

Our role will shift from supportive power projection to constabulary and humanitarian aid.  The ability of the AOPS to carry TEUs will be key to that role.

I can see the navy grasping at the straw it is offered, rather than losing it all.

Why do we need a Navy anyhow...?

It would have the advantage of fixing our man-power issues (65 crew per AOPS? vs 190+ on the CSC)  this would 'solve' all kinds of problems.  Single class of ship - maintenance is done by a form of ISSC - FMF's can be reduced in size, ammunition footprint is much smaller - CFAD Bedford and Rocky Point can be reduced - no complex missile systems, simpler training for the maintainers.  Many 'advantages' to doing this...which is why I can see it happening.


----------



## Czech_pivo

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Prescient, however, I think you're wrong on the rest.
> 
> I think the CSC is going to die on the vine completely - especially if we end up with another Liberal Government next year.
> 
> My (terribly pessimistic) prediction is:
> -CSC will cease progress - project will be cancelled.
> -AOPS will become the defacto Frigate Replacement.  Production of AOPS will go from 6 to 15.  The last 9 will be modified to include a slightly improved operations suite - maybe move to a 40mm gun vs 25mm, add CIWS on hangar top, and shift the 2D RADAR from the Halifax Class to the AOPS to give it some 'coverage'
> 
> Our role will shift from supportive power projection to constabulary and humanitarian aid.  The ability of the AOPS to carry TEUs will be key to that role.
> 
> I can see the navy grasping at the straw it is offered, rather than losing it all.
> 
> Why do we need a Navy anyhow...?
> 
> It would have the advantage of fixing our man-power issues (65 crew per AOPS? vs 190+ on the CSC)  this would 'solve' all kinds of problems.  Single class of ship - maintenance is done by a form of ISSC - FMF's can be reduced in size, ammunition footprint is much smaller - CFAD Bedford and Rocky Point can be reduced - no complex missile systems, simpler training for the maintainers.  Many 'advantages' to doing this...which is why I can see it happening.



Christ in heaven - I can't think of a worse situation than what you've described above.  If those SOB's actual try something like that I would like to hope that the entire Naval Command just resigns their commissions in disgust and leaves the Liberals struggling to explain it all.  I also would hope that the Americans and the Europeans would kick us out of NATO in utter disgust as well.


----------



## Journeyman

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> I think the CSC is going to die on the vine completely - especially if we end up with another Liberal Government next year.
> 
> Our role will shift from supportive power projection to constabulary and humanitarian aid.


Prescient, indeed.

There was a _Canadian Naval Review_  article last year by Kevin McCoy and Tom Tulloch, titled "Why Canada Needs a Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Ship."  Yes, the authors are Irving President and 'Special Advisor,' who clearly have the Liberal Party ear.

Maybe we could paint them white, with a Red Cross  Red Crescent  "Canada's back!" on the sides.  op:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Christ in heaven - I can't think of a worse situation that you've described above.  If those SOB's actual try something like that I would like to hope that the entire Naval Command just resigns their commissions in disgust and leaves the Liberals struggling to explain it all.  I also would hope that the Americans and the Europeans would kick us out of NATO in utter disgust as well.



I'm sure there is a certain class of the RCN Officer Corps who would think this is a great idea.  I've already noted this mentality in certain individuals.  The ones that think we are a police force rather than warfighters.

The same ones that say we don't need submarines, the Kingston Class is a superb vessel, etc.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I'm sure there is a certain class of the RCN Officer Corps who would think this is a great idea.  I've already noted this mentality in certain individuals.  The ones that think we are a police force rather than warfighters.
> 
> The same ones that say we don't need submarines, the Kingston Class is a superb vessel, etc.



Must be related to those individuals that loved the Ross rifle....


----------



## NavyShooter

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Christ in heaven - I can't think of a worse situation that you've described above.  If those SOB's actual try something like that I would like to hope that the entire Naval Command just resigns their commissions in disgust and leaves the Liberals struggling to explain it all.  I also would hope that the Americans and the Europeans would kick us out of NATO in utter disgust as well.



The thing is, it wouldn't be an immediate loss of capability - suppose the solution is to build the first 6 AOPS as currently approved, using that build cycle time to add the improved OPS/weapons suite (CIWS, 40mm, 2D RADAR) with the improved structural support to the hull and mast to support them.  (Incidentally, this would give our friends at ISI a bunch more money to do the re-design and let them give a 'sympathy' contract to LM for the systems integration of the 2D into the OPS room on the IAOPS.)

Then, as the next stream of 'Improved' AOPS start to come online, the RCN is told to retire the Frigates - one at a time.  So, the trickle-down of actual warships would take years...and the government of the day (whichever one it is) can simply point back at this 'reasoned decision' and say "it let us save in excess of $50 Billion dollars by doing this, so it only made sense, particularly in light of the projected $18-20B/yr deficit for the next few years.

Cancelling the CSC, extending a slightly more capable AOPS would save the government $50B, let them 'balance their books' just in time for an election, and the average Canadian will be delighted...so they'll get voted back in and will make it all come to pass.

There's the cynical side of me coming through...


----------



## Czech_pivo

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> The thing is, it wouldn't be an immediate loss of capability - suppose the solution is to build the first 6 AOPS as currently approved, using that build cycle time to add the improved OPS/weapons suite (CIWS, 40mm, 2D RADAR) with the improved structural support to the hull and mast to support them.
> 
> Then, as the next stream of 'Improved' AOPS start to come online, the RCN is told to retire the Frigates - one at a time.  So, the trickle-down of actual warships would take years...and the government of the day (whichever one it is) can simply point back at this 'reasoned decision' and say "it let us save in excess of $50 Billion dollars by doing this, so it only made sense, particularly in light of the projected $18-20B/yr deficit for the next few years.
> 
> Cancelling the CSC, extending a slightly more capable AOPS would save the government $50B, let them 'balance their books' just in time for an election, and the average Canadian will be delighted...so they'll get voted back in and will make it all come to pass.
> 
> There's the cynical side of me coming through...



In that situation we become an Argentina, a Brazil, a New Zealand, a Portugal - not ever again to be taken seriously on the world stage. We get to sit at the kiddie table and use plastic (bio-degradable of course) knives and forks with a sippy cup.


----------



## NavyShooter

True....but....am I very far off in my reasoning?

Look at the CF-18 replacement...and try to convince me that you don't think the government would do this to the CSC project...particularly since it would see the continuation of production at ISI for years...and if LM did the systems integration for the 2D/40mm/CIWS, it'd be a great 'backfill' for losing the CSC contract...and even if the first few 'improved' AOPS (or IAOPS) came out without the full suite because LM was still 'working on it' they could be fitted for but not with, and the Government would be happy...and the public wouldn't know the difference...


----------



## Czech_pivo

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> True....but....am I very far off in my reasoning?
> 
> Look at the CF-18 replacement...and try to convince me that you don't think the government would do this to the CSC project...particularly since it would see the continuation of production at ISI for years...and if LM did the systems integration for the 2D/40mm/CIWS, it'd be a great 'backfill' for losing the CSC contract...and even if the first few 'improved' AOPS (or IAOPS) came out without the full suite because LM was still 'working on it' they could be fitted for but not with, and the Government would be happy...and the public wouldn't know the difference...



Yes, you're hypothesis is entirely feasible, though I'm sickened to think about it. 

In your scenario I'd loved then to see US naval assets going back and forth through the Northwest passage in 10-12yrs during the summer months, (maybe with a AOPS in the lead?) along with lots of pictures of US SSN's punching through the ice in January there as well.  Because that is basically what will happen and there will be nothing at all we could do about it.  Today with at least some legitimate naval assets in our fleet it wouldn't happen but once we are the equivalent of the Irish Navy or the Icelandic Navy it sure will - especially if a newer version of Trump is in power in the US.


----------



## PuckChaser

You guys are forgetting that by "saving" $50B, that's $50B less pork-barreling that can go to Liberal-friendly Irving Shipbuilding. I could see the Tories perhaps doing that, but the Liberals would be biting the hand that feeds them.


----------



## Kirkhill

https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/final-report-on-2017-18-spending-shows-19-billion-federal-deficit-last-year

Just a point of reference - 50 billion isn't even a big chunk of change these days.  The government is going that far into the hole every 2 and a half years.  Small change for a 40 year project.

That is against a revenue stream of 323 BCAD and expenditures of 341 BCAD  

https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Tax_Alert_2018_No_07/$FILE/TaxAlert2018No07.pdf

So, the same issue as with the fighters - a big number (50 BCAD lumped together) or a small number (1.25 BCAD annualized).  It all depends what headlines you want.  And now that the government is buying headlines I am sure that we will get what we need.

https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/national-news/morneaus-update-bolsters-struggling-media-with-600-million-in-tax-measures-1131238


----------



## Czech_pivo

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/final-report-on-2017-18-spending-shows-19-billion-federal-deficit-last-year
> 
> Just a point of reference - 50 billion isn't even a big chunk of change these days.  The government is going that far into the hole every 2 and a half years.  Small change for a 40 year project.
> 
> That is against a revenue stream of 323 BCAD and expenditures of 341 BCAD
> 
> https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Tax_Alert_2018_No_07/$FILE/TaxAlert2018No07.pdf
> 
> So, the same issue as with the fighters - a big number (50 BCAD lumped together) or a small number (1.25 BCAD annualized).  It all depends what headlines you want.  And now that the government is buying headlines I am sure that we will get what we need.
> 
> https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/national-news/morneaus-update-bolsters-struggling-media-with-600-million-in-tax-measures-1131238



What the Libs should have done is allowed all taxpayers to deduct their annual CDN newspaper subscription costs from their taxable income.  Would promote more people to subscribe to these media outlets and still keep 'some' resemblance of an independent media in this country - now all of the media is in the back pocket to the federal Liberals - so much for freedom of the press.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Christ in heaven - I can't think of a worse situation than what you've described above.  If those SOB's actual try something like that I would like to hope that the entire Naval Command just resigns their commissions in disgust and leaves the Liberals struggling to explain it all.  I also would hope that the Americans and the Europeans would kick us out of NATO in utter disgust as well.



I think you will be sadly mistaken.  The days of Landymore are long gone.


----------



## Good2Golf

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> https://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/final-report-on-2017-18-spending-shows-19-billion-federal-deficit-last-year
> 
> Just a point of reference - 50 billion isn't even a big chunk of change these days.  The government is going that far into the hole every 2 and a half years.  Small change for a 40 year project.
> 
> That is against a revenue stream of 323 BCAD and expenditures of 341 BCAD
> 
> https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Tax_Alert_2018_No_07/$FILE/TaxAlert2018No07.pdf
> 
> So, the same issue as with the fighters - a big number (50 BCAD lumped together) or a small number (1.25 BCAD annualized).  It all depends what headlines you want.  And now that the government is buying headlines I am sure that we will get what we need.
> 
> https://www.newmarkettoday.ca/national-news/morneaus-update-bolsters-struggling-media-with-600-million-in-tax-measures-1131238



Indeed.

Over that same 40-year period, Canada will pay out $3.64*T* (yes, that’s 3-thousand and 640 billion dollars) to Canadians for OAS, CPP, EI and CCB, or about 80 X more money than investing in a reasonably capable small Navy. 

Totally up to the Government to decide if it stays the course, or if they will reneg on SSE / Defence commitment/funding and vilify the Frigates and shape public opinion to kill the investment.  Then they may have to consider having ISI make a 20-ship fleet of high-speed ferries between Cape Breton and PEI...(only half joking).

Regards

G2G


----------



## Dale Denton

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Prescient, however, I think you're wrong on the rest.
> 
> I think the CSC is going to die on the vine completely - especially if we end up with another Liberal Government next year.
> 
> My (terribly pessimistic) prediction is:
> -CSC will cease progress - project will be cancelled.
> -AOPS will become the defacto Frigate Replacement.  Production of AOPS will go from 6 to 15.  The last 9 will be modified to include a slightly improved operations suite - maybe move to a 40mm gun vs 25mm, add CIWS on hangar top, and shift the 2D RADAR from the Halifax Class to the AOPS to give it some 'coverage'
> 
> Our role will shift from supportive power projection to constabulary and humanitarian aid.  The ability of the AOPS to carry TEUs will be key to that role.



While there are plenty of good reasons to be this pessimistic, I must point out that I doubt it'll get that far.

The tempo (from my point of view) seems to remain quite high. It seems as though the RCN is doing the near maximum (without a drastic reorganization) it can in terms of training of Operations. 
+ Attachments and other options


I feel this would be a more realistic variation of your prediction:
- CSC will proceed, the lawsuit will not affect delivery times, but production will still slow for some other reason, creating a small gap. More AOPS will be built.
- By the time the CSC's are on the water, halfway through the program, the frigate fleet will start to come apart from overuse and age - proving that we went too slow to replace them
- We will lose a frigate or two from collisions at sea, with no justification for repairs as CSC's are "close" to the water - a huge loss of capability for 2+ years (much like AOR situation last yrs), cancellation of training Ex and NATO training will be, impacting our excuse not to increase to 2% of GDP (as we are so 'active')
- AOPS prove to be a huge benefit to Op Caribbe, but the arctic learning curve and limited ice-classifications prove it to be less useful 
  for actual Arctic operations
- Some incident in the arctic closer to winter season will showcase how limited our at-sea capabilities even with AOPS
- Diefenbaker will be cancelled


----------



## Dale Denton

Our role won't change officially, it will simply become true from lack of capability. 

We already turned into a constabulary navy with a little opportunity to assist in NATO duties/Exs, when we lost both AORs. Nobody made an announcement that we'd reduce our global footprint, it simply happened and overnight we became one without much public notice. We will lose a frigate or two from accidents, the fleet will be strained, and we will become a smaller and smaller blue-ocean navy - again - by accident. 

Think how effective we will be in 2027 when the first CSC is commissioned... a navy whose workhorses are 30+ yrs old, with 1 iAOR and another almost on the way.


----------



## Stoker

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> While there are plenty of good reasons to be this pessimistic, I must point out that I doubt it'll get that far.
> 
> The tempo (from my point of view) seems to remain quite high. It seems as though the RCN is doing the near maximum (without a drastic reorganization) it can in terms of training of Operations.
> + Attachments and other options
> 
> 
> I feel this would be a more realistic variation of your prediction:
> - CSC will proceed, the lawsuit will not affect delivery times, but production will still slow for some other reason, creating a small gap. More AOPS will be built.
> - By the time the CSC's are on the water, halfway through the program, the frigate fleet will start to come apart from overuse and age - proving that we went too slow to replace them
> - We will lose a frigate or two from collisions at sea, with no justification for repairs as CSC's are "close" to the water - a huge loss of capability for 2+ years (much like AOR situation last yrs), cancellation of training Ex and NATO training will be, impacting our excuse not to increase to 2% of GDP (as we are so 'active')
> - AOPS prove to be a huge benefit to Op Caribbe, but the arctic learning curve and limited ice-classifications prove it to be less useful
> for actual Arctic operations
> - Some incident in the arctic closer to winter season will showcase how limited our at-sea capabilities even with AOPS
> - Diefenbaker will be cancelled



My take

CSC gets build as advertised, no delays from the lawsuit. 6 AOPS gets built and prove to be very useful wherever they are used, especially the arctic as we have been preparing for years to operate there. Kingston Class continue as usual for the next 10 years at least and gets back to their mine warfare roots in a bigger way. CPF's continue as usual until the CSC comes online, no collisions, no loss at sea. IAOR continues and JSS are built replacing it.


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Our role won't change officially, it will simply become true from lack of capability.
> 
> We already turned into a constabulary navy with a little opportunity to assist in NATO duties/Exs, when we lost both AORs. Nobody made an announcement that we'd reduce our global footprint, it simply happened and overnight we became one without much public notice.



You are completely wrong.  The current operational pace and missions show exactly the opposite.  The west coast is more engaged in global military training than ever (OP PROJECTION) including a number of firsts (Subsurface and surface participation within a Japanese run EX).  Four frigates, two MCDV's were just on hard operations off Norway.   Losing the AOR on the East coast means more gas and go's and refueling from our allies but doesn't make us "constabulary".  Not even close.



			
				Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> My take
> 
> CSC gets build as advertised, no delays from the lawsuit. 6 AOPS gets built and prove to be very useful wherever they are used, especially the arctic as we have been preparing for years to operate there. Kingston Class continue as usual for the next 10 years at least and gets back to their mine warfare roots in a bigger way. CPF's continue as usual until the CSC comes online, no collisions, no loss at sea. IAOR continues and JSS are built replacing it.



Pretty much.  Arctic operations are getting better every year.  The knowledge base is growing and there are plenty in the fleet interested/excited in the new ships to see what they can do.  I expect people saying AOPV's are going to be garbage operationally are going to have to eat some crow.  Including the slushbreaker crowd who have no idea about arctic navigation or the ships design.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> Pretty much.  Arctic operations are getting better every year.  The knowledge base is growing and there are plenty in the fleet interested/excited in the new ships to see what they can do.  I expect people saying AOPV's are going to be garbage operationally are going to have to eat some crow.  Including the slushbreaker crowd who have no idea about arctic navigation or the ships design.



I agree.


----------



## Baz

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> My take
> 
> CSC gets build as advertised, no delays from the lawsuit. 6 AOPS gets built and prove to be very useful wherever they are used, especially the arctic as we have been preparing for years to operate there. Kingston Class continue as usual for the next 10 years at least and gets back to their mine warfare roots in a bigger way. CPF's continue as usual until the CSC comes online, no collisions, no loss at sea. IAOR continues and JSS are built replacing it.



I think it is fearmongering to say we'll lose a couple of frigates.  And although I also have ample reason to be pessimistic (I spent a 26 year career waiting on new helicopters and trying to make the best of the old one), I don't think CSC will be cancelled outright.  I would put high odds on there not being 15.  The stated need for MH was 35 and we bought 15...

I do not think it is true that we are meeting our international ambition.  Published RCN doctrine call for a high readiness task group always available as the minimum to meet our needs, with an AOR and a Command ship; it has been a long time since we had that capability, and regaining it is a long way out if ever.

Whether the RCN's deifinition of minimum capability is correct is a matter of public debate.  Some feel it should be more, some less; I have stated my feelings on these forums that it lacks a raison d'etre, which in my view would be best filled by a robust "from the sea" capability.  Which I know I'll never see.

I felt that Canadian MH had a creeping readiness and manning problem which carries a high risk of sneaking up on you and making bad things happen.  From my view point, certainly not from the inside but still in the sphere, the same afflictions are affecting the RCN.  Putting a bunch of ships on exercise could be seen as maximizing training opportunities; it may equally indicate overstretch.

I fear the RCN is not looking at the high profile incidents that have happened to other's and asking whether the same enabling conditions are extant in their organization as well and heeding the warning, but instead believe that "we are better than that" and carrying on as normal.


----------



## CBH99

*I think it is fearmongering to say we'll lose a couple of frigates.  And although I also have ample reason to be pessimistic (I spent a 26 year career waiting on new helicopters and trying to make the best of the old one), I don't think CSC will be cancelled outright.  I would put high odds on there not being 15.  The stated need for MH was 35 and we bought 15...*


Didn't we buy 28?


----------



## Baz

CBH99 said:
			
		

> *I think it is fearmongering to say we'll lose a couple of frigates.  And although I also have ample reason to be pessimistic (I spent a 26 year career waiting on new helicopters and trying to make the best of the old one), I don't think CSC will be cancelled outright.  I would put high odds on there not being 15.  The stated need for MH was 35 and we bought 15...*
> 
> 
> Didn't we buy 28?



Oops... brain not working.  Yes, we bought 28.  At one point it was for 35 MH and 15 SAR EH-101s.  Which was brought down to 15 and 28  befor the election of Chretien, and then cancelled.


----------



## Cloud Cover

-Diefenbaker will be canceled.

More likely it will be downscoped, cost 5 times as much, be renamed for our 15th  Prime Minister, complete with overblown reputation and legacy corrupted systems, and burden future generations with nonsense.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Baz said:
			
		

> Oops... brain not working.  Yes, we bought 28.  At one point it was for 35 MH and 15 SAR EH-101s.  Which was brought down to 15 and 28  befor the election of Chretien, and then cancelled.



Very likely we will have at least one collision sometime in the future and likley one major fire, effectively being the same effect operational.


----------



## Stoker

Frigate design decision faces another delay after latest challenge

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-lockheed-delay-citt-alion-1.4923364?fbclid=IwAR3MKJaoR5-bgK1eoigKw-R4zQQ43DHAIrt4BPzssRhYaO2Y1ozuCcC5HWc

The federal government's plan to award a group of companies led by Lockheed Martin Canada the contract to design and support the construction of the navy's new frigates was dealt another setback late Tuesday by the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, CBC News has learned.

The agency said it intends to investigate a complaint by one of the other bidders, Alion Science and Technology Corp., and its subsidiary Alion Canada.

The tribunal ordered the Liberal government to suspend negotiations with Lockheed Martin, which was selected last month by Public Services and Procurement Canada as the preferred bidder on the $60 billion program.

"You are hereby ordered to postpone the award of any contract in connection with the above-mentioned procurement until the Canadian International Trade Tribunal determines the validity of the complaint," said a copy of the letter that was obtained late Tuesday by CBC News.

Alion asked the CITT last week to investigate the procurement deal, saying the preferred warship design will need substantial changes and that it doesn't meet the navy's requirements as spelled out in the government tender.

Last week, the company asked the Federal Court in a separate filing for a judicial review of the long-awaited decision.

Three companies were in the running to design the next generation of warships to replace the navy's aging Halifax-class frigates. Navantia, a Spanish-based company, was the other bidder in the competition.

Alion proposed its De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate, a Dutch-designed warship, for the Canadian competition. The ship is already in service in other countries.

No one from the trade tribunal, nor the federal government was immediately available for comment late Tuesday.

Experts had warned the trade challenge and the court case might delay the program, which is already behind schedule.

The design competition stretched for almost two years as public services officials and executives at the federal government's go-to shipyard for combat vessel construction, Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, worked with bidders to ensure a fair competition and to avoid post-decision court fights.

Public Services and Procurement Canada declined comment when the court challenge was launched last week. But a senior federal official, speaking on background at the time, said the federal government has up to 20 days to respond in Federal Court.

The official — who was not authorized to speak on the record because of the sensitivity of the file — said there is flexibility built into the timeline and the government is optimistic it can meet its goal of an early 2019 contract signing.

The substance of the Alion complaint is that the Lockheed Martin Canada-led bid should have been disqualified from the outset because it allegedly doesn't meet the navy's criteria in terms of speed and crew space.

The Liberal government said it wanted to go with a proven warship design, rather than starting from scratch, because it would be faster and cheaper.


----------



## FSTO

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Frigate design decision faces another delay after latest challenge
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-lockheed-delay-citt-alion-1.4923364?fbclid=IwAR3MKJaoR5-bgK1eoigKw-R4zQQ43DHAIrt4BPzssRhYaO2Y1ozuCcC5HWc
> The design competition stretched for almost two years as public services officials and executives at the federal government's go-to shipyard for combat vessel construction, Irving Shipbuilding of Halifax, worked with bidders to ensure a fair competition and to avoid post-decision court fights.



Well that COA didn't work so well eh?
I really hope that this challenge can be dealt with quickly.


----------



## Czech_pivo

FSTO said:
			
		

> Well that COA didn't work so well eh?
> I really hope that this challenge can be dealt with quickly.



Knew that delay was coming. We really do suffer from tall poppy syndrome here in Canada.


----------



## Uzlu

> In responding to the CITT, the government (which allowed 88 amendments to the RFP) will have to prove that the rules weren’t stretched, and the requirements for validating performance and design claims weren't watered down to the point where the Type 26 could qualify.


https://defence.frontline.online/in-the-news/10800/Surface-Combatant-contract-on-hold


----------



## Kirkhill

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://defence.frontline.online/in-the-news/10800/Surface-Combatant-contract-on-hold



How many amendments were in response to each of the vendors concerns?

And what redesign was going to be required by Allion to comply with the need to create a Boat Deck/Flex Deck within the confines of their DZP design?


----------



## Dale Denton

What about Navantia? Anything from them? Why not join in on Alion's lawsuit?

What was wrong with the Hobart/105 design anyways? Hobart seems like quite the package. 3-5 Canadian-Hobarts with the rest as cheaper/GP/ASW versions? Could ship over a Canadian shipbuilding team to learn from the Hobarts being built already.


----------



## Uzlu

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> What about Navantia? Anything from them? Why not join in on Alion's lawsuit?
> 
> What was wrong with the Hobart/105 design anyways? Hobart seems like quite the package. 3-5 Canadian-Hobarts with the rest as cheaper/GP/ASW versions?


Navantia has decided, for now, to not say anything.  If Alion is successful in the lawsuit, Navantia might benefit without having to spend money on legal fees.  Since Alion has repeatedly requested an explanation of why their bid fell short and did not receive a reply, I am assuming the government of Canada will not give Navantia an explanation of why their bid failed.  Apparently there will only be general-purpose versions that will be capable of air-defence or anti-submarine deployments.


----------



## JMCanada

As for a fair and transparent process, it would be nice National Procurement publishing the scores of each of the three bids, if not item by item, partial ones, such as technical,  value-proposal, madurity, etc.

"All the Stage 3 scores will be weighted and added together to get the bidder’s Total score. The final weightings will be
Technical 42%, 
Value Proposition 15%, 
Design Maturity 19%, 
Software 1%, and 
Financial 23%."

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/nouvelles-news/2017-11-27-eng.html

Should the lawsuit go ahead, we might see Navantia-Saab finally selected if BAE-LM is disqualified and Alion "punished" by the government because of making the process derail. Couldn't this happen?


----------



## Good2Golf

Perhaps, but as part of such a lawsuit, they themselves might have to prove compliance with the part of the spec that says stuffing boxes can’t leak badly during multiple compartment flooding? ???


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but as part of such a lawsuit, they themselves might have to prove compliance with the part of the spec that says stuffing boxes can’t leak badly during multiple compartment flooding? ???



Harsh but fair.  It will certainly prompt other navies to take a look at their own stuffing boxes/seals.  Like an airplane crash I expect different design/DC procedures to grow out of the incident.


----------



## Kirkhill

So stuffing boxes are friction fit.  Right?

The packing wears down over time and has to be replaced or it is no longer water tight.

On the other hand new packing will be water tight but will generate more friction, robbing more power from the engines.

How many knots might be sacrificed to pack the stuffing boxes tighter?  Enough to make a difference on design acceptance?


----------



## Uzlu

> Warship contract pause lifted
> 
> The Canadian International Trade Tribunal is no longer asking the federal government to halt awarding a definition contract in its massive multibillion-dollar warship procurement, The Chronicle Herald has learned.
> 
> The tribunal, an independent quasi-judicial body dealing with matters of international trade, wrote a letter to Public Services and Procurement Canada late last month ordering the department to postpone the award of any contracts related to the Canadian Surface Combatant project while it investigated a complaint from competing bidder Alion.
> 
> A spokesperson from the CITT confirmed via phone on Tuesday morning that the original postponment of award of contract direction issued to the federal government has been rescinded





> Speaking with media last week, Defense Minister Harjit Sajjan reiterated that a decision has not been made to award the CSC contract to Lockheed, but said conversations with the preferred bidder are ongoing.
> 
> When asked if the Type 26, which is currently also being constructed for the U.K. and Australian navies, meets the Royal Canadian Navy’s requirements, Sajjan did not provide a definitive answer.
> 
> “We made a commitment that we will go through a very rigorous process to making sure that any new procurement project meets the requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces,” he said.
> 
> “I have confidence in our departments to be able to come up and do the appropriate analysis and we look forward to announcing it once the process has taken its course.”


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/warship-contract-pause-lifted-267311/


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/local/warship-contract-pause-lifted-267311/



Well let's hope that this puts to bed anymore hold ups and the RCN can move forward in getting a signed contract in place before the spring and the CSC can get built ASAP.


----------



## Dale Denton

I don't doubt there were meetings about the legal penalties and should the CITT rule that the RFP was changed to suit the T26. Speed of this program i guess took paramount to the potential cost award to Alion.

Shouldn't our two besties picking the same ship be a huge weighted category to the selection?


----------



## Uzlu

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Shouldn't our two besties picking the same ship be a huge weighted category to the selection?


No.  It should be the same weightings announced at the start of the competition.





> The final weightings will be Technical 42%, Value Proposition 15%, Design Maturity 19%, Software 1%, and Financial 23%.


https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/nouvelles-news/2017-11-27-eng.html


----------



## MarkOttawa

Pity BAE Systems can't take over Irving:



> Australia finalises frigate contract with ASC Shipbuilding becoming a BAE Systems subsidiary
> 
> The Australian government has signed the head contract in support of the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN's) Sea 5000 programme to procure Hunter-class frigates from BAE Systems, it was announced on 14 December.
> 
> In announcing the deal, BAE Systems confirmed that ASC Shipbuilding, a division of state-owned ASC Pty Ltd, has become a company subsidiary. The transaction was a key part of the proposed deal to enable domestic capability development. BAE Systems was selected as preferred tenderer in the frigate programme, which is valued at AUD35 billion (USD26 billion), in June.
> 
> "BAE Systems Australia's new subsidiary, ASC Shipbuilding, has been awarded a contract by the Australian government that provides the framework for the design and build of nine Hunter-class frigates for the Royal Australian Navy," said BAE Systems.
> 
> It added, "The Australian government and ASC Shipbuilding signed the contract after ASC Shipbuilding structurally separated from ASC Pty Ltd and was acquired today by BAE Systems."
> 
> BAE Systems said the head contract incorporates the detailed scope for the design and engineering work on the programme to allow prototyping to begin in 2020 and to ensure steel is cut on the first ship in Adelaide, South Australia, in 2022. The scopes for the build of the ships are to be agreed and added to the head contract in due course, it added.
> 
> _Work on building the frigates - scheduled to begin in December 2020 - will start with building prototypes to demonstrate that the Hunter-class design, shipyard processes, and workforce are ready for full-scale production. With first steel expected to be cut in 2022, the delivery of the first-of-type vessel is anticipated in 2025-27_ [emphasis added--about when CSCs actually starts? Gov't now says "construction beginning in the early 2020s" https://www.canada.ca/en/public-services-procurement/news/2018/10/government-of-canada-delivers-on-its-commitment-to-the-navy-by-announcing-next-steps-in-fleet-procurement.html].
> 
> The Hunter-class frigates are a derivative of BAE Systems' Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigate, which the company is supplying the UK Royal Navy.
> https://www.janes.com/article/85248/australia-finalises-frigate-contract-with-asc-shipbuilding-becoming-a-bae-systems-subsidiary?from_rss=1



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Pity BAE Systems can't take over Irving:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



BAE have been looking for a North American shipbuilder to buy for a long time.  I expect them to buy Irving at some point in the next 10 years.  Especially if the Type 26 are being built there.


----------



## Dale Denton

Why is that ^? 

A lot of CSC articles mention BAE and Irving being closely linked but I don't get the connection.


----------



## Underway

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Why is that ^?
> 
> A lot of CSC articles mention BAE and Irving being closely linked but I don't get the connection.



It's a business thing and has nothing really to do with the CSC bid. BAE hasn't exactly made it a secret that they want a North American shipbuilder.  It would round out their portfolio.


----------



## Uzlu

> Irving Shipbuilding, feds ask tribunal to dismiss challenge to $60B navy shipbuilding contract
> 
> The federal government and Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding are asking a trade tribunal to throw out a challenge to their handling of a high-stakes competition to design the navy’s new $60-billion fleet of warships.
> 
> In separate submissions to the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, the federal procurement department and Irving say the challenge filed by Alion Science and Technology of Virginia does not meet the requirements for a tribunal hearing.
> 
> Alion was one of three companies, along with U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin and Spanish firm Navantia, vying to design the new warships, which are to be built by Irving and serve as the navy’s backbone for most of this century.
> 
> While Lockheed was selected as the preferred bidder and is negotiating a final design contract with the government and Irving, Alion alleges the company’s design did not meet the navy’s requirements and should have been disqualified.
> 
> Two of those requirements related to the ship’s speed, Alion alleged, while the third related to the number of crew berths. Alion has asked both the trade tribunal and the Federal Court to stop any deal with Lockheed.
> 
> But the government and Irving say the contract is exempt from normal trade laws, which the tribunal is charged with enforcing, because of a special “national security exception,” meaning there is “no jurisdiction for the tribunal to conduct an inquiry.”
> 
> Another reason the challenge should be quashed, they argue, is that Alion is not a Canadian company, which is a requirement for being able to ask the tribunal to consider a complaint.
> 
> Alion’s challenge has been formally filed by its Canadian subsidiary, but the government and Irving say that subsidiary was never actually qualified to be a bidder in the competition – only its American parent.
> 
> The responses from the government and Irving are the latest twist in the largest military purchase in Canadian history, which will see 15 new warships built to replace the navy’s 12 aging Halifax-class frigates and three already-retired Iroquois-class destroyers.
> 
> The trade tribunal ordered the government last month not to award a final contract to Lockheed until it had investigated Alion’s complaint, but rescinded the order after a senior procurement official warned that the deal was “urgent.”
> 
> The procurement department has not explained why the deal is urgent.
> 
> Lockheed’s bid was contentious from the moment the design competition was launched in October 2016.
> 
> The federal government had originally said it wanted a “mature design” for its new warship fleet, which was widely interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy.
> 
> But the first Type 26 frigates, upon which Lockheed’s proposal was based, are only now being built by the British government and the design has not yet been tested in full operation.
> 
> There were also complaints from industry that the deck was stacked in the Type 26’s favour because of Irving’s connections with British shipbuilder BAE, which originally designed the Type 26 and partnered with Lockheed to offer the ship to Canada.
> 
> Irving, which worked with the federal government to pick the top design, also partnered with BAE in 2016 on an ultimately unsuccessful bid to maintain the navy’s new Arctic patrol vessels and supply ships.
> 
> That 35-year contract ended up going to another company.
> 
> Irving and the federal government have repeatedly rejected such complaints, saying they conducted numerous consultations with industry and used a variety of firewalls and safeguards to ensure the choice was completely fair.
> 
> But industry insiders had long warned that Lockheed’s selection as the top bidder, combined with numerous changes to the requirements and competition terms after it was launched – including a number of deadline extensions – would spark lawsuits.
> 
> Government officials acknowledged last month the threat of legal action, which has become a favourite tactic for companies that lose defence contracts, but expressed confidence that they would be able to defend against such an attack.


https://globalnews.ca/news/4794059/irving-shipbuilding-challenge/


----------



## Journeyman

Uzlu said:
			
		

> …..rescinded the order after a senior procurement official warned that the deal was “urgent.”


:rofl:


----------



## Uzlu

> Alion Canada files another court challenge
> 
> Another day, and another court challenge has been filed involving Ottawa’s plans to buy $60 billion worth of new warships for the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> Alion Canada, the applicant in both an ongoing federal court case and a Canadian International Trade Tribunal complaint, has filed yet another challenge in federal court.
> 
> In late November, the Canadian International Trade Tribunal, an independent quasi-judicial body dealing with matters of international trade, wrote a letter to Public Services and Procurement Canada ordering the department to postpone the award of any contracts related to the Canadian Surface Combatant project while it investigated a complaint from competing bidder Alion Canada.
> 
> Then, in a letter to PSPC dated Dec. 10, the CITT rescinded its postponement order after receiving a letter from PSPC saying that the procurement is urgent and “a delay in awarding the contract would be contrary to the public interest.”
> 
> Though the CITT is is no longer asking the federal government to postpone awarding a contract, Alion’s complaint to the CITT is still active and under investigation. Alion’s most recent filing, from Dec. 31, asks the Federal Court to overturn CITT’s decision to not order a postponement.
> 
> The original federal court case, which was filed by Alion in mid-November, as well as the company’s CITT complaint centre on what Alion’s lawyers say was an erroneous decision by Public Services and Procurement Canada and Irving Shipbuilding, the prime contractor, to select Lockheed Martin Canada as the preferred bidder for the design phase of the warship project, the largest military procurement in Canadian history.
> 
> In October, a bid from Lockheed Martin Canada was identified by the federal government as the preferred design for Canada’s new fleet of warships after a lengthy and sensitive competition. The project will see 15 warships built at Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax for between $56 billion and $60 billion.
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s bid beat out offerings from two other competing consortiums: Alion, which offered up Dutch De Zeven Provinciën Class air defence and command frigate, and Navantia/SAAB’s design based on the F-105 anti-submarine frigate design for the Spanish navy.
> 
> In submissions to the CITT and federal court, Alion alleges that the BAE Systems Type 26 Global Combat Ship design offered by Lockheed is incapable of meeting three critical and mandatory requirements of the request for proposals that the firms crafted their bids around: two requirements concern the vessels’ speed, and one deals with the number of crew berths.
> 
> Alion argues that the request for proposals required PSPC and Irving to reject Lockheed’s bid because of its non-compliance. Instead, the federal government and Irving Shipbuilding announced Lockheed as the preferred bidder and has entered into the conditions precedent period. This is the step immediately prior to awarding the definition subcontract between Irving, the prime contractor and shipbuilder, and Lockheed, the warship designer.
> 
> Alion’s most recent federal court filing focuses on CITT and the federal government’s December decision to not postpone the award of that contract in the name of public interest.
> 
> In their submissions, Alion points out the CITT was essentially obligated to agree with PSPC’s directive to rescind their previous decision to delay the contract award.
> 
> Alion disagrees with PSPC’s assertion that delaying such a long-term project by just a few months would make a difference. The procurement, Alion says, has been ongoing for almost a decade, while the maximum amount of time the CITT could take to render its decision on the complaint is 135 days.
> 
> Moreover, Alion alleges that the federal government has not provided adequate reasoning to interfere with CITT’s earlier decision, violating its “duty of fairness.”
> 
> “PSPC has provided no justification for its conclusion that the procurement is urgent or the short delay herein is contrary to the public interest,” the submission reads. “No reasons, facts or materials have been provided in support of its decision. Thus, the decision-making process was anything but transparent and intelligible.”
> 
> On top of asking the federal court to overturn the CITT/PSPC decision to go ahead with the contract award despite Alion’s challenges, Alion is also asking to recoup its court fees, and for the federal government to file all documents associated with its directive to CITT.
> 
> Both PSPC and Irving have written submissions to the CITT asking the tribunal to throw out the complaint.
> 
> PSPC has opted not to comment on the proceedings while they are before the courts.


https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/alion-canada-files-another-court-challenge-273220/


----------



## Kirkhill

> Alion disagrees with PSPC’s assertion that delaying such a long-term project by just a few months would make a difference. The procurement, Alion says, has been ongoing for almost a decade, while the maximum amount of time the CITT could take to render its decision on the complaint is 135 days.



Alion and Journeyman appear to be of a single mind.  ;D


----------



## Underway

Well its urgent now because the gov't doesn't want to shell out for more AOPV's.


----------



## NavyShooter

At 800 mil for each extra one...who can blame them...


----------



## Uzlu

> Canada can afford new fighters or new frigates — but not both at once: report
> 
> *U of Calgary paper says Ottawa may have to abandon the idea of a multi-purpose military*
> 
> The Trudeau government can't afford to buy ultra-modern warships and advanced warplanes at the same time, given the limits of federal finances, a new research paper argues.
> 
> The study, written for the University of Calgary's School of Public Policy, says that — contrary to the assurances offered in the government's defence policy — Ottawa will soon be forced into a series of tough, far-reaching choices about the structure and capabilities of the Canadian military.
> 
> Using the government's own figures, researcher Alex McColl concluded that the Liberals either will have to pour more money into their defence budget in the mid-2020s or scale back their ambitions by buying a less expensive fighter jet.
> 
> The reason, according to McColl, is that the bills for both new frigates and new fighters will come due at the same time.
> 
> "Not only will the CF-18 replacement program have to fight for funding against the general austerity and easy riding nature of Canadians, but it will also be running concurrently with the largest military procurement in Canadian history: the National Shipbuilding Strategy," he wrote.
> 
> During the 2015 election campaign, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau pledged Canada would not buy the F-35 stealth jet — that it would go with something cheaper and pour the savings into rebuilding the navy.
> 
> The way the defence policy figures roll out, McColl wrote, suggests the government is on track to do just that.
> 
> "Absent the political will to provide considerably more than 1.15 per cent of GDP in defence spending," he wrote, "the Canadian Forces can no longer afford to be a modern multipurpose force and should instead move to a Navy centric force structure."
> 
> The Liberal defence policy, released just over 18 months ago, forecasts that by 2025, annual defence spending will rise to $32.7 billion, or about 1.4 per cent of GDP.
> 
> However, the projections in the defence policy do not go past the fiscal year 2024-25 — something the Parliamentary Budget Office flagged in a report in November 2017.
> 
> That PBO report also raised concerns about whether the Liberals would even meet their procurement targets and predicted the numbers would fall off a cliff before the 20-year defence spending policy reaches its halfway mark.
> 
> "Measured as a share of the economy, the new spending plan will raise the defence budget by over 17 per cent to about 1.1 percentage points of GDP by 2024," the PBO analysis said. "Following this, spending will decline by 38 per cent to 0.69 percentage points of GDP by 2035."
> 
> McColl said Canada may be left with no choice but to buy a cheaper fighter.
> 
> "The best value solution to the CF-18 replacement is the least expensive jet in the competition: the Saab Gripen," he wrote in his report.
> 
> In an interview CBC News, McColl said he chose the Gripen because it is "the dramatically least expensive option," although the Super Hornet is also a cheaper alternative.
> 
> "I wouldn't say we would be forced (to buy them)," he said. "What I would say is that buying an inexpensive fighter that meets the minimum requirements of what we use the CF-18 for today would be the optimal policy."
> 
> National Defence announced last week it had concluded a deal with Australia to buy 18 used F-18 fighters to bolster the current CF-18 fleet until a brand-new replacement is selected.
> 
> That competition to replace the CF-18s with new aircraft is slated to kick off this spring, when the federal government puts a tender on the street. A contract award is not expected until 2022.
> 
> The first new fighters won't arrive until 2025 — and it will be another year after that before they are operational.
> 
> Dave Perry, a procurement expert at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said that new accounting rules — which allow National Defence to spread the cost of weapons system over their lifetime, instead of accounting for them all at once — give the Liberal government a bit of flexibility.
> 
> But he also pointed out that, by trying to rebuild the navy and the air force at the same time, the Liberals are trying to do something rarely accomplished outside of a wartime setting.
> 
> "Between new fighters and surface combatants [frigates], those are by far the two biggest projects that have gotten underway in this country in a long time, and doing them at the same time is not something we've done in peacetime before," said Perry. "Previously, we've done these things in sequential order."
> 
> The question of whether the federal government is organizationally and fiscally prepared to start paying big defence bills is open to debate, he added.
> 
> Almost four years ago, Perry co-wrote a seminal report that noted the number of staff dedicated to defence procurement at National Defence had never recovered from the budget cuts of the mid-1990s — dropping to 4,300 positions from 9,000.
> 
> In the time since his report was released, Perry said, there's been progress at the Department of National Defence in hiring procurement specialists and getting systems in place, but he's not certain the rest of the federal government is prepared.
> 
> "I think the biggest shortcoming is whether the Government of Canada writ large has the capacity, across government, not just in defence, to manage files this size with that level of complexity," he said.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-frigates-procurement-calgary-1.4969031


----------



## FSTO

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fighter-jets-frigates-procurement-calgary-1.4969031
> 
> 
> "Absent the political will to provide considerably more than 1.15 per cent of GDP in defence spending," he wrote, "the Canadian Forces can no longer afford to be a modern multipurpose force and should instead move to a Navy centric force structure."



I know that the above quote would be severely disputed by many, but what if we had a real debate on our defence needs?

Do we need combat capable ships (subs, frigates, AOR's) on both coasts?
Do we need 2 fighter squadrons? Air lift? MPA's? Rotary Maritime Air? Rotary Tactical Air?
Do we need 3 regiments each of infantry, armour, arty?

Can we get away with less fighters and more MPA's?
Can we have 1 reg force regiment of infantry, armour and artillery and support the rest through the militia?
Or do we get rid of the blue water navy and be coastal only and pour money into the Air Force?
Or do we increase our budget to 2% GDP and just be a true G7 nation?

I'm a navalist so I'm very biased to the maritime world with a Navy, FAA and Marines. But wouldn't it be nice if our nation could have a true non-partisan debate about our military needs and capabilities and the funding to support those ambitions? 

Yes I know, we have a better chance of finding rainbow farting unicorns!


----------



## Lumber

FSTO said:
			
		

> I know that the above quote would be severely disputed by many, but what if we had a real debate on our defence needs?
> 
> Do we need combat capable ships (subs, frigates, AOR's) on both coasts?
> Do we need 2 fighter squadrons? Air lift? MPA's? Rotary Maritime Air? Rotary Tactical Air?
> Do we need 3 regiments each of infantry, armour, arty?
> 
> Can we get away with less fighters and more MPA's?
> Can we have 1 reg force regiment of infantry, armour and artillery and support the rest through the militia?
> Or do we get rid of the blue water navy and be coastal only and pour money into the Air Force?
> Or do we increase our budget to 2% GDP and just be a true G7 nation?
> 
> I'm a navalist so I'm very biased to the maritime world with a Navy, FAA and Marines. But wouldn't it be nice if our nation could have a true non-partisan debate about our military needs and capabilities and the funding to support those ambitions?
> 
> Yes I know, we have a better chance of finding rainbow farting unicorns!



Simple: we need to decide if we want to be isolationist or... the opposite of isolationist (ok that's not so simple). If we want to be isolationist, we need a strong militia, submarines, and an airforce to defend our coasts only. If we want the latter, we should focus on a strong Navy, because while it looks sexy deploying troops and aircraft around the world in Mali, Iraq, and Romania, we all know the real key to international power and influence is Sea Power.


----------



## PuckChaser

Lumber said:
			
		

> If we want the latter, we should focus on a strong Navy, because while deploying troops and aircraft around the world in Mali, Iraq, and Romania, we all know the real key to international power and influence is Sea Power.



Yeah, it'd be awesome if we could use our Navy to deploy/support (Naval gunfire+cruise missiles) our troops, instead of chartering container ships/aircraft or relying on allies to haul us around the globe.


----------



## Dale Denton

FSTO said:
			
		

> I know that the above quote would be severely disputed by many, but what if we had a real debate on our defence needs?
> 
> Do we need combat capable ships (subs, frigates, AOR's) on both coasts?
> Do we need 2 fighter squadrons? Air lift? MPA's? Rotary Maritime Air? Rotary Tactical Air?
> Do we need 3 regiments each of infantry, armour, arty?
> 
> Can we get away with less fighters and more MPA's?
> Can we have 1 reg force regiment of infantry, armour and artillery and support the rest through the militia?
> Or do we get rid of the blue water navy and be coastal only and pour money into the Air Force?
> Or do we increase our budget to 2% GDP and just be a true G7 nation?
> 
> I'm a navalist so I'm very biased to the maritime world with a Navy, FAA and Marines. But wouldn't it be nice if our nation could have a true non-partisan debate about our military needs and capabilities and the funding to support those ambitions?
> 
> Yes I know, we have a better chance of finding rainbow farting unicorns!



If you looked at those figures on paper, comparative to the rest of the world, we are already more of a Defence-Force (albeit with more capability for outside the country than protecting it internally).

Also, it seems gov't likes to appear to be (and once in a while involve itself) internationally involved, just not pay for it or be ready for it.


----------



## YZT580

The question is not whether we can afford it but whether we are wise enough to invest.  The British fiasco that was Hong Kong in WW2 demonstrated that you can't go with a navy unless you have air support to protect it.  There are numerous artificial reefs courtesy of Japanese air power scattered around Hong Kong to prove that point.  An army needs some form of overhead protection or they too are toast.  To protect our shores we need both air power and coastal defence of some nature.  The  coasts are too long to suggest that ground based defences are the way to go so we need ships to  move the defences where needed.  This type of infrastructure investment doesn't come cheap but 2 per cent of our budget is really not a lot of money.  It only takes 2 I got 50 million dollars for you texts to pay for one F35.  So in short, the University of Calgary is only correct if you include the caveat that we have to stay with the current budget.


----------



## Lumber

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The question is not whether we can afford it but whether we are wise enough to invest.  The British fiasco that was Hong Kong in WW2 demonstrated that you can't go with a navy unless you have air support to protect it.  There are numerous artificial reefs courtesy of Japanese air power scattered around Hong Kong to prove that point.  An army needs some form of overhead protection or they too are toast.  To protect our shores we need both air power and coastal defence of some nature.  The  coasts are too long to suggest that ground based defences are the way to go so we need ships to  move the defences where needed.  This type of infrastructure investment doesn't come cheap but 2 per cent of our budget is really not a lot of money.  It only takes 2 I got 50 million dollars for you texts to pay for one F35.  So in short, the University of Calgary is only correct if you include the caveat that we have to stay with the current budget.



Just to clarify, it's not 2% of our budget that we're aiming for, it's 2% of our GDP. I believe our defence spending is far beyond 2% of our overall federal budget.


----------



## NavyShooter

https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2018/report-rapport-eng.asp

Last year's federal budget numbers.

Revenues: $313.6 B

Expenses $332.6 B

(Deficit $19.0 B)

National Defence last year got (from one source) $20.38B

That works out to being about 6.1% of the overall budget.

NS


----------



## MarkOttawa

And if you eliminated DND completely the budget balances itself!  ;D

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Czech_pivo

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2018/report-rapport-eng.asp
> 
> Last year's federal budget numbers.
> 
> Revenues: $313.6 B
> 
> Expenses $332.6 B
> 
> (Deficit $19.0 B)
> 
> National Defence last year got (from one source) $20.38B
> 
> That works out to being about 6.1% of the overall budget.
> 
> NS



And what % did funding on the National Debt compose of in the overall budget? In the 2016-17 Budget its was, in dollar terms, 24.1$ Billion - 3.9$ Billion MORE than we spent on Defence and that was 2yrs earlier.  With rising interest rates, that 24.1$ is going to be 26+ Billion very soon.

It not a question of 'can we afford this', its a question 'can we NOT afford this'.

In the 2016/17 Budget, we will pay out a total of 74$ Billion for things rolled up and called 'Fiscal Arrangements', 'Canada Social Transfer', 'Gas Tax Fund' and something called 'Other Transfer Payments'.  I have no doubt that there is easily 6-9% savings - pork - that can be found in that in that massive pile of money.  Money that could easily to allocated to Defence, at the low end of 6%, that another 4.4$ billion in funding and the high end of 9%, its another 6.7$ billion a year.  What would our Military look like if we added about 5.5$ billion a year, geared to inflation, to Defence straight off the bat?

So 'affording' these things is the easy part, its getting the Politicians and the people of Canada to wake the **** up and understand that this needs to occur.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> https://www.fin.gc.ca/afr-rfa/2018/report-rapport-eng.asp
> 
> Last year's federal budget numbers.
> 
> Revenues: $313.6 B
> 
> Expenses $332.6 B
> 
> (Deficit $19.0 B)
> 
> National Defence last year got (from one source) $20.38B
> 
> That works out to being about 6.1% of the overall budget.
> 
> NS



Is that DND money calculated at the beginning of the fiscal year or after all monies are returned at the end?


----------



## YZT580

my error 2% of GDP.  Don't let it distract from point that we need to wake up and get the partisan politics out of the business of safeguarding our nation.  We cannot pretend to be an independent nation when we rely upon neighbours for defence.


----------



## Uzlu

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Why build them in Canada?  We could be saving many billions of dollars if we simply buy them overseas.  Well, here is an argument in favour of building them in the great white north.http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/forbes-heres-why-we-cant-buy-our-warships-from-foreign-companies


Additional support for the build-in-Canada side versus the buy-from-overseas side:


> Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
> 
> “Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said.
> 
> “The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven’t given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added.


https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/01/14/an-ocean-apart-few-naval-vendors-manage-to-pierce-us-and-european-protectionism/


----------



## JMCanada

https://mobile.navaltoday.com/2019/01/21/spain-starting-construction-of-new-f-110-frigates-in-may/

At about 1.0 billion US$ per ship, 5 units to be delivered between 2025 and 2030-31. The multimission bay, as far as i remember from other articles, is not as big as in Type 26, but is in parallel to the hangar. So she may carry up to two medium helicopters (NH90) side by side.


----------



## Cloud Cover

JMCanada said:
			
		

> https://mobile.navaltoday.com/2019/01/21/spain-starting-construction-of-new-f-110-frigates-in-may/
> 
> At about 1.0 billion US$ per ship, 5 units to be delivered between 2025 and 2030-31. The multimission bay, as far as i remember from other articles, is not as big as in Type 26, but is in parallel to the hangar. So she may carry up to two medium helicopters (NH90) side by side.



“F-110 frigates will be replacing the Spanish Navy’s Santa Maria-class frigates which have been in service since 1986.”

Almost brand new by Canadian standards.  And, a 16 cell VLS? Please don’t let our gov take this as a nod to “12 is the new 48”.  The CSC are probably the last class of warships built for the RCN while Canada is still a country, I hope they build something that gives a chance to go down fighting.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> “F-110 frigates will be replacing the Spanish Navy’s Santa Maria-class frigates which have been in service since 1986.”
> 
> Almost brand new by Canadian standards.  And, a 16 cell VLS? Please don’t let our gov take this as a nod to “12 is the new 48”.  The CSC are probably the last class of warships built for the RCN while Canada is still a country, I hope they build something that gives a chance to go down fighting.



You got me really confused with that statement - bolded in yellow - Cloud Cover. Care to expand?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would say that he predicts that Canada as a whole will not survive longer than another 30 years.


----------



## Spencer100

I would take that bet.  In it current form Canada is coming apart at the seams.  I say 50/50 

Case of beer meet back here in 21 years


----------



## JMCanada

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Almost brand new by Canadian standards.  And, a 16 cell VLS? (...) I hope they build something that gives a chance to go down fighting.


Well, by 2025 the first frigate to be replaced will be 39 years old.

The 16 cell VLS  has been very much controversial. I would rather opt for 24 at least. But consider these frigs are to be mainly ASW & EW, since the F-100s already cover the AAW with 48 cells each. 16 cells allow for 8x4 = 32 ESSM missiles plus 8 SM-2 or similar for anti-aerial defence. Harpoons (8x) are to be placed in canisters, not in the VLS.
They also lack some CIWS, will be "fitted for but not with" them.


----------



## Uzlu

> Trade tribunal rejects rival's bid to block warship contract
> 
> The Canadian International Trade Tribunal has dismissed a complaint by one of the companies that was competing for the job of designing and helping to build the navy's next generation of warships.
> 
> Alion Science and Technology Corp. and its subsidiary, Alion Canada, filed the complaint in November and asked that the signing of the contract with the preferred bidder be postponed until the matter could be heard.
> 
> The trade tribunal, in a decision rendered late Thursday, said the company did not "have standing to file a complaint" before the agency.
> 
> Last fall, the Liberal government announced plans to award the design contract to a group of companies led by Lockheed Martin Canada and opened negotiations with the intention of completing a full contract this winter.
> 
> Alion, Lockheed Martin Canada and the Spanish company Navantia were all in the running for the Canadian Surface Combatant project, which will be built at Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax.
> 
> The federal government issued a statement Friday and indicated progress towards a final contract was ongoing.
> 
> "Public Services and Procurement Canada is pleased with the CITT's ruling," said department spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold. "We have full confidence in our process, and continue to work toward awarding a contract for the design and design team for the future Canadian Surface Combatants."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trade-tribunal-warship-alion-1.5002298


----------



## Cloud Cover

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You got me really confused with that statement - bolded in yellow - Cloud Cover. Care to expand?



Sorry I missed this. I mean that it is unlikely this country can hold itself together for more than few more generations. Just my dismal opinion of the place.


----------



## Uzlu

> Ottawa locks down design for $60-billion warship fleet
> 
> OTTAWA — The federal government will announce Friday that it has locked down a design for its $60-billion fleet of new warships following a series of high-stakes negotiations that appeared in jeopardy at one point because of a trade challenge.
> 
> Federal Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough will be in Halifax to announce that the government and Irving Shipbuilding are officially awarding U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin a contract to design the vessels.
> 
> The deal means that the Royal Canadian Navy's 15 new warships, which will be built by Irving and replace Canada's existing frigates and destroyers, will be based on the British-designed Type 26 frigate.
> 
> The announcement has been expected since Lockheed's design was selected as the best last October, over submissions from Alion Science and Technology of Virginia and Spanish firm Navantia.
> 
> Alion subsequently asked the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to quash the decision, saying Lockheed's design did not meet the navy's requirements and should have been disqualified.
> 
> The trade tribunal initially ordered the government not to award a contract to Lockheed until it could investigate Alion's complaint, but it later rescinded that decision and then tossed the case entirely last week.
> 
> That paved the way for the government and Irving, which is technically subcontracting Lockheed to design the ships it will build, to move ahead and award the contract.
> 
> Alion has also challenged Lockheed's selection at the Federal Court, though that case is expected to drag. Alion alleges that the Type 26 did not meet the navy's requirements for speed and crew accommodations.
> 
> While Friday's announcement means the government has now settled on a design for the warship fleet, more work will need to be done before steel starts to be cut in Halifax.
> 
> Defence Department officials will now sit down with counterparts from Irving and Lockheed to figure out what changes need to be made to the company's design as well as the navy's requirements to make sure they fit.
> 
> That process will have a direct bearing on how much the ships ultimately cost and how long they will take to build.
> 
> In a recent interview with The Canadian Press, the Defence Department's top procurement official, Patrick Finn, said the plan is to keep changes to a minimum to keep costs and schedule under control.
> 
> "This is ultimately about building warships that will be in service from the middle of next decade to 2070," Finn said, emphasizing the importance of moving ahead quickly and getting ships in the water.
> 
> "The destroyers have already been retired. … So principally from a defence of Canada, combat-capable, navy, time is of the essence."
> 
> The bid by Lockheed, which also builds the F-35 stealth fighter and other military equipment, was contentious from the moment the design competition was launched in October 2016.
> 
> The federal government had originally said it wanted a "mature design" for its new warship fleet, which was widely interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy.
> 
> But the first Type 26 frigates are only now being built by the British government and the design has not yet been tested in full operation.
> 
> There were also complaints from industry that the deck was stacked in the Type 26's favour because of Irving's connections with British shipbuilder BAE, which originally designed the Type 26 and partnered with Lockheed to offer the ship to Canada.
> 
> Irving also partnered with BAE in 2016 on an ultimately unsuccessful bid to maintain the navy's new Arctic patrol vessels and supply ships. That 35-year contract went to another company.
> 
> Irving and the federal government rejected such complaints, saying they conducted numerous consultations with industry and used corporate firewalls and safeguards to ensure the selection process was completely fair and unbiased.
> 
> And while government officials acknowledged the threat of legal action, which has become a favourite tactic for companies that lose defence contracts, they expressed confidence that they would be able to defend against such attacks.


https://www.nsnews.com/ottawa-locks-down-design-for-60-billion-warship-fleet-1.23627159

In the next article, there are errors.

“The event in Halifax, involving two federal ministers and Nova Scotia politicians, will mark the ceremonial start of a project that's expected to produce 15 warships to replace the navy's frontline frigates over the next decade and a half.”

The project is expected to produce fifteen warships to replace the navy’s three decommissioned destroyers and to replace the navy’s frigates.  Close-out for the project is late 2040s.





> Ottawa makes its frigate contract official, even as rival's court challenge goes forward
> 
> *Failed bidder is challenging the contract process in Federal Court*
> 
> A long-awaited contract to design the navy's next generation of warships — the kick-off to a $60 billion project — will be formalized in Halifax today, even as a challenge of the contract process goes forward in Federal Court and critics question how completely the bids were evaluated.
> 
> All of the paperwork for the design contract was signed in Ottawa on Thursday between the Liberal government, Lockheed Martin Canada, BAE Systems, Inc. and Irving Shipbuilding, the prime contractor, CBC News has learned.
> 
> The event in Halifax, involving two federal ministers and Nova Scotia politicians, will mark the ceremonial start of a project that's expected to produce 15 warships to replace the navy's frontline frigates over the next decade and a half.
> 
> The decision to award the contract to the Lockheed Martin-led team is the subject of a legal challenge by one of the other companies in the competition — Alion Science and Technology Corp. — and its subsidiary Alion Canada.
> 
> A third team, led by the Spanish company Navantia, also submitted a bid but has not challenged the decision.
> 
> *Winning contract was only one screened for cost: sources*
> 
> Sources within government and the defence industry said Thursday the federal officials running the competition who evaluated the bids did not look at the financial portion of the Alion and Navantia bids.
> 
> The competition was broken into multiple phases, with teams of federal officials evaluating different aspects of the complex pitches — screening them to ensure they met the navy's requirements and the federal government's demand for participation by Canadian industry.
> 
> The very last aspect to be considered, once the bids passed and were deemed compliant in those early stages, was cost and pricing.
> 
> The federal government, according to sources, said the only bid to be screened for cost was the Lockheed-Martin proposal, which pitched the British Type 26 design, also known as the Global Combat Ship.
> 
> It was the only bid deemed compliant, according to sources with knowledge of the file.
> 
> That has raised questions within the defence industry and among analysts, given the fact that both the Alion and Navantia designs involve warships that are already in service with other nations.
> 
> The Type 26 is just coming into production in Britain — a fact that figures prominently in the Federal Court case launched last fall by Alion.
> 
> In court filings, Alion argues that the winning bid was "incapable of meeting three critical mandatory requirements" of the design tender, including one requirement regarding speed.
> 
> The company said its proposal, the Dutch-designed De Zeven Provinciën Air Defence and Command (LCF) frigate, was the best solution for the Canadian navy.
> 
> Critics of the federal process have long claimed that the fix was in for the Lockheed-Martin Canada bid and that the design tender was tilted in order to ensure the company remained in the competition.
> 
> *A 'hypothetical' price tag*
> 
> Neither losing bidder has been told precisely what was wrong with their bids, but they are slated to be briefed now that the contract has been signed, said defence industry sources.
> 
> Defence analyst Dave Perry said the process was deliberately structured so that the navy got the ship it needed, not the cheapest one.
> 
> He also said that, at this point, the price tag is "still a hypothetical cost" because the federal government and the navy have yet to spell out in precise terms the electronics and weapons that will be included in the warships.
> 
> "There's a process of requirement reconciliation still to happen, with Irving and the Government of Canada going in and taking a hard look at what kind of design" they have got and how it can be modified to meet the navy's needs, he said.
> 
> No one from Public Services and Procurement Canada was immediately available for comment.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-lockheed-martin-federal-court-1.5010673

Eighty-eight amendments later, Lockheed Martin submits the only compliant bid.  Thank God the competition was fair.


----------



## Czech_pivo

This is great news IMHO.  

Happy to see that the peanut continues to be pushed up the hill.


----------



## Lumber

Would anyone who is better versed in the actual process be able to tell me when we can expect to see an actual design? We have the rough design, but I mean the actual design, layout, weapon and sensor fit, etc.


----------



## Uzlu

Lumber said:
			
		

> Would anyone who is better versed in the actual process be able to tell me when we can expect to see an actual design?


I do not know when the design is going to be ready.  But the Liberals have to tell the Royal Canadian Navy to know what it is that they want.  They have to set a very firm deadline.  AFTER THE DEADLINE HAS BEEN REACHED, NO FURTHER CHANGES TO THE DESIGN WILL BE ALLOWED.
  
If, however, the Royal Canadian Navy is allowed to make constant changes to the design, we could wait another ten years and the design will still not be ready.  So tell the navy that any changes to the design after the deadline has been reached will only be made to later batches of surface combatants or done during refits.


----------



## larry Strong

The la6test.....

https://ottawasun.com/news/national/feds-award-design-contract-for-60b-warship-fleet-to-lockheed-martin/wcm/f9c97fe9-be65-458b-82d5-dd4e4052fd27



> HALIFAX — The federal government awarded U.S. defence giant Lockheed Martin a long-awaited contract to design its $60-billion fleet of warships despite lingering questions about the selection process and a legal challenge from a rival bidder.
> 
> Procurement Minister Carla Qualtrough announced the deal in Halifax early Friday, saying the Royal Canadian Navy’s 15 new warships will be built by Irving and based on the British-designed Type 26 frigate.
> 
> The initial contract with Irving Shipbuilding is valued at $185 million including taxes and will increase as design work progresses, the government said Friday, adding a policy will apply to ensure every dollar put into the contract will result in a dollar back into the economy.
> 
> Qualtrough made the announcement at Irving’s Halifax Shipyard surrounded by hundreds of applauding workers, and touched on the persistent suggestions it wasn’t a fair and balanced fight for the contract.
> 
> “Our government is providing the Royal Canadian Navy with the ships it needs to do its important work of protecting Canadians,” she said in a statement.
> 
> “This procurement process for Canada’s future fleet of Canadian Surface Combatants was conducted in an open, fair and transparent manner that yielded the best ship design, and design team, to meet our needs for many years to come.”
> 
> Lockheed’s design had been selected as the best last October, beating out submissions from Alion Science and Technology of Virginia and Spanish firm Navantia to replace Canada’s existing frigates and destroyers.
> 
> In a statement, Lockheed Martin Canada’s vice-president praised the decision.
> 
> “This award is true validation of our Canadian capability,” Gary Fudge said. “Our team is honoured, knowing that we offered the right solution for Canada and a proven ability to perform on complex defence programs.”
> 
> Defence Department officials will now sit down with Irving and Lockheed to figure out what changes need to be made to the company’s design, along with the navy’s requirements to make sure they fit. The department’s top procurement official, Patrick Finn, has said the plan is to keep changes to a minimum to keep costs and schedule under control.
> 
> Qualtrough said Friday the design work is expected to take three to four years to complete, with construction set to begin in the early 2020s.
> 
> The selection comes after difficult negotiations that saw Alion ask the Canadian International Trade Tribunal to quash the decision, saying Lockheed’s design did not meet the navy’s requirements and should have been disqualified.
> 
> The tribunal initially ordered the government not to award a contract to Lockheed until it could investigate Alion’s complaint, but later rescinded that decision and then tossed the case entirely last week.
> 
> Alion has also challenged Lockheed’s selection at the Federal Court, though that case is expected to drag on. Alion alleges that the Type 26 did not meet the navy’s requirements for speed and crew accommodations.
> 
> The bid by Lockheed, which also builds the F-35 stealth fighter and other military equipment, was contentious from the moment the design competition was launched in October 2016.
> 
> The federal government had originally said it wanted a “mature design” for its new warship fleet, which was widely interpreted as meaning a vessel that has already been built and used by another navy.
> 
> But the first Type 26 frigates are only now being built by the British government and the design has not yet been tested in full operation.
> 
> There were also complaints from industry that the deck was stacked in the Type 26’s favour because of Irving’s connections with British shipbuilder BAE, which originally designed the Type 26 and partnered with Lockheed to offer the ship to Canada.
> 
> Irving also partnered with BAE in 2016 on an ultimately unsuccessful bid to maintain the navy’s new Arctic patrol vessels and supply ships. That 35-year contract went to another company.
> 
> Irving and the federal government rejected such complaints, saying they conducted numerous consultations with industry and used corporate firewalls and safeguards to ensure the selection process was completely fair and unbiased.



Cheers
Larry


----------



## Spencer100

Video of the Type 26

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKaSKSC3Zwg


----------



## Cloud Cover

That's the first imagery I have seen with the Sea Ceptor installed aft of the funnels. So it looks like there is 24 Sea Ceptor fwd, another 24 aft, a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS fwd, (and 2 quad future NSM above the mission bay.)


----------



## Swampbuggy

Sadly, I don’t think we’re getting that same missile suite. All the drawings of the Canadian variant that I’ve seen, show only the 32 cell VLS. And possibly a RAM box or two.


----------



## Cloud Cover

That's too bad, but predictable.


----------



## AlexanderM

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> That's the first imagery I have seen with the Sea Ceptor installed aft of the funnels. So it looks like there is 24 Sea Ceptor fwd, another 24 aft, a 32 cell Mk 41 VLS fwd, (and 2 quad future NSM above the mission bay.)


And I'm hoping that if we don't go with the Sea Ceptor, that tactical sized Mk 41 cells, the smallest ones, can go in place of the Sea Ceptor launchers, which would make a big difference in my mind. Does anyone have more than an opinion of Sea Ceptor vs ESSM comparison, as to which is better?


----------



## Thumper81

I'm pretty certain we will not being going with Sea Ceptor as we are part of the Sea Sparrow Project and have been for decades.  Block 2 ESSM just did test firings down in Port Hueneme last summer and we've already put money into it.  Block 2 adds an active seeker to replace the semi-active one currently in the ESSM.  This will increase the capabilities of an already pretty good missile.  Still not an SM-2 but I'm sure we'll be seeing the return of the Standard missile in the Mk 41 launchers of the new ships.


----------



## JMCanada

AFAIK  Type 26 B (british) has only 24 VLS cells. NSM or similar antiship missiles are to be mounted into the VLS.

Type 26 A (aussie) will replace the fore 24 CAMM with 8 more VLS cells (total 32), and the aft 24 CAMM with 2 quad canisters for antiship missiles. Australia will use ESSM instead of CAMM.

Spain was about to use CAMM on their F-110 but has finally opted for ESSM also.

I've read that ESSM has about twice the range than CAMM (nearly 50 km vs 25), it is heavier as well, both are quad-packable into mk41 cells, but the main point would be compatibility with the CMS. ESSM is AEGIS-ready while some work has to be done with CAMM to integrate it with AEGIS.


----------



## Kirkhill

Curious that about the CAMMs and the ESSMs.

I wonder how much impact that had on the pressure to buy the Type 26 rather than a Euro solution.

With an American boat the only option would have been the ESSMs.
With a European boat - CAMMs
With the British boat - both ESSMs and CAMMs are options

Options seem to be what our bureaucrats and politicians crave - more discussions, more meetings, more time, less accountability.

If I remember right the Euros squawked when Canada selected the ESSMs for the Halifax upgrade because they feared that it would prejudice the outcome of the design selection on the CSC.


----------



## Thumper81

JMCanada said:
			
		

> AFAIK  Type 26 B (british) has only 24 VLS cells. NSM or similar antiship missiles are to be mounted into the VLS.
> 
> Type 26 A (aussie) will replace the fore 24 CAMM with 8 more VLS cells (total 32), and the aft 24 CAMM with 2 quad canisters for antiship missiles. Australia will use ESSM instead of CAMM.
> 
> Spain was about to use CAMM on their F-110 but has finally opted for ESSM also.
> 
> I've read that ESSM has about twice the range than CAMM (nearly 50 km vs 25), it is heavier as well, both are quad-packable into mk41 cells, but the main point would be compatibility with the CMS. ESSM is AEGIS-ready while some work has to be done with CAMM to integrate it with AEGIS.



I think ours is going to be more in line with Australian version with 32 cells of Mk 41 VLS.  This would allow the ship to have 32 ESSM for point and 24 Standard missiles for area air defence(I think that 32 cell strike Mk 41 and an 8 cell self-defence Mk 41 cells would be better allowing for 32 missiles of both types but compared with our only 16 ESSM's now, I'll take it).  As for a CMS compatibility issue with Sea Ceptor vs. ESSM, the fire-control system dictates that more than CMS.  The Kiwi's have selected Sea Ceptor(replacing the RIM-7 which has the exact same interface as ESSM) to work with CMS on their upgrades for their ANZAC's. 

As for European squaking about our selection of ESSM over their missiles, it was never going to happen as we've been part of NATO Sea Sparrow Consortium for decades and have been investing in it for a long time.  The ESSM upgrade was separate from the mid-life upgrade of the frigates.


----------



## JMCanada

Probably you're right, I may have messed CMS with fire-control... for me (not a professional on that field) it's all "software". And probably I am again wrong with this last sentence  : ;D

In reply to C-Pook, I have not seen the bids, but would bet that Navantia-Saab had offered systems ready for ESSMs since nor Spain nor Australia use Sea Ceptor (CAMM): F-100 & Hobarts  use ESSM.

Edited (added): actually CAMM is british mainly, more than "european". France & Italy rely their air defence on the Aster missiles family.


----------



## Cloud Cover

That's funny. I thought became Aster, as the T45's are equipped with them, no?


----------



## Cloud Cover

In any case I don't see the Brits mixing up their missile type for anyone. They probably just move the Harpoon to the Type 26 in the end, and ditch the rear vls. Maybe not...


----------



## Kirkhill

Looking at foredecks of the three variants, specifically at the "B-Gun" position where the missiles are located forard of the bridge, it appears to me from the imagery that the Aussies and the Brits are both planning to put their Harpoon/Harpoon-replacement Anti-Ship Missiles on the foredeck while the Canadian imagery shows the foredeck clear (as well as the space abaft the funnel).

On the other hand the Canadians and the Aussies both seem to have Quad Harpoons on top of the Mission Bay / Boat Deck.


Aussie 26







Brit 26






Canadian 26


----------



## serger989

In all the concepts/models I have seen, I have only seen 1 scale model with CIWS, the others have none. Makes me think they will only be outfitted onto 3 ships or something.


----------



## Lumber

I'm not harping, just checking, but you guys realize that those models are NOT accurate to the final product, right? I spoke with the Lockheed guys at DEFSEC about their model, asking how accurate it was, and they warned me that these models (and pictures) are not in any way indicative of the final product.  Actual weapon and sensor fit, as well as locations for those weapons and sensors, won't be known until the contract is finalized.


----------



## Kirkhill

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm not harping, just checking, but you guys realize that those models are NOT accurate to the final product, right? I spoke with the Lockheed guys at DEFSEC about their model, asking how accurate it was, and they warned me that these models (and pictures) are not in any way indicative of the final product.  Actual weapon and sensor fit, as well as locations for those weapons and sensors, won't be known until the contract is finalized.



Seen Lumber and acknowledged.

And they will look different again after separation into flights and life-extensions.

I think the point is that the platform can support multiple configurations with bolt-on (even Stanflex-type) configurations - MGs, Autocannons, Phalanx, Sea-Ram, Harpoon, NSMs, Chaff dispensers, CAMM or ESSM launch buckets.   Both the command system and the hull form can manage a great degree of flexibility to suit operational needs.  The presence of the Mission Bay and its various cargoes also attest to the ability of a combat ship being able to manage shifts in displacement as cargoes are moved from outboard port to outboard starboard above the water line: a capability that seems to have evaded the designers of the USNs LCS but has been managed successfully by the Danes' Absaloms.


----------



## Lumber

For the the love of all, forget the # of missiles, can we just get an OOW chair/station on the bridge?


----------



## Cloud Cover

:rofl:
Yes, like Dr Evil's chair...


----------



## NavyShooter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4W0t_fWJoE


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Lumber said:
			
		

> For the the love of all, forget the # of missiles, can we just get an OOW chair/station on the bridge?



Chairs? we gave you a enclosed bridge!! Young spoiled pups!!!! Back in the days of sail and steam we did.....blah, blah,blah


----------



## JMCanada

Back to weaponry ... seems like type 26-B will need some reserve of VLS cells for VLA torpedoes, since tubes are not fitted. I am astonished , wasn't its main role to be an antisubmarine frigate?  :

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/


----------



## Kirkhill

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Back to weaponry ... seems like type 26-B will need some reserve of VLS cells for VLA torpedoes, since tubes are not fitted. I am astonished , wasn't its main role to be an antisubmarine frigate?  :
> 
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/



Do we really want the CSC to be within 11,000 meters of a submarine? (The range of the deck-launched Mk46)

On the other hand - launching M46/54s from a CH-148, or a RHIB or Orca XLAUV deployed from the Mission Bay on the CSC - perhaps that is an alternative to VLS-ASROC?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The subs intent is to get well within that range, it would seem that to have a closer in system is just as important as the longer range system. So what would the response be for a ship equipped with VLS launched torps that detects a sub within 2 km, say right in the middle of a task force and needs to kill it without shooting any friendlies?


----------



## JMCanada

Of course there are other means for ASW , but why refuse to install some torpedo tubes as well? As cited in the article Hobarts do have them but Type 45 destroyers don't.
I am of the opinion that  being they onboard, the CSCs would benefit from a wider set of tools available.


----------



## NavyShooter

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXQ2lO3ieBA

This is what I think about with every 'update' to either the JSS or CSC...


----------



## Kirkhill

Is it too provocative to note that the last scene with the drawing being stamped showed the design approved by AOC?


----------



## AlexanderM

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Back to weaponry ... seems like type 26-B will need some reserve of VLS cells for VLA torpedoes, since tubes are not fitted. I am astonished , wasn't its main role to be an antisubmarine frigate?  :
> 
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/mtls-and-asroc-killing-the-submarine-without-a-helicopter/


And/or if we decide at some point to put the anti-ship missiles in the cells. If we do purchase the F-35 and then go with the JSM, they can go in the cells, at which point 32 already isn't enough, just saying.


----------



## calculus

Looks like the radar will be a LM radar (probably a derivative of the LRDR, and perhaps related to this: https://www.naval-technology.com/news/lockheed-indra-develop-s-band-aesa-radar-spanish-navy/), and AEGIS will also be included, in some form or other.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_EU486kb8

Watch from 4:30 to 5:10.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good catch!


----------



## Lumber

Jeeze he just revealed more than anything that's been officially published so far!

No what the heck is a solid state radar?


----------



## RDBZ

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Of course there are other means for ASW , but why refuse to install some torpedo tubes as well? As cited in the article Hobarts do have them but Type 45 destroyers don't.
> I am of the opinion that  being they onboard, the CSCs would benefit from a wider set of tools available.



The Hunter class will be equipped with MU-90 like the Hobarts.


----------



## Good2Golf

Lumber said:
			
		

> No what the heck is a solid state radar?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Lumber said:
			
		

> what the heck is a solid state radar?



Well, Lumber, that question shows your age - by which I mean you are too young!

"Solid State" electronics was the terminology we (my gen.) used to distinguish  electronics that had transistors instead of lamps as its operating parts. A solid state electronics had no lamps at all.

First "Solid State" Canadian warships: The original IRO's.  ;D


----------



## calculus

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, Lumber, that question shows your age - by which I mean you are too young!
> 
> "Solid State" electronics was the terminology we (my gen.) used to distinguish  electronics that had transistors instead of lamps as its operating parts. A solid state electronics had no lamps at all.
> 
> First "Solid State" Canadian warships: The original IRO's.  ;D



I think it also can be used to describe a radar set that has no magnetron, like the newer fixed-panel GaN systems such as SPY-6.


----------



## calculus

In addition to the information from 4:30 to 5:10, which confirms AEGIS and an LM radar for CSC, at 15:00 he describes the system as being modular, and how the radar can be scaled, like EASR and AMDR (SPY-6). 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA_EU486kb8


----------



## Cloud Cover

It’s a strange comment by the speaker, I thought LRDR was a component of the BMD system?  I think Lockheed and Raytheon’s LRDR systems both use emerging GaN, so I wonder if this is going to be the Lockheed competitor product to Raytheon AMDR on the Burke’s being designed? So many questions from that clip.....


----------



## Lumber

Good2Golf said:
			
		

>



Unfortunately, yes...


----------



## Lumber

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> It’s a strange comment by the speaker, I thought LRDR was a component of the BMD system?  I think Lockheed and Raytheon’s LRDR systems both use emerging GaN, so I wonder if this is going to be the Lockheed competitor product to Raytheon AMDR on the Burke’s being designed? So many questions from that clip.....



One possible reason is that the person giving the interview may not have been a fully versed subject matter expert. Having gone to a couple of my first defence expos and actually spoken to the reps at these booths, I can say that they are all very knowledgeable (very rarely did I meet a pure salesman), but sometimes their knowledge may have been somewhat limited in scope. 

It's possible this gentleman has been in several meetings where they've discussed potential equipment fits for the RN, RAN, and RCN, and he's simply repeating some of the different COAs that have been discussed, as opposed to actually know for sure what's going to happen.  :2c: (although more like 1c)


----------



## NavyShooter

The key I took away from his spiel was that the AEGIS program, which has been around for almost 50 years, is being 'opened up' so that it integrates not just with the SPY-1 RADAR (as found on Arleigh Burke and Ticos) but will now be able to accept RADAR inputs from other types of 3D Radars.

Effectively, it means they're 'open sourcing' the AEGIS program to accept other hardware than it was originally designed for.  The concept of having the Combat Management System software being the 'core' with other sensors and weapons interfaces needing specific software drivers is not new - for us at least.  

Consider, we integrated with our old CCS (pre HCM) a number of systems that needed new drivers to talk to the computers we used.  Examples:  AN/SQS-510 Hull Mounted SONAR or the RIM-162 ESSM.  The ship, as fitted and built was designed to talk with the AN/SQS-505(V6) and the RIM-7P Sea Sparrow - considering the generational leap of change that both of these systems brought to the Halifax Class when they were integrated, and having read the old 'release notes' on the system info CD's that came with the upgraded versions of CMS, I know a bit of what this involved.  Bear in mind, the average CCS computer pre-HCM had an operating software load of less than 500K (384K sticks in my mind for computers with just the SDX and DS modules - the CCMs that had the interfaces to sensors and weapons ran closer to 500K.  Yes...that's KB, not MB...)

It's a sensible thing for them to do - it makes their AEGIS software much more versatile in terms of what platforms it can go on - you won't be tied to a ship that has a SPY-1.  

That's my take on it anyhow...as for the guy in the video's specific system knowledge?  Well, he seems to know a fair bit, and with multiple classes of ships that he seems to be speaking of, it is entirely possible that he might have confused one platform for another.

NS


----------



## Good2Golf

Lumber said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, yes...



No problem, thought you were pulling my leg.  If I put my radar engineer hat on for a second, they’re really referring to ‘solid state’ as in what generates the transmitted signal.  In a nutshell, the newer active electronic (fully solid-state) scanning array (AESA) radars are composed of an array of hundreds (or thousands) of transmit/receive modules (TRMs).  Each TRM has on average 10-25W of averages transmitted power - total array power is then element power x number of elments, which is where can see AESA radars in the 3kW to 10kW avg power range.  The transmitted beam is then the addition of all the individual TRM beams, taking into account any phase-shifting the radar processor (RP) is going to apply to the array to steer the beam in the desired direction (electronically-scanned part of AESA).  Older radars based on klystrons, magnetrons and travelling wave tubes, while considered modern electronics (in the 20th century sense), may have some solid state components (like transistors, etc.) but their main power is derived from a large single source that then is distributed either through a single feed to to a horn on a classic parabolic mechanically-scanned antenna, or on slightly more modern flat mechanically-scanned antenna with a feed network that subdivides the main source’s signal across the face of the antenna.

So, solid-state is a bit of an older, less precise term.  More accurately they would have described CSC’s radar as a modern, multi-mode AESA radar.

Cheers,
G2G


----------



## MarkOttawa

Arguing for a BMD capability, even if only radar at first (China, NATO and Russia, and NORAD in mind--I'd simply focus on the NORAD angle rather than any serious involvement in western pacific and USN and Euros can do closer to Russia):



> The Case for Canadian Naval Ballistic Missile Defence
> http://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/public/vol14num3/vol14num3art1.pdf



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

- "Canada is the only country of the major and middle powers without its own or part of a multilateral BMD system."

The current version of Canada is neither a major power or middle power by military measure.


----------



## JMCanada

New data about Type 26 multi-mission bay and interesting summary of "tools" to load on it.
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-2-configuration-and-contents/


----------



## Cloud Cover

Good find JMCanada!! Interesting they can put two Merlins in there, and they note that specifically for ASW work. That is a capability option that we lost a long time ago.  (2 helo det on DDH)


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Good find JMCanada!! Interesting they can put two Merlins in there, and they note that specifically for ASW work. That is a capability option that we lost a long time ago.  (2 helo det on DDH)



It is not clear to me how a RAST would work with a tandem helicopter arrangement, vice side by side.


----------



## Old Sweat

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> It is not clear to me how a RAST would work with a tandem helicopter arrangement, vice side by side.




Sorry, Dale.

I just had an image of the old Canadian Army I served in, shuttling jerry cans back and forth.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Everybody get out and push!


----------



## blacktriangle

Sailors with paddles. In our waters. In Canada. We did not make this up.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Another interesting note by STRN: https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-1-design-and-development/

"The published mock-ups of the Canadian Surface Combatant variant all show the boat bay has been moved aft slightly and reduced in size. The Australian Hunter class design appears to be identical to the RN Type 26 in this regard."

Again, its just a mock up drawing, but I can't help but wonder if the size of the Cyclone compared to the Merlin will have some bearing on Mission bay and Boat bay configurations?


----------



## Dale Denton

JMCanada said:
			
		

> New data about Type 26 multi-mission bay and interesting summary of "tools" to load on it.
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-2-configuration-and-contents/



Interesting article, thanks for sharing.

Kinda sad how our new ships are built to _utilize _all of these varying UAVs, UUVs and RHIB types, varying helicopters and so on, but we don't actually have them. 

Makes me think we bought a fancy new Snap On but forgot that we don't own any tools.


----------



## Good2Golf

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Kinda sad how our new ships are built to _utilize _all of these varying UAVs, UUVs and RHIB types, varying helicopters and so on, but we don't actually have them.



Better this way, than the reverse (toys, but an incapable Ship). :nod:


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Better this way, than the reverse (toys, but an incapable Ship). :nod:



I agree with this, too. A solid, well built platform with lots growth potential is better than a lot of toys. It gives you lots of change potential, down the road.


----------



## AirDet

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I agree with this, too. A solid, well built platform with lots growth potential is better than a lot of toys. It gives you lots of change potential, down the road.



Very true. It should also keep all the navy crap out of our hangar!


----------



## Navy_Pete

AirDet said:
			
		

> Very true. It should also keep all the navy crap out of our hangar!



That's pretty optimistics; if there is no helo being embarked hangars are obvious storage areas (due to both the access and readily available tie downs) and great gyms.

On the flip side, you can operate a bunch of UAVs without having to deal with any air det drama, so there is a certain appeal to that at times!  ;D


----------



## Spencer100

So I just saw......drum roll please....

It's the River Class.


----------



## Swampbuggy

In regards to...CSC naming?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> So I just saw......drum roll please....
> 
> It's the River Class.



Where did you see that?


----------



## Spencer100

Niagara 360
Fraser 361
Annapolis  362
Niagara 363
St Croix 364
St Laurent 365
Mackenzie 366
Columbia 367
Sagueway 368
Sheena 369
Ottawa 370
Yukon 371
Margaree 372
Saskatchewan 373
Terra Nova 374


----------



## Stoker

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Niagara 360
> Fraser 361
> Annapolis  362
> Niagara 363
> St Croix 364
> St Laurent 365
> Mackenzie 366
> Columbia 367
> Sagueway 368
> Sheena 369
> Ottawa 370
> Yukon 371
> Margaree 372
> Saskatchewan 373
> Terra Nova 374



That's not accurate, the ships haven't been named yet. Thats what a former sailor would like to have them named, not true.


----------



## Spencer100

Sorry saw it on the those interwebs 

The source sounded true.  I guess I'm not getting than million from the Nigerian politician


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I would also note that Niagara is listed twice and "Sheena" is woman, not a river.


----------



## FSTO

Either Tribals or Rivers would be great!

Here's a thought. The 3 or 4 C4 AAW ships are the tribals and the rest can be either Rivers or Provinces/Territories.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Current gov: Flower or Peace class.  Prev Gov’t: obscure battle class.  FordNation: Slogan Class.  NDP: Oppression or Protest class.  PPC: Duke class.


----------



## PuckChaser

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Current gov: Flower or Peace class.  Prev Gov’t: obscure battle class.  FordNation: Slogan Class.  NDP: Oppression or Protest class. Project Cancelled  PPC: Duke class.



FTFY


----------



## Cloud Cover

Interesting choice. I would have thought the Khmer Orange’ would need something to defend Venezuela.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Niagara never was really a "river" class of Canada. The name belonged to one of the American four stackers gotten in the British "destroyer for bases" deal of WWII and handed over to the RCN. It was actually named after the town of Niagara, not the river.

Also, for multicultural reasons ( ;D ), I would tend to stay away from saints these days. So X-nay on the St. Croix and St-Laurent.

But that's fine, tons of other proper river names that can be used: Kootenay, Gatineau, Chaudiere, Qu'appelle or Nipigon come to mind.


----------



## MilEME09

How about HMCS Old Man (river) *sarcasm*


----------



## Cloud Cover

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Also, for multicultural reasons ( ;D ), I would tend to stay away from saints these days. So X-nay on the St. Croix and St-Laurent.



To even things out, we could be open to a ship named Achmed! SILENCE!!! Would make for some interesting turret artwork on the 5".


----------



## MarkOttawa

In any event there still is, for lord knows how many more years, CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent (in service 1969, half a century ago):






https://inter-j01.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/fdat/vessels/vessel-details/81

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

It was, and still is, a graceful looking ship.  As a place of modern work and capability, maybe not so much anymore.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Contract signed for CDN Type 26 Integrated Bridge Design

Good news, it seems that the peanut is still slowly being pushed up the hill.

OSI Maritime Systems announced the contract signing with Lockheed Martin Canada to design the integrated bridge and navigation bridge for the Royal Canadian Navy’s Type 26-based Canadian Surface Combatant vessels.

The CSC project, which is part of the National Shipbuilding Strategy, will replace both the Iroquois Class destroyers and the Halifax Class multi-role patrol frigates with a single class of ship capable of meeting multiple threats on both the open ocean and the highly complex coastal environment.

https://www.defenceconnect.com.au/maritime-antisub/3909-contract-signed-to-design-integrated-bridge-for-canadian-type-26-frigates


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Somewhat related https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/hull-of-first-type-26-frigate-hms-glasgow-taking-shape/?no_cache=1&fbclid=IwAR2kFjASGMM2CGJpG-ENiQ2Cygo6wHFwibFT64R4UKw25Q8j3OEizd-cf7M


----------



## MarkOttawa

Compare costs and timeline for USN's 20 new FFG(X)s with RCN's 15 (maybe) CSCs--'tis to weep:


> Report to Congress on U.S. Navy Frigate FFG(X) Program
> 
> _The following is the April 4, 2019 Congressional Research Service report, Navy Frigate (FFG[X]) Program: Background and Issues for Congress._
> 
> From the report
> 
> The FFG(X) programis a Navy program to build a class of 20 guided-missile frigates(FFGs). The Navy wants to procure the first FFG(X)in FY2020, the next 18 at a rate of two per year in FY2021-FY2029, and the 20thin FY2030. The Navy’s proposed FY2020 budget requests $1,281.2 million for the procurement of the first FFG(X). The Navy’s FY2020 budget submission shows that subsequent ships in the class are estimated by the Navy to cost roughly $900 million each in then-year dollars.
> 
> The Navy intends to build the FFG(X) to a modified version of an existing ship design—an approach called the parent-design approach. The parent design could be a U.S. ship design or a foreign ship design.At least five industry teams are reportedly competing for the FFG(X) program. Two of these teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are modified versions of the two Littoral Combat Ship (LCS)designs that the Navy has procured in prior years. The other three industry teams are offering designs for the FFG(X) that are based on other existing ship designs. One of these three other industry teams is proposing to build its design at one of the LCS shipyards. The Navy plans to announce the outcome of the FFG(X) competition in July 2020. The LCSprogram is covered in detail in another CRS report.
> 
> The FFG(X) program presents several potential oversight issues for Congress, including the following:
> 
> whether to approve, reject, or modify the Navy’s FY2020funding request for the program;whether the Navy has appropriately defined the cost, capabilities, and growth margin of the FFG(X);
> 
> the Navy’s intent to use a parent-design approach for the FFG(X) program rather than develop an entirely new (i.e., clean-sheet) design for the ship;
> 
> cost, schedule, and technical risk in the FFG(X) program;
> 
> whether any additional LCSs should be procured in FY2020 as a hedge against potential delays in the FFG(X) program;
> 
> the potential industrial-base impacts of the Navy’s plan to shift in FY2020 from procuring LCSs to procuring FFG(X)s;
> 
> whether to build FFG(X)s at a single shipyard, as the Navy’s baseline plan calls for, or at two or three shipyards;and
> 
> the potential impact of the FFG(X) program required numbers or capabilities of U.S. Navy cruisers and destroyers...
> https://news.usni.org/2019/04/24/report-to-congress-on-u-s-navy-frigate-ffgx-program



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

I believe that when I looked their cost estimate process a few years ago, they don't include a number of things that we do, so can't compare.  Off the top of my head the actual ammunition wasn't in there (so at millions/missile adds up quick) and some of the weapon systems are also covered under other programs (like the ESSM development program).  I think they had a baseline ship that could sail, navigate, operate a helo and have some very basic self defence, but wasn't fully kitted out at that cost.

Of course, our entire CSC project is a rounding error on their defence budget, but still hard to compare apples to apples without going through the line by line to see what they roll up, and our cost estimates tend to have a lot more stuff in them than any other country, and includes a healthy contingency.


----------



## Czech_pivo

I've looked over some of the specs that are available regarding the new Type 26's that we have selected to replace the Halifax's/Iroquois's and see that the type 26's have listed a Complement of 118.  Is this number correct?  Does anyone know if this includes the air detachment? 

With the Halifax's having a listed Complement of 225, including the air attachment, does this mean that we'll have a reduction of roughly 100 personnel per new CSC when they come online?  If that's correct, it means a roughly 1,000 personnel reduction needed to man the 15 CSC's when compared against the 12 Halifax's.  Is this correct?


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> I've looked over some of the specs that are available regarding the new Type 26's that we have selected to replace the Halifax's/Iroquois's and see that the type 26's have listed a Complement of 118.  Is this number correct?  Does anyone know if this includes the air detachment?
> 
> With the Halifax's having a listed Complement of 225, including the air attachment, does this mean that we'll have a reduction of roughly 100 personnel per new CSC when they come online?  If that's correct, it means a roughly 1,000 personnel reduction needed to man the 15 CSC's when compared against the 12 Halifax's.  Is this correct?



Until its released officially you won't know. Given new technology and automation it makes sense that the crew compliment will be less.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> Representatives from the @RoyalNavy, @Australian_Navy & RAdm Donovan and Cmdre Carosielli from Canada signed a Charter, formally acknowledging our involvement in the Global Combat Ship Users Group, in support of the Canadian Surface Combatant Project in Portsmouth, UK today.
> 
> https://twitter.com/RCN_MRC/status/1123568151604662277


----------



## Cloud Cover

Figures we send 2 FO to operate a pen.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good though if we can have people on the ground floor watching the construction and perhaps even posted to one of the new RN Type 26's. Then those lessons can be passed on while we are still building ours.


----------



## dapaterson

Is the Capt(N) to the right Canadian?  If so, when did long sleeves, a tie, and ribbons become an order of dress? #WhereIsTheCoxn


----------



## eliminator

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Is the Capt(N) to the right Canadian?  If so, when did long sleeves, a tie, and ribbons become an order of dress? #WhereIsTheCoxn



Nope, Australian.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Correct - that's why the word AUSTRALIA is on the bottom of the epaulettes.  ;D

And it's a proper order of dress for them, as they actually can walk out in that order of dress. Not so in Canada or the UK, where you can wear your long sleeve shirt and tie when walking around the office, but put on the sweater or jacket when walking out. For us, if walking out in a shirt only is proper, we switch to the short sleeve one.

I suspect the Australian officer showed up in that order of dress for the occasion and the other ones took their jackets off for the picture, so it would look better with everyone in the same get up.


----------



## FSTO

Kipper -  No front pockets. No accoutrements
Canucks - Front Pockets. No accoutrements
Aussie - Front Pockets. Accoutrements

Diversity at work!


----------



## calculus

Anyone care to hazard a guess as to the purpose of the cells shown at 07:56, 08:23 and at 08:28 (onwards) in the link? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rTMdQ8QBYD8

Also note that there are no SeaRAM launchers shown in this model. Is it possible that SeaRAM has been deleted in favour of Sea Ceptor (CAMM), and that those 6 cells (located aft of the largest exhaust portal in the funnel superstructure, between the two SAT domes, and forward of the canister missile launchers), are ExLS? This would give a potential loadout of 24 Sea Ceptor missiles for the CIADS role, with, presumably, an unknown quantity of ESSM loaded into the Mk41's for intermediate range defence, and SM-2 for the longer range. MBDA had a booth at CANSEC last year and was pushing this system for the CIADS requirement, so this is not completely crazy (https://www.janes.com/article/80433/sea-ceptor-pitched-for-csc-ciads-cansec18d1)


----------



## CBH99

Very much out of my lane here, and after following this thread I can see there are some very knowledgeable ppl here on the tech side.

Is the SM-2 on it's way out, in favour of the SM-3 with far greater range?  Or are they 2 different tools for 2 different jobs?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

The SM-2 (particularly Block III) are still the "standard" anti-aircraft missile (little joke here), but if you are looking for more range, the way to go is the SM-2ER.

The SM-3 is a modified SM-2ER optimized for anti ballistic missile interception/defence. So, not the replacement for the SM-2.

The latest derivative of the SM-2 that has been updated for defence against both aircraft and high velocity missiles (non-ballistic) is the SM-6 and it is now entering service in greater numbers. I suspect that, given a smart government is in place, the SM-6 will be the ones found on the CSC's.


----------



## CBH99

Thank You.  I was actually thinking of the SM-6 when I was called it the SM-3 by mistake.  

Read some lengthy articles about the SM-6 and engaging aircraft at incredible distances.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Interesting that the Australians are looking at building a number of prototypes blocks for their Type 26 prior to the actually building of their first block.  Their prototype blocks will be built to the RN Type 26 specs, not the RAN Hunter class specs.

Their approach is this - “The certainty of not necessarily building blocks that could be used for the ship but could be used to train a workforce and qualify the shipyard is a remarkable lesson from the Air Warfare Destroyer program.”

Hmmm, wonder if anyone at Irving will have this foresight?  

https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/awd-build-yields-lessons-for-hunter-class


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That would mean Irving would have to admit that they need improvement.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> “The certainty of not necessarily building blocks that could be used for the ship but could be used to train a workforce and qualify the shipyard is a remarkable lesson from the Air Warfare Destroyer program.”
> 
> Hmmm, wonder if anyone at Irving will have this foresight?


To train their workforce and qualify their shipyard, I thought Irving was using this.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Colin P said:
			
		

> That would mean Irving would have to admit that they need improvement.



Well, when the Aussie's talk about 'the width' of the block I think Irving should be paying attention as they had issues with HDW and the assembly of the bow block with the midship/stern blocks.....

“We want (designer and shipbuilder) BAE Systems to build a Type 26 block because they know how to do that, they know all the problems, they know exact widths, they know the hours that it will take, and they know the costs,” Paddy Fitzpatrick, Assistant Secretary Ship Acquisition"


----------



## Uzlu

> UDT 2019: Lockheed Martin touts ExLS success
> 
> Lockheed Martin’s Extensible Launcher System (ExLS) three-cell stand-alone launcher has been selected for two naval surface combatant programmes, the company has confirmed.
> 
> Speaking to Jane’s at Undersea Defence Technology 2019 (UDT 2019), a company spokesperson said the ExLS launcher has been selected for the Brazilian Navy’s new corvette programme by Águas Azuis – a consortium comprising Thyssenkrupp Marine Systems (TKMS) and Embraer. Selection of Aguis Azuis, offering a TKMS MEKO A-100 corvette design, was announced in March.
> 
> The launcher is also set to be installed on the Royal Canadian Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), the spokesperson said. A team led by Lockheed Martin Canada, offering a derivative of the United Kingdom’s Type 26 Global Combat Ship, was selected as the preferred bidder for the CSC programme by prime contractor Irving Shipbuilding in October 2018 and subsequently awarded the design contract in February 2019.


https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_Host_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf


----------



## Navy_Pete

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Interesting that the Australians are looking at building a number of prototypes blocks for their Type 26 prior to the actually building of their first block.  Their prototype blocks will be built to the RN Type 26 specs, not the RAN Hunter class specs.
> 
> Their approach is this - “The certainty of not necessarily building blocks that could be used for the ship but could be used to train a workforce and qualify the shipyard is a remarkable lesson from the Air Warfare Destroyer program.”
> 
> Hmmm, wonder if anyone at Irving will have this foresight?
> 
> https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/awd-build-yields-lessons-for-hunter-class



I don't think they are talking about the mega blocks; they are likely referring to the first stage blocks.  Those are usually about 10-20' square by a deck high (depending on location). Those ones get consolidated into larger blocks, then eventually into the mega blocks.  There are a few differrent ways to put them together as well; we went with vertical mega blocks, but another way is the ring build where the mega blocks are horizontal. This takes a bit bigger of a footprint, larger cranes etc but lets you start running cables much earlier.

There is a lot of accuracy control stuff that is good to practice and get right at the small block stage, as well as figure out all your weld parameters to minimize distortion. Stuff like properly sequencing/scheduling the workers, sorting out the pack ups for the needed parts and making sure the build plan works in the shipyard are all good things to do.

Found a pretty good paper that explains it, but there is a lot of industrial engineering that goes into minimizing wasted effort and rework, and that's the kind of thing you need to do right down in the weeds to roll out over the forest, or it doesn't work.

http://isomase.org/OMAse/Vol.3-2016/Section-2/3-3.pdf


----------



## Lumber

Uzlu said:
			
		

> To train their workforce and qualify their shipyard, I thought Irving was using this.



All those trained through building the AOPS will get laid off, go get jobs elsewhere, and not come back once CSC starts sometime around 2035...


----------



## Lumber

Hey here's a fun idea: let's all share what we've heard from "credible" sources what is the *latest* date (year) that we've heard that the first CSC will be online, and when the first CPF will go offline.

I'll start.

I've heard tons of dates, but the "latest" I've heard for CSC was first hull commissioned in 2035, and the latest I've heard for CPF is first hull de-commissioned in 2040.

Who's next?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Lumber said:
			
		

> Hey here's a fun idea: let's all share what we've heard from "credible" sources what is the *latest* date (year) that we've heard that the first CSC will be online, and when the first CPF will go offline.
> 
> I'll start.
> 
> I've heard tons of dates, but the "latest" I've heard for CSC was first hull commissioned in 2035, and the latest I've heard for CPF is first hull de-commissioned in 2040.
> 
> Who's next?



If that's the case, we'll get 15 AOPS and 6 CSC.......


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success
> 
> https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/documents/naval-launchers-and-munitions/VLS_Host_ExLS_Launcher_Product_Card_8.5x11_042419.pdf



Well this is a great idea.  The shorter but flexible launchers from the ExLS can host a bunch of things that improve the survivability of the ship. Longbow launch capability will really increase ship defence against swarm attack boats by a significant margin.  So 32 Mk41 VLS and 6 ExLS.  CSC's gonna have some teeth.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:
			
		

> Well this is a great idea.  The shorter but flexible launchers from the ExLS can host a bunch of things that improve the survivability of the ship. Longbow launch capability will really increase ship defence against swarm attack boats by a significant margin.  So 32 Mk41 VLS and 6 ExLS.  CSC's gonna have some teeth.



Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...


----------



## Czech_pivo

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...



Maybe we should start the 'Go Fund Me' campaign now?


----------



## Journeyman

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Maybe we should start the 'Go Fund Me' campaign now?


Maybe VAdm Norman will dedicate a portion of the profits from his inevitable book.

I've no doubt that there's a line up of potential publishers, and I know I'd buy a copy... before Paul Gross ruined it with a 'movie adaptation.'  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...



SKT - who sez they would buy 15 sets of missiles?  1 set and rotate it to the "duty" ship.


----------



## Spencer100

I thought this image was interesting.  I had not seen this configuration.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Only if we actually buy anything to in those cells. I can only imagine the sticker shock once the centre realizes what 38 x 15 worth of missiles will cost...



Nahhh, just lease them like we do with the Harpoons.  Only buy if you shoot them.

To put it on paper a potential loadout:

12 Tomahawks (in 12 VLS) - land attack
12 SM6 (in 12 VLS) - area air defence, ASuW
32 ESSM II quad packed (in 8 VLS) for point defence and limited consort defence
12 Longbow Hellfires quad packed (in 3 ExLS) for FAC/FIAC defence
12 RAM missiles quad packed (in 3 ExLS) for close in self defence
127mm for its multiple roles
2x30mm for FAC/FIAC defence
8 Naval Strike Missiles for ASuW
Cyclone for ASW

I'm a CPF fan.  A big one.  But this is crazy.  There is no comparison, it's an entirely different ballpark for just the weapons.  The self defence capability in all aspects of future war from a hardkill perspective is just amazing.  And the ability to have offensive strike on an enemy from multiple other systems...  It's going to rewrite the doctrine and attitude of the navy with all that offensive ability.  The swagger will be real.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Lumber said:
			
		

> Hey here's a fun idea: let's all share what we've heard from "credible" sources what is the *latest* date (year) that we've heard that the first CSC will be online, and when the first CPF will go offline.
> 
> I'll start.
> 
> I've heard tons of dates, but the "latest" I've heard for CSC was first hull commissioned in 2035, and the latest I've heard for CPF is first hull de-commissioned in 2040.
> 
> Who's next?



I heard just yesterday of a commission date of "never" because the politician that was at our lunch told me they do not support buying weapons, preferring instead a department of peace.  Although unlikely NDP will form government, they have a decent chance of holding the balance of power in a Liberal-Green-NDP coalition.


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I thought this image was interesting.  I had not seen this configuration.



Australian version of the Type 26 with their CEA radars.  

From everything that I can gather the CSC will be getting a version of the Lockheed Solid State Radar. It's already beaten the SPY-6 technology based radars in three separate competitions for very large shore based radar systems.  It's therefore probably safe to assume that its at least as good as the SPY-6 technology.

All of which means the CSC will be getting a very good radar system dependent on the face size of the radar itself.  I don't expect it to be the 4.3m diameter as the SPY-6 but closer to a 3.7m diameter of the SPY-1 from the Flight 1 Burkes, which would only give it 8 times the sensitivity of current SPY-1 systems.  Which is nuts.**

I suspect this radar is one of the reasons that the Type 26 was _the only compliant bid_.  

Solid State Radar

** rough calculations, big assumptions**


----------



## RDBZ

Underway said:
			
		

> Australian version of the Type 26 with their CEA radars.
> 
> From everything that I can gather the CSC will be getting a version of the Lockheed Solid State Radar. It's already beaten the SPY-6 technology based radars in three separate competitions for very large shore based radar systems.  It's therefore probably safe to assume that its at least as good as the SPY-6 technology.
> 
> All of which means the CSC will be getting a very good radar system dependent on the face size of the radar itself.  I don't expect it to be the 4.3m diameter as the SPY-6 but closer to a 3.7m diameter of the SPY-1 from the Flight 1 Burkes, which would only give it 8 times the sensitivity of current SPY-1 systems.  Which is nuts.**
> 
> I suspect this radar is one of the reasons that the Type 26 was _the only compliant bid_.
> 
> Solid State Radar
> 
> ** rough calculations, big assumptions**



Looks like a very similar technology to the CEA radars, at least in terms of scalability through the use of "tiles" or "bricks".  This discusses CEA's first generation CEAFAR as fitted to the RAN ANZACs under the ASMD upgrade: http://www.cea.com.au/News+Media/Attachments/2011-0009.pdf


----------



## Underway

More radar info.  Approx 10:04 with discussion that this will be the same radar that is going on the F-110 for the Spanish.  It was Lockheed's bid to replace the SPY-1 radars with solid state ones.

More info on the Indra (spanish) and Lockheed partnership.

https://navaltoday.com/2019/04/02/spain-authorizes-eur-4-3b-for-construction-of-five-f-110-frigates/

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/lockheed-martin-and-indra-demonstrate-next-generation-radar-for-spanish-navy-300270237.html


----------



## Underway

Lockheed PPT on some of the CSC requirements.

Some acronym help 

CIADS = Close in Air Defence System
TCM = Torpedo Counter Measure
FCL = Fire Control Link?  Link is a guess, but it makes sense if you want to update missile with new information in flight
IRST = Infra Red Search and Track
LFA = low frequency active

Full PPT link here


----------



## Underway

From behind the paywall:



> With the selection of the ExLS launcher in Canada, _Jane's_ understands that the MBDA Common Anti-air Modular Missile (CAMM) is now also specified as the designated close-in defence missile system.



Full article here:

https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success

The defensive layers on this thing from a missile defence hard kill perspective are going to be impressive for a frigate (can we just call it a superfrigate now, though I prefer überfregatte/overfrigate   ).  Loadout could be as large as 24 Long range AAD (SM2 -  90nm),  32 (quad packed) short range AAD/self defence (ESSM Mk2 - 27nm), 24 (quad packed) close range point defence (CAMM - 14nm ).  No mention of RAM or Phalanx yet though I suspect Phalanx is dead at this point.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The slide deck you posted 2 posts above notes a surface to surface missile and a naval fire missile. Looking separately at Lockheed’s ExLS literature, the 3 (x4) pack unit can load a navalized Longbow missile (12 missiles). Although a short range, that is a precision land strike missile. It also suggests to me that the separate SSM missile could well be the Harpoon in deck mounted quads. And there’s always TLAM for the Mk. 41. 
Note also the reference to “secondary gun” armament. 

Again, since these ships are likely 1.5-2 decades away from slicing any water, anything posted by even LM is pretty much speculation until contracts are signed for each system.


----------



## Underway

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The slide deck you posted 2 posts above notes a surface to surface missile and a naval fire missile. Looking separately at Lockheed’s ExLS literature, the 3 (x4) pack unit can load a navalized Longbow missile (12 missiles). Although a short range, that is a precision land strike missile. It also suggests to me that the separate SSM missile could well be the Harpoon in deck mounted quads. And there’s always TLAM for the Mk. 41.
> Note also the reference to “secondary gun” armament.
> 
> Again, since these ships are likely 1.5-2 decades away from slicing any water, anything posted by even LM is pretty much speculation until contracts are signed for each system.



Surface to surface: Harpoon is on the way out and are also not a Lockheed product so I suspect they won't be part of the package.  NSM is what I think is the quad packed missiles on top of the flex deck.  Also the LRASM is capable of being launched from a Mk41 so that's a possibility as well.

Naval Strike: TLAM is where I think this is going to end up.  Perhaps the JSM.  Longbows, those are very useful in a anti-FAC/FIAC situation at sea but I agree in a pinch.  If your targets as that close though wouldn't it be better to use the 127mm?

Secondary gun: gotta be the 30mm's.


----------



## Cloud Cover

"Longbows, those are very useful in a anti-FAC/FIAC situation at sea but I agree in a pinch. "

Unmanned swarming?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> From behind the paywall:
> 
> Full article here:
> 
> https://www.janes.com/article/88550/udt-2019-lockheed-martin-touts-exls-success
> 
> The defensive layers on this thing from a missile defence hard kill perspective are going to be impressive for a frigate (can we just call it a superfrigate now, though I prefer überfregatte/overfrigate   ).  Loadout could be as large as 24 Long range AAD (SM2 -  90nm),  32 (quad packed) short range AAD/self defence (ESSM Mk2 - 27nm), 24 (quad packed) close range point defence (CAMM - 14nm ).  No mention of RAM or Phalanx yet though I suspect Phalanx is dead at this point.



Question rehalanx vs RAM. In your opinion, is RAM the better CIWS given its ability to engage 4x further out? Or is the greater munition load of the PHALANX more desirable in a combat situation, even though I’ve heard that shrapnel damage to your ship is a real possibility given the engagement envelope? 

Or do you see the secondary guns having a CIWS capability and therefore the ship doesn’t need PHALANX or RAM?


----------



## Underway

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> "Longbows, those are very useful in a anti-FAC/FIAC situation at sea but I agree in a pinch. "
> 
> Unmanned swarming?



FAC= Fast Attack Craft 
FIAC= Fast Inshore Attack Craft which are essentially speedboats

Swarming for sure, though manned currently.  The best defence against both of these is a Hellfire equipped Helo (which we do not have...yet.... though that is top 10 on the future upgrades for the Cyclone they tell me) as FAC have little AAD and FIAC have only MANPADS options.  After that its Longbows/127mm from the ship, then 30mm, then 50 cal.  Personally FIAC with AT missiles seem a greater challenge.  Longbow can hit them hard beyond or at their own ranges max ranges.  That's one of the reasons they developed them for the LCS. With the 127mm not sure of the accuracy on such a fast moving target, but new ammunition types with IR seeking/GPS guiding etc... would certainly be very useful.  30mm for closer in defence against them and any WBIED threats.

I can certainly see a Longbow loadout in a FAC/FIAC contested combat environment for the ExLS.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> Question rehalanx vs RAM. In your opinion, is RAM the better CIWS given its ability to engage 4x further out? Or is the greater munition load of the PHALANX more desirable in a combat situation, even though I’ve heard that shrapnel damage to your ship is a real possibility given the engagement envelope?



I have no experience with RAM, but in my opinion engaging from further out is better as less chance of debris from a destroyed missile hitting your own ship.  A Phalanx kill is almost a guarantee your ship will take some damage, just hopefully not from the explodie/burny bits.  RAM may also allow you to re-engage if you miss with the first shot, something that Phalanx does not do.

Munitions questions really are complicated.  Depending on the enemy missile type RAM or Phalanx will use more or less of their own munitions to get the kill.  There is probably a reason that modern ships are generally moving away from the Phalanx to the RAM.  



> Or do you see the secondary guns having a CIWS capability and therefore the ship doesn’t need PHALANX or RAM?



The secondary guns as I mentioned in the post above are probably mainly for surface warfare.  I don't expect that they could/would be able to either track or fire enough ammunition at an incoming missile to do anything of consequence.  Low, slow, small is likely their targets in the air warfare role.


----------



## NavyShooter

A standard CIWS has a magazine of about 1580 rounds.  Divided into 60 round bursts, that works out to 26 bursts.  

Fired in 200 rd bursts, that's just 8 bursts.

A RAM carries 21 in its pack, and has longer range.

I think I'd prefer the RAM...

NS


----------



## Cloud Cover

Can RAM be reloaded at sea? It looks like a cassette system. 
I know it does not look like a lot of fun times to reload Phalanx....


----------



## Kirkhill

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Can RAM be reloaded at sea? It looks like a cassette system.
> I know it does not look like a lot of fun times to reload Phalanx....



This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0CPTI3ndlA


----------



## Cloud Cover

Painfully slow! Calm waters on a 90,000 tonne stable base. Can't see that happening on a frigate or destroyer in the middle of a fight!!


----------



## Uzlu

> Under the CSC evaluation framework, bidders were incentivised to submit a value proposition that would maximise Canadian participation in CSC design-phase engineering/ integration services, and also seek to incorporate high-technology Canadian systems and equipment into the ships. Lockheed Martin Canada's value proposition commits to performing at least 58 per cent of the design phase engineering/integration services work in Canada.


https://www.janes.com/article/88853/full-steam-ahead-cs19d1


----------



## NavyShooter

A well drilled team can do a full CIWS upload in less than 45 minutes.

I do not know if RAM can be reloaded at sea.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would the 127mm have a proximity fuzed round or would that not work against boats as the water surface would trigger the round?


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> A well drilled team can do a full CIWS upload in less than 45 minutes.
> 
> I do not know if RAM can be reloaded at sea.



Your Phalanx ammo number is only based on the stand alone system.  An integrated system (like on the Ticonderoga's) with the ammo coming directly from the magazine, can hold much more than that, and ideally no need for an upload.  Which is one of the reasons for my waffle.  There are too many assumptions to give a good number on ammo usage, engagements, reloads, and targets.

One interesting thing I was thinking about with CAMM replacing RAM/Phalanx system is the fact that its actively homing with a greater top range.  This means that you might be able to fire the CAMM through your own passive airborne decoys (chaff/flares) etc... and the CAMM will do its own tracking on an incoming missile.  That might give an important defensive option, as when you launch decoys like that you can blind your own sensors.  RAM uses IR once launched but either uses shipborne sensors or its own tracking radar.  Using chaff at the wrong time essentially negates the RAM launch.  But CAMM can be fired on a bearing where a missile might be coming from without worrying about tracking.  Also with such a low range relative to CAMM the RAM if it does get off will not have much room to clear the decoys and reacquire.  Just speculation...I only have my systems knowledge to make that supposition, and no actual data, as I've never worked with either of those missile systems.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Would the 127mm have a proximity fuzed round or would that not work against boats as the water surface would trigger the round?



If you lob shells in an arch it doesn't really matter if a proximity fuze goes off because it detects water or a boat.  Still well within the kill zone of the fragments.  Many new heads are programmable so you can just detonate them at a prescribed distance from the ship, with a prescribed pattern.  Or just use IR seeking VULCANO rounds and have the round steer to the target for you.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> Your Phalanx ammo number is only based on the stand alone system.  An integrated system (like on the Ticonderoga's) with the ammo coming directly from the magazine, can hold much more than that, and ideally no need for an upload.  Which is one of the reasons for my waffle.  There are too many assumptions to give a good number on ammo usage, engagements, reloads, and targets.
> 
> One interesting thing I was thinking about with CAMM replacing RAM/Phalanx system is the fact that its actively homing with a greater top range.  This means that you might be able to fire the CAMM through your own passive airborne decoys (chaff/flares) etc... and the CAMM will do its own tracking on an incoming missile.  That might give an important defensive option, as when you launch decoys like that you can blind your own sensors.  RAM uses IR once launched but either uses shipborne sensors or its own tracking radar.  Using chaff at the wrong time essentially negates the RAM launch.  But CAMM can be fired on a bearing where a missile might be coming from without worrying about tracking.  Also with such a low range relative to CAMM the RAM if it does get off will not have much room to clear the decoys and reacquire.  Just speculation...I only have my systems knowledge to make that supposition, and no actual data, as I've never worked with either of those missile systems.
> 
> If you lob shells in an arch it doesn't really matter if a proximity fuze goes off because it detects water or a boat.  Still well within the kill zone of the fragments.  Many new heads are programmable so you can just detonate them at a prescribed distance from the ship, with a prescribed pattern.  Or just use IR seeking VULCANO rounds and have the round steer to the target for you.



With the much lower rate of fire from the 127, I’d imagine that most of the anti-air/missile defence would come from the on-board missile load out. Is it fair to say that is a reverse from the HALIFAX with the 57mm?


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> With the much lower rate of fire from the 127, I’d imagine that most of the anti-air/missile defence would come from the on-board missile load out. Is it fair to say that is a reverse from the HALIFAX with the 57mm?



Depends on the missile defending against, and a solution of course needs to include ESM.

The modern RCN doctrine that has arisen since the implementation of CMS330 and the new expertise/modeling in the Warfare Centre can best be described as "systematic and efficient".  How many rounds/missiles are needed to kill target X.  Is the PKill higher if weapon A fires before or after weapon B.  What does the EW do to help/hinder this? Do we wait later in the engagement to shoot a target to get a higher PKill as opposed to as soon as they are in range? What happens if the MASS launchers fire at X point in time, and with what rounds?  What does that do to our sensors/enemy sensors?  Do we even bother with a hard kill attempt?  What mode/type of sensors do we need or are most effective to find/track/kill threat X?

The idea is to get as close to the "ideal" solution to as many situations/threats as possible. We can't afford and don't carry enough missiles etc... to just throw numbers at these problems like the US does, we have 16 ESSM onboard, so we need to come up with better answers that work with our platforms.  This also includes looking a future threats and how to respond to them with current equipment.  Maybe against some missile types, the 57mm in some situations is the best missile defence weapon (as in it has the highest PKill) vs the ESSM.

ESM(attack, support and protect aspects) are far more important to missile defence then anyone talks about probably due to its lack of charisma compared to the flashy, easy to see, hard kill systems.  ESM can/does define the hard kill tactics, because if you can ID the missile type from its own emissions you can pull out tactics/doctrine that increases ship defence against that specific missile.

Hard/soft kill work together to get the ideal solution.  Two sides of the same coin.


----------



## NavyShooter

Underway said:
			
		

> ESM(attack, support and protect aspects) are far more important to missile defence then anyone talks about probably due to its lack of charisma compared to the flashy, easy to see, hard kill systems.  ESM can/does define the hard kill tactics, because if you can ID the missile type from its own emissions you can pull out tactics/doctrine that increases ship defence against that specific missile.
> 
> Hard/soft kill work together to get the ideal solution.  Two sides of the same coin.




"ZIPPO  4 BASED ON CERANO"


There is nothing new under the sun...even with the upgraded CMS, automatic reconfiguration of the system based on the threat is still a thing.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> Depends on the missile defending against, and a solution of course needs to include ESM.
> 
> The modern RCN doctrine that has arisen since the implementation of CMS330 and the new expertise/modeling in the Warfare Centre can best be described as "systematic and efficient".  How many rounds/missiles are needed to kill target X.  Is the PKill higher if weapon A fires before or after weapon B.  What does the EW do to help/hinder this? Do we wait later in the engagement to shoot a target to get a higher PKill as opposed to as soon as they are in range? What happens if the MASS launchers fire at X point in time, and with what rounds?  What does that do to our sensors/enemy sensors?  Do we even bother with a hard kill attempt?  What mode/type of sensors do we need or are most effective to find/track/kill threat X?
> 
> The idea is to get as close to the "ideal" solution to as many situations/threats as possible. We can't afford and don't carry enough missiles etc... to just throw numbers at these problems like the US does, we have 16 ESSM onboard, so we need to come up with better answers that work with our platforms.  This also includes looking a future threats and how to respond to them with current equipment.  Maybe against some missile types, the 57mm in some situations is the best missile defence weapon (as in it has the highest PKill) vs the ESSM.
> 
> ESM(attack, support and protect aspects) are far more important to missile defence then anyone talks about probably due to its lack of charisma compared to the flashy, easy to see, hard kill systems.  ESM can/does define the hard kill tactics, because if you can ID the missile type from its own emissions you can pull out tactics/doctrine that increases ship defence against that specific missile.
> 
> Hard/soft kill work together to get the ideal solution.  Two sides of the same coin.



That’s really interesting stuff. I guess as a layman, I just assumed there was a rigid doctrine regarding inbound threat management. I always thought it would be something like: if threat X was detected at point Y (being earliest possibility of intercept) then weapon system with furthest range (ESSM in a CPF) was almost an automatic reaction. Then if/as contact closes you would use progressively closer envelope systems (57mm, then CIWS, then cutlery thrown from bridge wing etc). But from what you’ve written here, it seems that every engagement bears scrutiny and the response has to be fluid. It makes sense being the real world, but I was always under the impression that responses were hard and fast to avoid confusion at a time critical point. My hat is off to whoever has the cool head and grace under pressure to deal with that. 

Thanks for the complete way you responded as well. These threads go a long way to put into context how complex life can be in the RCN.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:
			
		

> I have no experience with RAM, but in my opinion engaging from further out is better as less chance of debris from a destroyed missile hitting your own ship.  A Phalanx kill is almost a guarantee your ship will take some damage, just hopefully not from the explodie/burny bits.  RAM may also allow you to re-engage if you miss with the first shot, something that Phalanx does not do.
> 
> Munitions questions really are complicated.  Depending on the enemy missile type RAM or Phalanx will use more or less of their own munitions to get the kill.  There is probably a reason that modern ships are generally moving away from the Phalanx to the RAM.
> 
> The secondary guns as I mentioned in the post above are probably mainly for surface warfare.  I don't expect that they could/would be able to either track or fire enough ammunition at an incoming missile to do anything of consequence.  Low, slow, small is likely their targets in the air warfare role.



I know it’s unlikely, but I’d prefer the secondary cannon to be the 35mm Oerlilkon Millennium gun. That would be exceptional coverage for many different threats.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That 35mm Oerlilkon Millennium gun would seem to be a good fit across the fleet, the CSC,AOS and MCDV's


----------



## calculus

And interestingly, there was one on display at CANSEC today.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

An article on the UK Sea-Ceptor missile system to be fitted to their Type 26's 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/from-sea-wolf-to-sea-ceptor-the-royal-navys-defensive-shield/?fbclid=IwAR1JYO6Rmq8cQhLdjzIXsFiOmbXtWl7WWBgfk6RmYGyHk7UDch-Lm-J3L7U


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> An article on the UK Sea-Ceptor missile system to be fitted to their Type 26's
> 
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/from-sea-wolf-to-sea-ceptor-the-royal-navys-defensive-shield/?fbclid=IwAR1JYO6Rmq8cQhLdjzIXsFiOmbXtWl7WWBgfk6RmYGyHk7UDch-Lm-J3L7U


Few things that stand out to me:

-salvo of missiles at multiple separate targets, designed to deal with saturation attacks
-Soft Vertical Launch allows for lower turnover arch (epogee) and thus improves the minimum intercept range
-Sea Ceptor international users group with NZ, UK, Chile and Brazil, now possibly Canada (we love the user groups)


----------



## Underway

Video from BAE exhibit at CANSEC 2019.

Takeaways - 32 ships globally creates a powerful user group
-our ships will have AAW capabilities on top of ASW capabilities that come with the original ship design
-no difference in the ships, all purpose frigates, so there is no direct 280 replacement
-apparently the RCN has exacting standards... who knew  rly:


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> apparently the RCN has exacting standards... who knew  rly:


From _Conway’s All the World’s Fighting Ships 1947-1982 Part I: The Western Powers_: 

In the notes for the _St. Laurent_ class destroyer escorts, it says: “The British _Whitby_ design was still on the drawing-board, and as the USN had nothing which met the exacting RCN Staff Requirement it was decided to design a new class of ship in Canada.”

In the notes for the _Iroquois_ class helicopter destroyers, it says: “The design allowed for two big helicopters (CHSS-2) to enhance their ASW capabilities, and they are still among the best equipped escorts in the world.”


----------



## Spencer100

Canadian Press Update

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/canada-will-shell-out-almost-dollar70-billion-for-its-new-warships-pbo-report-says/ar-AADe2i1?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## Stoker

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> Canadian Press Update
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstories/canada-will-shell-out-almost-dollar70-billion-for-its-new-warships-pbo-report-says/ar-AADe2i1?ocid=spartanntp



A longer article and more information.

https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2019/06/21/canadian-surface-combatant-pbo-updated-estimate/?fbclid=IwAR1TCq9xj1w1CR5ATJlpp1cJzONbtdHm4Muq4D3dwuVSTI2G1iqHAeHivQ0


----------



## MarkOttawa

Plus from Murray Brewster, CBC:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/parliamentary-budget-office-pbo-frigate-1.5185124

PBO report here:
https://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2019/Canada-Surface-Combatants-update/CSC_Update_2019_Report_E.pdf

No way current timetable can be met, cost will go up even further.  PBO assumes "Construction begins in FY 2023-2024" (p.8 PDF). But delivery of 6th A/OPS for Navy now set for 2024 (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defenceA/OPS/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html) and two more now have to be made for Coast Guard so...CSCs start maybe 2027? With great luck.

Gov't says ("4. Implementation") for CSC: "First delivery: Mid 2020s" Would 2027 count? https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/canadian-surface-combatant.html

This other gov't webpage recently said: "2026/2027 Initial Delivery" for RCN CSC: http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1710 

PBO on delays (p. 18 PDF), right click below:






Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

Really they have to just dig in and get this done. Enough frigging around.


----------



## JMCanada

Just compare with the USN FFG(X) programme in terms of costs and schedule by using actually existing platforms (let's admit that the type 26 has enhanced capabilities, but ...so much?) : 
"We started closer to the $950 (million); we are trending to very close to the $800 now."
https://news.usni.org/2019/06/20/navy-issues-final-rfp-for-ffgx-next-generation-frigate#more-67364


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Just compare with the USN FFG(X) programme in terms of costs and schedule by using actually existing platforms (let's admit that the type 26 has enhanced capabilities, but ...so much?) :
> "We started closer to the $950 (million); we are trending to very close to the $800 now."
> https://news.usni.org/2019/06/20/navy-issues-final-rfp-for-ffgx-next-generation-frigate#more-67364


That 800 million USD is 1.057 6 billion CAD.  And that 800 million USD probably does not include costs resulting from development, production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management, and upgrades to existing facilities which is included in the cost of the Canadian surface combatants.  And you may want to take cost estimates given by the US Navy with a grain of salt.
https://thediplomat.com/2018/05/us-navys-13-billion-supercarrier-just-got-even-more-expensive/
https://www.gao.gov/products/NSIAD-90-84
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/12/21/government-watchdog-navys-new-missile-sub-cruising-for-cost-overruns/
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/forget-stealth-destroyers-turn-navys-new-warships-pocket-battleships-58577
https://www.businessinsider.com/navy-ship-cost-overrun-2017-3


----------



## MarkOttawa

Exact shipbuilding cost comparisons are not easy given different governments' accounting methods. But our build-in-Canada costs way out of line.

From 2013: 



> Just Announced New Canadian Coast Guard Vessels Overpriced by Factor of Five
> https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/mark-collin-just-announced-new-canadian-coast-guard-vessels-overpriced-by-factor-of-five/



More broadly (with a Euro agenda) from 2019:



> The Hidden Cost of Canada’s Shipbuilding Ambitions: Double the Cost for Twice the Risk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/203273/canada%E2%80%99s-naval-shipbuilding%3A-double-the-cost-for-half-the-performance.html?fbclid=IwAR27DhSConemp0DVfvpy5gpl7FKzfffMjRYaoL6kFNgAr-LHmGCm4-1Z0LE



Sort of "Yikes!", I'd say.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MTShaw

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Exact shipbuilding cost comparisons are not easy given different governments' accounting methods. But our build-in-Canada costs way out of line.
> 
> From 2013:
> 
> More broadly (with a Euro agenda) from 2019:
> 
> Sort of "Yikes!", I'd say.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



So what? Would you rather have that money shipped overseas?  Also, almost  every other country subsidizes it’s shipbuilding. We obviously put the real price  of things up front, not through back door subsides.


----------



## Stoker

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Exact shipbuilding cost comparisons are not easy given different governments' accounting methods. But our build-in-Canada costs way out of line.
> 
> From 2013:
> 
> More broadly (with a Euro agenda) from 2019:
> 
> Sort of "Yikes!", I'd say.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Even Asterix while cheaper compared to the Tide Class is expensive. Perhaps we should of just ordered four of them.


----------



## MTShaw

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Even Asterix while cheaper compared to the Tide Class is expensive. Perhaps we should of just ordered four of them.



My impression is that the Berlin class AORs are more robust than the Asterix class. It depends how important that robustness is.  I agree, we should have bought four Asterix-class for normal navy.  Then Seaspan could have been focused on the Coast Guard.


----------



## Stoker

MTShaw said:
			
		

> My impression is that the Berlin class AORs are more robust than the Asterix class. It depends how important that robustness is.  I agree, we should have bought four Asterix-class for normal navy.  Then Seaspan could have been focused on the Coast Guard.



Oh they are, and its pretty important.


----------



## JMCanada

Uzlu said:
			
		

> That 800 million USD is 1.057 6 billion CAD.  And that 800 million USD probably does not include costs resulting from development, production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management, and upgrades to existing facilities (...)  And you may want to take cost estimates given by the US Navy with a grain of salt.


From the rcinet.ca link above ...
 "The new estimate released Friday pegs the total cost of the CSC program at $69.8 billion over 26 years, including $5.3 billion in pre-production costs; $53.2 billion in production costs; and $11.4 billion in project-wide costs, said the PBO report."
That throws about 3.5 billion CAD per ship (53.2 /15) just in production costs.
I agree, of course, on the difficulty to get equivalent figures to compare. It was not my intention to compare tit-for-tat, nor compare USD to CAD, nor a 5.000 ton frigate (ffg(x) ) vs  CSC's 8.000 tons. But a gross comparison does not put CSC on a nice place. 

I also agree that some US programmes have been inefficient and seems obvious that reached excessive overcosts. Fortunately for the US taxpayer this new program seems to be on track an delivering on expectations as they are starting from an existing vessel.


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Fortunately for the US taxpayer this new program seems to be on track an delivering on expectations as they are starting from an existing vessel.


You may not want to count your chickens before they are hatched.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/28611/congresss-meddling-could-begin-to-sink-the-navys-frigate-program



			
				JMCanada said:
			
		

> That throws about 3.5 billion CAD per ship (53.2 /15) just in production costs.


Twenty frigates instead of fifteen surface combatants results in more savings per ship for those twenty frigates.  The more ships of one design that are built, the greater the savings.  The longer the program is extended, the higher the cost—another reason why the price for the frigates is going to be lower.  Because the rate of warship inflation is higher than the rate of inflation.  A bigger hull means more opportunity to pack that hull with more sensors, more weapons, more computers, and more additional equipment—again driving up cost.





> How much will Canada's new frigates really cost? The navy is about to find out
> 
> *'Requirements reconciliation' isn't exciting - but it could decide whether the navy gets the ship it wants*
> 
> By the standards of most people, what's going on this week and over the next few months in the back rooms of the navy, and at Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, is pretty boring.
> 
> Civilian bureaucrats and military planners call it "requirements reconciliation." And even hardened military observers and procurement geeks will have a tough time getting excited about this laborious line-by-line review of Lockheed Martin Canada/BAE Systems' bid to design the navy's new frigates.
> 
> What is important — the reason why taxpayers should be paying attention — is the fact that with the stroke of a pen, hundreds of millions of dollars could be added to, or subtracted from, the cost of Canada's next generation of 15 warships.
> 
> It's something we were all reminded of with Friday's release of the latest Parliamentary Budget Office report, which projects that the cost of the program over 26 years likely will top $69.8 billion. That's $8 billion more than the watchdog's last estimate in 2017.
> 
> The reconciliation phase is, from the navy's point of view, the crucial period when a designer's promises of performance and capability are (or are not) turned into engineering reality.
> 
> *A last chance for Ottawa to pinch some pennies*
> 
> It's also the time when sticker-shocked governments seek to put curbs on the amount of pricey equipment that gets bolted to the hulls.
> 
> Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux said that if he "were a betting man," he would expect costs to go up as a result of the work being carried out now.
> 
> But there's precedent for trade-offs that could reduce the cost, or limit price spikes — through buying different equipment or materials, for example, or even through purchasing fewer ships.
> 
> The decisions made in the coming weeks will affect at least one generation of sailors (possibly two) that will crew these warships.
> 
> "We have a fairly good understanding of the areas we are looking at," said Pat Finn, a retired rear admiral who heads the Department of National Defence's procurement section.
> 
> The vessel the Liberal government has selected as Canada's next frigate will be based on the British Type 26 design, a warship that has yet to enter service (steel on the first ship was only cut in July, 2018).
> 
> Finn said that in some cases, the Department of National Defence is "re-looking at some of the requirements" the navy set for its warship.
> 
> That's significant news on several different levels.
> 
> One of the companies that lost the design competition — Alion Science and Technology Corp., along with its subsidiary Alion Canada — is suing in Federal Court, claiming that, among other things, the Lockheed Martin Canada design does not meet the navy's requirements.
> 
> One of the arguments underlying their complaint is that the Type 26 will not be able to meet the fleet speed requirements set out in the tender.
> 
> Defence expert Dave Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, said he doubts the decisions being made over the next few weeks will put the federal government in any legal jeopardy.
> 
> *Will the navy get what it wants?*
> 
> But Finn's remarks do raise the question of whether the navy — and, by extension, the country — will get the warship it needs.
> 
> In addition to the U.K. and Canada, Australia also is in line to buy and build the untested warship.
> 
> The line-by-line review will, among other things, look for common requirements and design points among the three nations, said Finn.
> 
> "It could trigger some changes, and in some cases it could trigger some changes that align more with what the U.K. and Australia (are) already doing, which means it reduces some complexity because it eliminates the need to make some changes to what we call the parent design," he said. "And we're being very careful on schedule and, quite frankly, cost."
> 
> The pressure to not make too many changes at this stage of the procurement process is enormous from a business perspective, because Irving Shipbuilding already is facing a production gap between the new frigates and the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ships, which continue to be churned out in Halifax.
> 
> The more frigate design changes there are, the more likely a gap in production becomes — along with layoffs among shipyard workers as a consequence. (The federal government recently announced it will build a sixth patrol ship for the navy and two additional vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard to mitigate that shortfall. How that affects the proposed gap is uncertain.)
> 
> The last time the navy went through this kind of reconciliation exercise for a warship design was for the construction of the Arctic patrol ships.
> 
> *'Penny-wise, pound foolish'*
> 
> Critics have argued that, because of cost restrictions, the capability of those patrol ships was watered down to the point where some defence analysts have questioned their usefulness.
> 
> Perry said he doesn't think that kind of dynamic is at play with the frigate program, but the temptation to be "penny-wise and pound foolish" is out there.
> 
> "We're trying to make smart decisions for long-term, recognizing the costs are enormous, no matter how you slice it," he said. "I think we're in the appropriate space to not save every nickel we could, whereas that has definitely happened in the past."
> 
> Asked directly whether the navy will get the warship it wants, Finn was categorical in his answer: "We will ensure the navy gets the ship that it needs and the navy is at table with us. The changes and the work we do is signed-off by them."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-type26-navy-requirements-reconciliation-procurement-1.5185554


----------



## MarkOttawa

JMCanada:  



> not my intention to compare tit-for-tat, nor compare USD to CAD, nor a 5.000 ton frigate (ffg(x) ) vs  CSC's 8.000 tons



Type 26 CSC 6,900t:
https://www.naval-technology.com/news/canadian-surface-combatants-design/

Fincantieri FREMM competing for FFG(X) 6,500t:
https://www.fincantieri.com/globalassets/prodotti-servizi/navi-militari/m-02-16_fremm_bergamini_f.pdf
https://www.navalnews.com/event-news/sas-2019/2019/05/video-fincantieri-unveils-fremm-ffgx-design/





Navantia F-100 for FFG(X) 5,800t:
https://news.usni.org/2019/01/22/40524





Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Fair point , Mark. It's not really the size difference that explains the price point difference.

However, if you read the USNI article, you will notice that there is an impressive list of equipment for those frigates that are provided by the US Navy - basically at it's own expense - so they are not part of the construction cost for the frigate - only part of the cost of installation. And these items include most of the combat systems, a large part of the weapons system (including the VLS launchers), most of the expensive sensors and a fair deal of the communication equipment. It's pretty normal as a difference since in Canada, we tend to buy the whole kit and caboodle every time we introduce a new type - as it is usually single class replacement as a whole for the next generation, while the US has multiple classes of ships simultaneously using the same standardised equipment. Their budgeting system - through NAVSEA - of equipment piece by piece purchased separately for the whole fleet then just installed in every class makes perfect sense. The whole makes for very difficult comparison of final price between the USN and the RCN, however.  

Add those in and I don't think that they will be far from the Canadian price, especially after you add 30% on top of the US price to account for relative monetary values of the two currencies.


----------



## JMCanada

Actually, both the Fremm and the F-100 offered for the FFG(x) are reduced versions. On the other hand, another bidder as the Independence class is about 3.100 tons. A weighted average, gross-made in my mind (without calculator) drops some 5.000 tons. Being accurate was not my point. 

Hunter class (or type 26-A for Australian) will be 8.800 tons full load (yet she gets 27+ knots "only").
https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/hunter-class-frigates/

Edited: this is not a fight on figures. At the end of the day my opinion is that while FFG(x) may have (grossly speaking) some 70-80% capability of the CSC, it seems to be about 1/3rd of the cost, in the same currency. There are some explanatory factors as inflation, the production drumbeat, and specially we lack the full info on which costs are or are not considered. But, even if combat systems are about 50% of the final cost of the ship and they are provided by the USN to the vessels (not fully sure) , still i think the FFG(x) compares favourably to the CSC regarding the value for money.

IMHO.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oldgateboatdriver:



> you will notice that there is an impressive list of equipment for those frigates that are provided by the US Navy - basically at it's own expense



Made that point myself at FFG(X) thread  :



> note AEGIS, VLS, also "government-furnished equipment" which I believe is not included in the production cost estimates in the piece
> https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/128231/post-1536991.html#msg1536991



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> But our build-in-Canada costs way out of line.


Overpriced by a factor of five?  Are you sure the Canadian shipbuilding industry is that bad?





> PBO also estimated the cost saving of having the CSC built at the foreign shipyard that built the original ship design rather than in Canada. It was estimated that Canada would save $10.22 billion FY2017 of the total $39.94 billion FY2017 program budget, or 25 per cent.


Source: Please see PDF page 8: https://pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf


----------



## MarkOttawa

Another aspect of our shipbuilding problem is that, because neither Irving nor Seaspan had yards capable of making the ships assigned to them in October 2011 ( https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/phases-eng.html#phase2 ), now almost eight years later none of those assigned vessels is yet in service.  The yards had to be completely redone, adding much time, and time is money what with shipbuilding inflation.

Consider what would have been saved, and how many RCN/CCG vessels of various sorts, might be operational today if we had just contracted abroad.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Another aspect of our shipbuilding problem is that, because neither Irving nor Seaspan had yards capable of making the ships assigned to them in October 2011 ( https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/mer-sea/sncn-nss/phases-eng.html#phase2 ), now almost eight years later none of those assigned vessels is yet in service.  The yards had to be completely redone, adding much time, and time is money what with shipbuilding inflation.
> 
> Consider what would have been saved, and how many RCN/CCG vessels of various sorts, might be operational today if we had just contracted abroad.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



But then we wouldn't have Canadian shipyards capable of building our ships efficiently.  That's why it's a Strategy, as having capable shipyards was a strategic goal for Canada. It ties back into the Jenkins paper years ago with the 'Key Industrial Capabilities' so all of these programs are running into what is a 25 year plan to have capable shipyards here at home. These up front costs are investments to build that capability, and it's a long term plan to try and avoid the boom/bust that came after every other ship, which has cost us billions to date.

Canada (like most countries) has had a policy to build our own ships in country since the 60s (with some allowance for exceptions if it makes sense). Aside from the thousands of shipyard employees, this feeds into a huge supply chain, so every dollar spent in Canada has direct economic benefits across the country.  If you build it outside of Canada, you get no economic benefits.  Labour is a huge part of the cost, so it's a lot of money being pumped into the economy.

I agree we would probably have had the ships quicker and for less money expended, but there would be zero jobs created, and that assumes that they dropped all the 'Industrial Regional Benefits' and other requirements from the contract.  Both of those are political nightmares, and probably would have stalled CSC approval for at least as long as the lag to get NSS awarded and the yards to renovate.

Assuming we can not crap the bed, the long term cost savings for the future class of ships being (after JSS, CSC etc) built in Canada in the 30+year horizon should be pretty good as well.  These are all pretty nebulous, but should be considered as part of the overall context when talking about the CSC costs, and how the whole NSS program is partly a loss leader to develop a strategic capability that we don't have, so we can dictate our own ships get built if we need to.  That's something that we can't do in a foreign yard, and may be pretty important as global warming starts to have a major impact on the geopolitics in the future.


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Consider what would have been saved, and how many RCN/CCG vessels of various sorts, might be operational today if we had just contracted abroad.


There are pros and cons to building overseas or building in Canada.  It appears that the Conservatives and the Liberals have both decided that it is best to build in Canada.  Building surface combatants for Canada overseas is _not_ an option.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I would like to highlight how remarkable it is that at least part of our defenc policy (shipbuilding) is bi-partisan.


----------



## Good2Golf

That sometimes happens when G*D*P is in play (and not Gross Foreign Production...) :nod:


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:
			
		

> At the end of the day my opinion is that while FFG(x) may have (grossly speaking) some 70-80% capability of the CSC, it seems to be about 1/3rd of the cost, in the same currency.


It looks like Oldgateboatdriver and MarkOttawa are correct.





> At an expected purchase price of perhaps $800 million per hull (exclusive of equipment costs)


  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/5-things-investors-know-u-161000798.html

So if the FFG(X) ends up with, say, 70% of the capability of the Canadian Surface Combatant, the FFG(X) might very well end up costing about 70% of the price of the Canadian Surface Combatant.


----------



## Navy_Pete

So it's 70% of the cost of CSC with no weapons systems or other critical equipment included?  Normally that's a pretty significant chunk of the total costs, and our budgets also include infrastructure, spares, training, and a lot of other things aside from just the hull and equipment.


----------



## Uzlu

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> So it's 70% of the cost of CSC with no weapons systems or other critical equipment included?  Normally that's a pretty significant chunk of the total costs, and our budgets also include infrastructure, spares, training, and a lot of other things aside from just the hull and equipment.


No.   What I was trying to say was that it is very difficult to look at two costs and perhaps suggest that Canadian taxpayers are being ripped off.  I think that the FFG(X) is, when all the costs are included, going to end up costing a lot more than 800 million USD.  The purpose of FFG(X) is to buy warships that are a lot less expensive than destroyers.  

So buying a very heavy frigate like the Type 26 would go against what the FFG(X) is trying to achieve.  Perhaps 70% of the capability of the Canadian Surface Combatant at perhaps around 70% of the cost of the Canadian Surface Combatant is probably what the Americans are more interested in.  And that will include the price of sensors, weapons, the combat systems, computers, electronics, etc.


----------



## MarkOttawa

More on size of Fincantieri FREMM frigate bid for FFG(X):



> Fincantieri’s FREMM frigate design bulks up for the US FFG(X) competition
> 
> To meet the U.S. Navy’s famously high survivability standards, the FREMM frigate design has had to hit the gym and pack on hundreds of thousands of pounds of muscle in pursuit of wining the Navy’s FFG(X) competition.
> 
> U.S. Navy ships are built like linebackers: able to take hit upon hit and stay in the game. But that comes at the cost of extra steel. And in the case of Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri’s FREMM, it meant adding hundreds of tons of steel, said retired Adm. Rick Hunt, a former head of Naval Surface Force Pacific who now works for the Italian company.
> 
> “We did, like all the competitors, monthly technical exchange meetings with the government to make sure we were as compliant as possible going into detailed design and construction,” he said. “One of the things that the Navy wasn’t going to budge on, and we agreed, was the toughness of the ship. _So we added about 300 tons of steel on the design for the FREMM_ [emphasis added].”..
> 
> 
> 
> What hasn’t been compromised has been the modularity of the ship that creates routes for major equipment to be brought in and out of the hull so that replacing, for example, major engine or computer components doesn’t require cutting a hole in the ship, Hunt said.
> 
> The berthing compartments are also the same: four- to six-person staterooms with private showers for each room.
> 
> “The most you’ll see in normal steaming is four, it’s officer quality," Hunt said. "And that was a fight: That was a back-and-forth with big Navy and again an area that we came to an agreement on, and we’re holding do that.”
> 
> Overall, the design they are working on is perhaps less roomy than its European counterpart, but it does maintain a lot of extra space and capacity for upgrades to the power and propulsion system in future FFG(X) blocks or with retrofit upgrades, Hunt said.
> 
> For example, FREMM has the additional capacity to support an air warfare commander role, Hunt said, and could, with extra electrical power, support a larger 37-radar module assembly phased array instead of the nine-RMA array that’s in the FFG(X) requirements...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Italian FREMM Alpino moored pierside in Baltimore. (David B. Larter/Staff)_
> 
> https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2019/07/05/fincantieris-fremm-frigate-design-bulks-up-for-the-us-ffgx-competition/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is that a Canadian LPD also alongside the jetty?

[dock with kayaks]


----------



## tomahawk6

HMS Defender


----------



## Good2Golf

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> HMS Defender



Isn’t an RN DDG about twice as big (9000tons) as what the USN wants for FF(X)?


----------



## MarkOttawa

RN, RAN and RCN Type 26 frigates and USN:


> BAE Systems Quashes Hopes of Type 26 Entry in FFG(X) Contest
> 
> BAE Systems has told USNI News that it would be “delighted” to enter its Type 26 Global Combat Ship in the FFG(X) future frigate competition – if the Navy scraps the requirement for a proven hull design.
> 
> The U.K. shipbuilder has taken a close interest in the small surface combatant program, prompting speculation that the United States might join Britain, Australia and Canada in acquiring versions of the Type 26 platform.
> 
> On Thursday, however, as the Navy released a final FFG(X) request for proposals, the company confirmed that it will not be submitting blueprints for the 492-foot, 8,000 -ton Type 26 unless the contest is opened up to designs that have not yet been proven at sea. Such a U-turn is not expected.
> 
> “Following a detailed assessment of the US Navy’s requirements for its FFG(X) frigate, program we chose not to participate and will continue to focus on delivering on our commitments to the U.K., Australian and Canadian navies,” a BAE Systems spokesperson said.
> “We would be delighted to re-engage with the U.S. Navy should its requirements change.”
> 
> The Royal Navy is slated to receive eight City-class Type 26s optimized for anti-submarine warfare, with BAE Systems securing an order worth $4.7 billion (U.S. dollars) for the first three ships in July 2017.
> 
> Lead ship HMS Glasgow is now under construction in Scotland. Float-out is expected in late 2021, followed by fitting out, acceptance by the Royal Navy in 2025 and entry into operational service in 2027, according to information provided to Parliament.
> 
> Such a leisurely schedule – which has been dictated by funding constraints within the UK Ministry of Defence – means the ship has no chance of demonstrating its capabilities within the timeframe required by the U.S. Navy, which plans to select the FFG(X) detail design in Fiscal Year 2020.
> 
> Australia is buying up to nine modified Type 26s frigates, to be known as the Hunter class, and in February the Canadian government announced that it would acquire 15 Type 26s, with Lockheed Martin as prime contractor, in a through-life program worth about $45 billion.
> 
> Ottawa’s decision was engulfed in controversy when one of the losing bidders complained that the Type 26 failed to meet speed and other requirements imposed by the Royal Canadian Navy. Notably, critics accused procurement officials of reversing an earlier commitment to only consider proven vessel designs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Hunter-class version of BAE Type 26 frigate. BAE artist rendering_
> https://news.usni.org/2019/06/21/bae-systems-quashes-hopes-of-type-26-entry-in-ffgx-contest



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## tomahawk6

I like this type 23 frigate of the RN. Might it fit the role the CF is looking to fill ? 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48956547


----------



## Spencer100

The type 23 are very similar to our Halifax class and about the same age.  About the same size.  More missile tubes on the T23.  I will let others with more knowledge say which is better.  

I think I remember back in the day the T23 was thought as an option vs the halifax.  I also think some used it as cost comparison vs building at home.  

Always they are being replaced with the T26 just like ours.


----------



## Spencer100

And lastly are not the Chilean T23 get the Lockheed Canada combat system in refit? Similar to the RNZN Anzc's


----------



## Uzlu

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> And lastly are not the Chilean T23 get the Lockheed Canada combat system in refit?


Yes.


----------



## Edward Campbell

_*The Financial Times*_ reports that "UK defence group BAE Systems is hopeful it can seal a deal with New Zealand for its advanced warships in a contract that could be worth hundreds of millions of pounds." The deal, if it happens, would be for two or three ships and would make the Type 26 the baseline for Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand.


----------



## FSTO

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _*The Financial Times*_ reports that "UK defence group BAE Systems is hopeful it can seal a deal with New Zealand for its advanced warships in a contract that could be worth hundreds of millions of pounds." The deal, if it happens, would be for two or three ships and would make the Type 26 the baseline for Australia, Britain, Canada and New Zealand.



UK getting the band back together?

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Imperial_Defence ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:
			
		

> UK getting the band back together?
> 
> https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Imperial_Defence ;D




Or is it a really good design?

I doubt that our government nor the Oz and Kiwi governments are enamoured with the notion of reforming the British Empire. That leaves open the possibility that BAE have developed a good ship and our procurement experts and their antipodean counterparts can see that.


----------



## Spencer100

If I was the RNZN I would tell BAE ok you have the design contract. Then RFQ the build to the three countries and the combat systems.  Can you see the competition between the countries.  All three are trying to build a shipbuilding industry.  If I was Irving and Lockheed Canada. I would be all over it   

NZ could get a very good deal on the build as I can see each country giving subsidies and spiffs.  

Plus if I was Irving I would throw in an AOPS too as NZ is looking for one too


----------



## Czech_pivo

FSTO said:
			
		

> UK getting the band back together?
> 
> https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Imperial_Defence ;D



I'd welcome it in a heart beat.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> UK getting the band back together?
> 
> https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Imperial_Defence ;D



The UK is a dumpster fire that I wouldn't trust to lead a pub crawl right now.  Once in a while one of their talking head populists goes on about how the colonies will come running to their aid after Brexit and I just laugh.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The UK is a dumpster fire that I wouldn't trust to lead a pub crawl right now.  Once in a while one of their talking head populists goes on about how the colonies will come running to their aid after Brexit and I just laugh.



Are you talking about Canada or the UK - cause from where I sit, I really don't see any difference at all.  Depending what they do shortly after the new leadership decision and what we do come October, we may remain lock step with them for the foreseeable future.


----------



## RDBZ

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Or is it a really good design?
> 
> I doubt that our government nor the Oz and Kiwi governments are enamoured with the notion of reforming the British Empire. That leaves open the possibility that BAE have developed a good ship and our procurement experts and their antipodean counterparts can see that.



BAE is essentially North American these days, even if nominally headquartered in the UK.  Had the type 26 not been engineered for the US Mark 45 Mod 4 and Mark 41, and designed for easy integration of the USN Aegis combat system and CAE radars, it may not have been successful in the RAN evaluation.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Think Type-26/City/Hunter-class will be too expensive for NZ,not to want to shatter these dreams,but fear that's the reality.


----------



## Good2Golf

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Think Type-26/City/Hunter-class will be too expensive for NZ,not to want to shatter these dreams,but fear that's the reality.



People said that about the P-8 Poseidon, too.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> People said that about the P-8 Poseidon, too.



I've been reading some reports that the present NZ Government has been accused of shirking their responsibilities under the Five Power Agreement.  They may have their hand nudged.


----------



## Good2Golf

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I've been reading some reports that the present NZ Government has been accused of shirking their respondibilities under the Five Power Agreement.  They may have their hand nudged.



:nod:

...but before we get too smug, we’re next to get called out...


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> ...but before we get too smug, we’re next to get called out...



Most definitely  8)


----------



## RDBZ

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I've been reading some reports that the present NZ Government has been accused of shirking their responsibilities under the Five Power Agreement.  They may have their hand nudged.




They’ve been edging closer to resuming membership of ANZUS for a while now, so it’s not entirely surprising. Add in being able to leverage off the ADFs support infrastructure and the numbers probably add up the right way, compared to maintaining an increasingly costly and unreliable orphan fleet.  

Some of their P-3 were built in the 1960s.


----------



## Karel Doorman

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> Most definitely  8)



Well to be fair,we have been called out by NATO(Dutch spending,or lack of  :Tin-Foil-Hat

But things are starting to change ,budget is going up year by year(but still not enough,my thoughts)


----------



## Uzlu

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> If I was the RNZN I would tell BAE ok you have the design contract. Then RFQ the build to the three countries and the combat systems.  Can you see the competition between the countries.  All three are trying to build a shipbuilding industry.  If I was Irving and Lockheed Canada. I would be all over it
> 
> NZ could get a very good deal on the build as I can see each country giving subsidies and spiffs.





> BAE Systems looks to position Hunter-class frigate for New Zealand
> 
> BAE Systems Australia has confirmed a potential move to position the company's Hunter-class frigate design for the Royal New Zealand Navy (RNZN).
> 
> A spokesperson for BAE Systems Australia told _Jane's_ on 12 July that given its commitment to deliver the Hunter-class platform to the Royal Australian Navy (RAN) under its Sea 5000 project, it would be "logical" for the Australian government to also pursue international sales of the vessel.
> 
> When asked by _Jane's_ to confirm that the company will look to export the Hunter-class frigate to New Zealand, the spokesperson said, "It is critical to understand that the programme to design and build nine world-leading Hunter-class frigates [for the RAN] will also see BAE Systems transfer technology and skills to Australia to enable the development of an enduring world-class naval shipbuilding industry for the nation.
> 
> "It would be a logical conclusion for the Australian government and its close allies to consider the potential export opportunities."
> 
> The spokesperson's comments followed a news report by the Financial Times newspaper on 11 July, which quoted Steve Timms, BAE managing director for naval ships, as saying "New Zealand is clearly interested" in the company's 6,900-tonne Type 26 frigate, on which the Hunter-class design in based.
> 
> According to the report, Timms said a deal with New Zealand could involve "two or three" vessels but declined to elaborate.
> 
> BAE Systems Australia signed a AUD35 billion (USD25 billion) contract in June 2018 with the Australian government to locally build nine Hunter-class frigates to replace the RAN's Anzac-class frigates, which have been in service since 1996 and were built by Australian shipbuilder Tenix Defence. Tenix Defence was acquired by BAE Systems in 2008.


https://www.janes.com/article/89861/bae-systems-looks-to-position-hunter-class-frigate-for-new-zealand


----------



## Spencer100

I still think NZ could get a very good deal if they had the three countries bid for the build.  (but what do I know?)  NZ can tell BAE you got the job but we need a competitive bid for the build.  With three active yards it could get interesting.  I can't think of another program where that could be done.   Of course I don't know the details of the Irving contract if they could even bid.  But in many ways it could be a "no lose" for BAE. And keep the NZ taxpayer happy....See THREE bids!

And the bonus is for everyone....look we were right to pick the T26 even NZ choose it...


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Some big news coming down today - it will be interesting to see what it is?



> Ministers making announcements at Davie, Seaspan shipyards today
> 
> By The Canadian Press — Jul 16 2019
> 
> OTTAWA — The federal government is promising major announcements today at shipyards in Quebec and Victoria.
> 
> Cabinet minister Jean-Yves Duclos is to be at Davie Shipyard outside Quebec City and Carla Qualtrough is to be at Seaspan on the west coast.
> 
> The government says the announcements are about the Halifax-class frigates, a dozen ships considered the backbone of the Royal Canadian Navy.
> 
> The ships are 27 years old and have recently undergone major refits.
> 
> The government has promised $7 billion worth of long-term maintenance contracts to three shipyards, including one owned by Irving on the east coast.
> 
> It hasn't yet said how the work will be divided up, though, and the ministers' announcements may lay out schedules and spending plans.
> 
> The Canadian Press



Link


----------



## NavyShooter

My guess:  ISI is being contracted to dust off the Halifax Class hull plans and build 3 new Halifax class hulls to 'bridge the gap' between the AOPS and CSC, and Davie is being contracted to shift all of the equipment off the 3 oldest/worst condition hulls into the new ones to stretch their life out a few more years.


----------



## Spencer100

That is just maintenance.  No "new" ships just like the LAV 3 to 6.0


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's almost worth build 2 extra hulls of the type 26 class and not fit them with weapons and electronics and keep them in mothball status. Then when the first ships come in to modernize, they are laid up and the spare hull is activated with the updated equipment. Then those hulls can be repaired and upgraded at leisure and prepped for the next round.


----------



## Spencer100

More

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-awarding-military-contract-to-davie-shipyard-weeks-before/


----------



## Navy_Pete

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Some big news coming down today - it will be interesting to see what it is?
> 
> Link



They may have changed the text that you quoted, but quite different.  Pasted the bit below, but there isn't a promise of $7B of refit work to the shipyards.

As an aside, this is duplicated with the same article in the NSS thread; suggest that be discussed there as it's independent of the CSC work and the refit arms of the shipyards are separate from the build ships division.  Some of the workers go back and forth, but for the most part you want to keep them in the same type of work or you get efficiency drop offs from them being rusty.  Totally different building modules and doing original outfit then to do repairs of in situ equipment/structure, even if it's the same trades.



> OTTAWA — The federal government is awarding $1 billion in warship maintenance work to two Canadian shipyards, with a third deal on the way.
> 
> The five-year contracts announced Tuesday award $500 million in work to Chantier Davie shipyard in Quebec and Seaspan Victoria Shipyards in British Columbia.
> 
> A similar deal with Irving Shipyards in Nova Scotia is on the way, the government says.
> 
> The contracts are part of a $7.5-billion plan to maintain Canada's 12 Halifax-class frigates for the rest of their operational lives, which are expected to last about another 20 years.
> 
> The ships are 27 years old and will eventually be replaced by new warships built under the national shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> Cabinet ministers Jean-Yves Duclos and Carla Qualtrough in Victoria revealed the details of the contracts in two simultaneous announcements Tuesday.
> 
> The Canadian Press
> Share


----------



## Underway

Good article giving a bit of insight into some of the changes that are coming with the Type 26.

http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/en/news-operations/news-view.page?doc=hmcs-st-john-s-crew-peers-into-future-design-of-canadian-surface-combatant/jydwqps0

Most interesting is the double main passageway arrangement encircling the mess decks with cableways, plumbing etc... along the hull.  Lots of advantages with that arrangement for both DC and maintenance functions.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So does having two passage ways and the cabling on the outside a good thing in the mind of damage control?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Have seen a few modern ships with that kind of routing, but you still have plenty of overhead runs as it goes to various equipment. Even on legacy/current ships, there is plenty of cabling adjacent/near the hull; your survivability comes from redundancy and distribution.

The false panels are really good for preventing spread of smoke and fire for electrical fires though, and gives folks better visibility/more time to evacuate, and does a good job at starving the fire of oxygen to slow growth. Takes more time to do major repairs, but cable work is always a dogs breakfast anyway.  If nothing else, should keep all the cable tags from getting painted over everytime a compartment gets a touch up, so the older electricians will probably appreciate that, and get to tell stories about how they spent days scraping off paint (or doing really long range continuity tests) to fix a simple light circuit.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> So does having two passage ways and the cabling on the outside a good thing in the mind of damage control?



There are a couple of pros for this kind of design that I can think of right away:

Two main passages add redundancy for DC problems.  If the ship were to take a missile on the port side and cause a fire there, one could conceivably box it in on five sides (fwd, aft, above, below, stbd) instead of four (fwd, aft, above, below).  This would  stop the ship from being cut in half with crew still being able to move the full length of the ship on the same deck without having to go through a primary fire zone, or having to go up and down decks to do it (assuming the damage is isolated to a single deck).  It also gives one more options for attacking a fire if you can come at it from port or stbd as well.  Casualty clearers will also have more options as with a single main passage they could be cut off from casualties.

Cabling and plumbing behind false bulkheads along the outer hull is really good for maintenance.  This means that lots of the cabling will not necessarily be over ones head all the time.  Running a new cable will be much easier and faster as access is in front of you at shoulder height vs above you requiring a ladder half the time.  It also means less spaces need to be unlocked/supervised to get access to the cabling etc...  This also means the if work is being done along one passage one can still get around easily.  It sounds petty but making a section of the main passage out of bound for work is really irritating and often inhibits other work that needs to get done (say moving equipment around).  Leads to schedule conflicts between shops at FMF and work doesn't get done effectively as it could be.  A second main passage will reduce these issues.

Redundancy comes from having two fire mains down the passages so a break in one isn't as much of a problem.  Cabling and distribution for many of the important combat systems and DC control systems are already twinned port and stbd on a CPF already so this would be nothing new.

Finally from a pure ship resilience perspective of something hitting the side of the ship will first go into cables, plumbing and a passage before hitting crew/work spaces.  This increases the chances that the crew/work spaces will survive a hit or damage to them will be reduced.  Missile parts from a CIWS kill, collisions, USS Cole type damage, smaller missile/gun attacks from FAC/FIAC.  One of the best explosive defences is space and air gaps.  A missile/round may penetrate but if it explodes in a passageway that much better then in a workspace.  Its also easier to do put out a fire in a passage then in a mess/workspace as well.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personnaly, I like the "wrap-around" bridge wing set-up.

Again, it's not a biggie, but it makes life a little easier for bridge crew. The Captain or OOW, should they want to switch wing to check on something can do it quickly - but more importantly - without having to navigate through the whol bridge while avoiding equipment or personnel trying to do thier job. It's less of a hassle for everyone.

Also, it makes cleaning the bridge windows of salty gunk easy - no one has to climb awkwardly unto little rails to do it, with all the attendant safety precautions. One can just go out with the spray and rags and do it anytime. As a result, you think less often about "when" you can do it and the windows can get cleaned quickly multiple times a day. Again, it doesn't sound like much, but if that ship piles up numerous little "wins" like that in everytnig, it makes life at sea a lot easier and enjoyable. In that line, I also like the "Largest-Messdeck-is Nine-Person" concept: about bloody time some comfort for the lowest rates is taken into consideration.

Finally, a word about the two passageway: one point that went unmentionned as it relates to DC is that it gives you easy and direct access to the hull, so unlike when it was in the mess decks, offices or working spaces, if you have to plug a whole in the hull, you don't have to first rip apart bunks, lockers, desks, shelving or whatever else would have been next to the hull, to be able to work.


----------



## Cloud Cover

UK options to replace the Harpoon on the Type 23 - https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/more-details-emerge-about-plan-to-replace-royal-navy-harpoon-anti-ship-missile/

Applicable to RCN esp. CSC. Note there are only two canister options available to the RN, as the LRASM is currently only a VLS missile. It appears also that the Lockheed product is the most expensive, it would cost 32M just to silo 8!!


----------



## Cloud Cover

Save the Royal Navy once again has a good article on the Type 26, this time on engines and propulsion systems. I know we have some engineers and acoustics experts on the site, I’m sure they can read between the lines of some of the boastful claims.
It is stated in the article that the RN, RCN and RAN will have different armaments and other modifications, but the propulsion systems will not deviate between these 3 fleets. This means that when complete there will be a global supply of engine and propulsion parts for (currently) 32 ships, a very rare occurrence in numbers for non-USN ship classes. 

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/powering-the-stealthy-submarine-hunter-type-26-frigate-propulsion-system-in-focus/ 

Note also the £1Billion construction cost per hull of the UK Type 26.


----------



## MilEME09

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Save the Royal Navy once again has a good article on the Type 26, this time on engines and propulsion systems. I know we have some engineers and acoustics experts on the site, I’m sure they can read between the lines of some of the boastful claims.
> It is stated in the article that the RN, RCN and RAN will have different armaments and other modifications, but the propulsion systems will not deviate between these 3 fleets. This means that when complete there will be a global supply of engine and propulsion parts for (currently) 32 ships, a very rare occurrence in numbers for non-USN ship classes.
> 
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/powering-the-stealthy-submarine-hunter-type-26-frigate-propulsion-system-in-focus/
> 
> Note also the £1Billion construction cost per hull of the UK Type 26.



The nice thing about that too is if need be our ships could be put in for repairs in the UK or Australia while on deployment if need be for certain common parts.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.janes.com/article/89861/bae-systems-looks-to-position-hunter-class-frigate-for-new-zealand



The RNZN has removed all references and notes in the “Future Ships” content from their website concerning replacements for their frigates. There is no real public commentary explaining this, except that the defence plan of 2010 called for modernization of the two existing frigates and nothing more than that. 

New Zealand does have a need for a strong maritime coastal patrol force. Whether that need includes a heavily armed combat ship is debatable. Having capabilities like that brings headaches such as whether to contribute to a coalition effort as a war fighting participant, something for which their current government has an apparent aversion both in principle and in fiscal expenditure.


----------



## Spencer100

I have thought the RNZN should pick the T-26 and have the three countries and the three yards and the three combat systems compete for the job.  I bet New Zealand would get the best deal of the three.


----------



## JMCanada

Surprisingly it is not stated anywhere the power (MW) of the electric motors.
This is a key parameter for the cruising speed. In a drawing we can see all 4 diesel generators with EM "running" and claiming 20 knots, but the speed will depend on the power of the EMs. Moreover, all 4 DGs running together should be exceptional, since usually one of them should be kept as reserve. Therefore available power for electric propulsion would be less than 3x 3MW, 7 to 8 MW, the difference being used for all other loads in the ship. All this to say that max. cruising speed (with 3 DGs) will probably be 16-17 knots instead, and depending on the ladden of the ship (by the way, aussies mention 8000 tons, beyond 6900).

Mounting fixed propelleres instead of variable-pitch ones seems to me stingy for the cost of the vessel. I trust there is a reasonable sake behind it (maintenance costs?).

This said, the article is very illustrative, and draws many data.


----------



## Spencer100

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/elections/matt-gurney-remember-when-the-liberals-said-the-navy-was-a-priority-did-they-mean-the-canoe/ar-AAI7jZA?ocid=spartanntp


Politics and Ship building


----------



## Underway

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Surprisingly it is not stated anywhere the power (MW) of the electric motors.
> This is a key parameter for the cruising speed. In a drawing we can see all 4 diesel generators with EM "running" and claiming 20 knots, but the speed will depend on the power of the EMs. Moreover, all 4 DGs running together should be exceptional, since usually one of them should be kept as reserve. Therefore available power for electric propulsion would be less than 3x 3MW, 7 to 8 MW, the difference being used for all other loads in the ship. All this to say that max. cruising speed (with 3 DGs) will probably be 16-17 knots instead, and depending on the ladden of the ship (by the way, aussies mention 8000 tons, beyond 6900).
> 
> Mounting fixed propelleres instead of variable-pitch ones seems to me stingy for the cost of the vessel. I trust there is a reasonable sake behind it (maintenance costs?).
> 
> This said, the article is very illustrative, and draws many data.



Variable pitch are not as necessary with electric motors.  Electric motors are much more flexible with regards to change of speeds, as well as reversing direction in comparison to say a Propulsion Diesel which is best run at a single speed.  The pitch variation comes so that one can run your shaftline at a single rpm for the PDE and then increased revolutions when the turbines kick in (unless I'm remembering that backwards, I am CSE not MSE...lol).  The variable pitch allows the single rpm rate to vary your speed.

With electric motors you just change the shaft line rpm instead of the pitch to get different speeds as electric motors don't care about that sort of thing.  It also means very quick change from forward to reverse rpm. MCDV's work on this principle. 

I'm not sure what this means for signature management though.  Cavitation and propellor shapes are closely linked.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can imagine that noise signature from a variable pitch would be higher than a fixed blade propeller.


----------



## Baz

Colin P said:
			
		

> I can imagine that noise signature from a variable pitch would be higher than a fixed blade propeller.



Based on my experience as a Sea King HELTAS Senso (passive acoustic sensor operator), my understanding is that that is the case.  It's hard to optimize the shape to prevent cavitation when it's orientation relative to the water flow is not constant.


----------



## JMCanada

Underway said:
			
		

> Variable pitch are not as necessary with electric motors.  Electric motors are much more flexible with regards to change of speeds (...)


Right , but var. pitch may be interesting while operating the gas turbine for the same reason as DGs. Some other CODLAG vessels use it: german F125, FREMM or F-110. Probably brings in higher efficiency.

I understand then that one reason to install fix pitch propellers is noise.


----------



## Underway

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Right , but var. pitch may be interesting while operating the gas turbine for the same reason as DGs. Some other CODLAG vessels use it: german F125, FREMM or F-110. Probably brings in higher efficiency.
> 
> I understand then that one reason to install fix pitch propellers is noise.



When digging into the weeds on other platforms we of course are missing critical information.  What rpms are the electric motors capable of for example.  If the electric motor with the props in one position can get you to say 18 knots, then the variable pitch gets you to 24 knots, then the GT kicks in to get you the rest of the way to the top speed.  New electric motors on the Type 26 might get you straight to 24 knots without needing a variable pitch, whereas the FREMM might work as the first example.

Given the added cost, maintenance, and complexity of variable pitch props if you can do it without the pitch change then why wouldn't you?  
Also given that the Type 26 as designed by the UK is a specialist ASW ship, going as far as no 90 degree piping for systems to avoid noise I wouldn't be surprised if this was a design feature to reduce that cavitation noise, and/or machinery noises from variable pitches being activated.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Great post OGBD!  I would like to add the RCN would have to acquire the Strike variant of the Mk 41 VLS to have all of the available flex. There are 3 different cell sizes for the Mk 41 VLS, (cell length and launcher weight being the difference.)

The CSC VLS could have: 
8 “self defence “ cells (shortest) for 32 ESSM.
16 “Tactical”  cells: 16 SM missiles (standard length)
8 “Strike” cells; (Tomahawk, ASROC, extended length missiles etc)

What would be neat is if somewhere the design could fit in 2 Mk 57 launchers for the ESSM, leaving the main battery for other work, for example 16 Strike cells and 16 Tactical cells. Perhaps where the Sea Ceptor battery on the UK T 26  will be located mid-ships.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Could we even afford to fill that many cells?


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> Could we even afford to fill that many cells?


I've been meaning to ask somebody just how many ESSM and Harpoons we have in the Canadian inventory (on ship, at the depots, and back at Boeing/Raytheon for maintenance).

Also, is there a sustainment budget? If we actually start pickling off missiles in a regional conflict somewhere <coughSOHcough>, and plan to keep sending ships to that area and keep fighting, do replacement missile need to go through the normal procurement process (god help us), or is there a "wartime ammunition contingency fund" that would automatically be activated?


----------



## Cloud Cover

There is a NATO stockpile of ESSM. As for the numbers etc, not public information


----------



## Swampbuggy

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Great post OGBD!  I would like to add the RCN would have to acquire the Strike variant of the Mk 41 VLS to have all of the available flex. There are 3 different cell sizes for the Mk 41 VLS, (cell length and launcher weight being the difference.)
> 
> The CSC VLS could have:
> 8 “self defence “ cells (shortest) for 32 ESSM.
> 16 “Tactical”  cells: 16 SM missiles (standard length)
> 8 “Strike” cells; (Tomahawk, ASROC, extended length missiles etc)
> 
> What would be neat is if somewhere the design could fit in 2 Mk 57 launchers for the ESSM, leaving the main battery for other work, for example 16 Strike cells and 16 Tactical cells. Perhaps where the Sea Ceptor battery on the UK T 26  will be located mid-ships.



If the ExLS launcher is part of the final design, you could punch that SM loadout to 24 on the AAW variant, and have 24 CAMM to back them up.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> There is a NATO stockpile of ESSM. As for the numbers etc, not public information



Cost per unit I seen recently puts them in and around the 1 mil per weapon, which means you need about 45 million to load one ship.....


----------



## Thumper81

Swampbuggy said:
			
		

> If the ExLS launcher is part of the final design, you could punch that SM loadout to 24 on the AAW variant, and have 24 CAMM to back them up.



I highly doubt we will be going with Sea Ceptor (CAMM).  We've already invested in ESSM Block 2 and it's a more capable and will be a far more used system.  My thoughts, 8 Cells for 32 ESSM B2 and 24 SM-2's.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> I highly doubt we will be going with Sea Ceptor (CAMM).  We've already invested in ESSM Block 2 and it's a more capable and will be a far more used system.  My thoughts, 8 Cells for 32 ESSM B2 and 24 SM-2's.



CAMM seems likelier than NULKA, RAM, LONGBOW or JAGM, though, wouldn't you say? We have all seen models of the CSC with two midships 3 cell ExLS launchers, so it's definitely something that's on someone's mind. Also, I was under the impression that CAMM would be complimentary to ESSM, not necessarily a replacement.


----------



## Underway

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> I highly doubt we will be going with Sea Ceptor (CAMM).  We've already invested in ESSM Block 2 and it's a more capable and will be a far more used system.  My thoughts, 8 Cells for 32 ESSM B2 and 24 SM-2's.



CAMM and ESSM are both going to be on the ship.  CAMM is for close to short range point air defence and ESSM is for medium range local air defence.  The difference is in how the missiles are launched, their minimum and maximum ranges.  CAMM is cold launch boost and does a pitch over before the main rocket motor starts. Therefore it can engage incoming missiles from very close to the ship (1km, 0.6NM) out to 25km. ESSM Block 2 (which is the missile we will use when CSC is in the water), has a longer minimum and maximum range and can also defend allies nearby from missile attack, providing a local defensive capability.

Its no longer layered defense, its meshed defence.  The overlap between the two missiles will complement each other allowing for significant increases in PKill and kill options for various defensive scenarios.  At least that's the intent.


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:
			
		

> CAMM and ESSM are both going to be on the ship.  CAMM is for close to short range point air defence and ESSM is for medium range local air defence.  The difference is in how the missiles are launched, their minimum and maximum ranges.  CAMM is cold launch boost and does a pitch over before the main rocket motor starts. Therefore it can engage incoming missiles from very close to the ship (1km, 0.6NM) out to 25km. ESSM Block 2 (which is the missile we will use when CSC is in the water), has a longer minimum and maximum range and can also defend allies nearby from missile attack, providing a local defensive capability.
> 
> Its no longer layered defense, its meshed defence.  The overlap between the two missiles will complement each other allowing for significant increases in PKill and kill options for various defensive scenarios.  At least that's the intent.



Conveniently that decision keeps both Brussels and Washington happy and addresses the European concern about the adoption of the ESSM system for the Halifax upgrade knocking European suppliers out of future competitions.

Not militarily significant but significant politically when managing alliances.


----------



## Thumper81

Underway said:
			
		

> CAMM and ESSM are both going to be on the ship.  CAMM is for close to short range point air defence and ESSM is for medium range local air defence.  The difference is in how the missiles are launched, their minimum and maximum ranges.  CAMM is cold launch boost and does a pitch over before the main rocket motor starts. Therefore it can engage incoming missiles from very close to the ship (1km, 0.6NM) out to 25km. ESSM Block 2 (which is the missile we will use when CSC is in the water), has a longer minimum and maximum range and can also defend allies nearby from missile attack, providing a local defensive capability.
> 
> Its no longer layered defense, its meshed defence.  The overlap between the two missiles will complement each other allowing for significant increases in PKill and kill options for various defensive scenarios.  At least that's the intent.



I suppose.  Both missiles have similar specs (all be it different max/min range) it seems odd to me to have both.  I know Sea Ceptor will work with Mk 41 VLS.  I sure hope we will deploying SM-2's again.  That was a big loss when the 280's were decommissioned.


----------



## AlexanderM

There is also an extended range version of the CAMM >45km. 

https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm-er/


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Tying this to the GBAD thread, I wonder if the Army could/would consider using a land version of any of the Naval missiles we have in service/are buying or either of the Air Force missiles? There has got to be some savings, if we do not add another missile type.


----------



## Thumper81

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> There is also an extended range version of the CAMM >45km.
> 
> https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/camm-er/



I highly doubt it would be anything close to the SM-2 in range (>166 km).  It's just a much larger missile than even the CAMM-ER.  



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Tying this to the GBAD thread, I wonder if the Army could/would consider using a land version of any of the Naval missiles we have in service/are buying or either of the Air Force missiles? There has got to be some savings, if we do not add another missile type.



There is a land-based CAMM option(Sky Sabre).  The British Army is going to use it to replace the Rapier missile.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> I highly doubt it would be anything close to the SM-2 in range (>166 km).  It's just a much larger missile than even the CAMM-ER.
> 
> There is a land-based CAMM option(Sky Sabre).  The British Army is going to use it to replace the Rapier missile.



That is very interesting.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Tying this to the GBAD thread, I wonder if the Army could/would consider using a land version of any of the Naval missiles we have in service/are buying or either of the Air Force missiles? There has got to be some savings, if we do not add another missile type.



I understand that the US Army is being tagged to defend forward naval bases with missiles units, although I not sure if anything solid has come out of that?


----------



## AlexanderM

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> I highly doubt it would be anything close to the SM-2 in range (>166 km).  It's just a much larger missile than even the CAMM-ER.


I wasn't suggesting it would be a replacement for the SM-2 just mentioning that there is an extended range CAMM. The ESSM is faster, so at range it gets out there quicker, which I would imagine is advantageous. I also thought someone said the SM-2 is being discontinued, or was that not accurate? It was a while ago now that someone said that.


----------



## Underway

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> I wasn't suggesting it would be a replacement for the SM-2 just mentioning that there is an extended range CAMM. The ESSM is faster, so at range it gets out there quicker, which I would imagine is advantageous. I also thought someone said the SM-2 is being discontinued, or was that not accurate? It was a while ago now that someone said that.



SM-2 keeps on rolling mainly due to cost it seems.  SM-2 are about $1 mil, SM-6 are $5mil and SM-3 are between $9 - $25 mil.  However as is the case with the US evolutionary design concepts the SM-2 is no longer the RIM-67, its the RIM-156A (or RIM-67E). Also known as the  SM-2ER Block IV.  They are still manufactured.  Other older versions of the SM-2 have been discontinued.  There is some info regarding SM-2ER Block III still out there but AFAIK they are no new ones being manufactured, just refurbishment of the older ones. 

SM-2 is still quite good against the vast majority of threats out there, but SM-6 has the ability to deal with the newest threats more effectively at longer ranges.


			
				Thumper81 said:
			
		

> There is a land-based CAMM option(Sky Sabre).  The British Army is going to use it to replace the Rapier missile.



The whole development program was fascinating to watch.  The UK has a large interest in keeping their domestic missile development programs going.  Leads to innovative and effective missiles, like the Brimstone, CAMM and Meteor.  CAMM design has many advantages which were implemented because of the focus of multi element use.  The cold start for one is important for land launch as it doesn't give away your position as easily and protects the launch site from rocket exhaust.  The close minimum range is also army centric as detection of aircraft might be very close range due to terrain.  For true task group defence the RN went to the Aster missile family for good reasons, but for point defence there is nothing wrong with the relatively inexpensive CAMM.


----------



## Underway

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Conveniently that decision keeps both Brussels and Washington happy and addresses the European concern about the adoption of the ESSM system for the Halifax upgrade knocking European suppliers out of future competitions.
> 
> Not militarily significant but significant politically when managing alliances.



I honestly think that's probably a side benefit.  CAMM is a British missile and many Euro nations are contributors to the ESSM project (Netherlands, Belgium, Germany...).  Canada is by far the largest contributor in ESSM missile performance data from live fires, simulations and modeling (something like 80% of all ESSM launches are Canadian...).  The ESSM is the closest thing to our own Canadian missile out there (ignoring the CRV-7 which is a rocket).  We are also heavily invested in the Block 2 development and are perhaps the ones pushing the hardest to get it done.  The RCN is heavily invested in the ESSM.


----------



## Baz

Underway said:
			
		

> I honestly think that's probably a side benefit.  CAMM is a British missile and many Euro nations are contributors to the ESSM project (Netherlands, Belgium, Germany...).  Canada is by far the largest contributor in ESSM missile performance data from live fires, simulations and modeling (something like 80% of all ESSM launches are Canadian...).  The ESSM is the closest thing to our own Canadian missile out there (ignoring the CRV-7 which is a rocket).  We are also heavily invested in the Block 2 development and are perhaps the ones pushing the hardest to get it done.  The RCN is heavily invested in the ESSM.



That's a pretty neat piece of info... I would have guessed that, like most things (Standard, Mk46, Mk54) the US would take the lead.  I read the history of the ESSM... it's cool that in some ways it's "Canada's missile."


----------



## Thumper81

Underway said:
			
		

> I honestly think that's probably a side benefit.  CAMM is a British missile and many Euro nations are contributors to the ESSM project (Netherlands, Belgium, Germany...).  Canada is by far the largest contributor in ESSM missile performance data from live fires, simulations and modeling (something like 80% of all ESSM launches are Canadian...).  The ESSM is the closest thing to our own Canadian missile out there (ignoring the CRV-7 which is a rocket).  We are also heavily invested in the Block 2 development and are perhaps the ones pushing the hardest to get it done.  The RCN is heavily invested in the ESSM.



Hopefully they upgrade the CWI to Mod 5 to fully support Block 2 for the current frigates.


----------



## Underway

Baz said:
			
		

> That's a pretty neat piece of info... I would have guessed that, like most things (Standard, Mk46, Mk54) the US would take the lead.  I read the history of the ESSM... it's cool that in some ways it's "Canada's missile."


It is cool.  I was quite surprised when I found out about the data/testing contribution being so high.  The US is paying for most for the program in budgetary terms.  We contribute as much as possible in other ways..  



			
				Thumper81 said:
			
		

> Hopefully they upgrade the CWI to Mod 5 to fully support Block 2 for the current frigates.



Less need for a CWI for the Block 2.  It will have an active homing capability.  So you could potentially get a kill without using the CWI at all.


----------



## Thumper81

Underway said:
			
		

> It is cool.  I was quite surprised when I found out about the data/testing contribution being so high.  The US is paying for most for the program in budgetary terms.  We contribute as much as possible in other ways..
> 
> Less need for a CWI for the Block 2.  It will have an active homing capability.  So you could potentially get a kill without using the CWI at all.



I know that it is active homing, but can do semi-active as well.  The reason it can do both is because of ECM systems.  A lot harder to jam a CWI.  It's an RF hose.  You would need REALLY powerful ECM to jam it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> I know that it is active homing, but can do semi-active as well.  The reason it can do both is because of ECM systems.  A lot harder to jam a CWI.  It's an RF hose.  You would need REALLY powerful ECM to jam it.



This would be an excellent time to remind everyone of OPSEC before anyone else posts.


----------



## Thumper81

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This would be an excellent time to remind everyone of OPSEC before anyone else posts.



Fair point.  Nothing OPSEC in what I said.  What it does is in the acronym.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> Fair point.  Nothing OPSEC in what I said.  What it does is in the acronym.



I am well aware of that. I am just pointing out to everyone that going much further down this discussion branch is going to be problematic.


----------



## Uzlu

First delivery of the Canadian Surface Combatants is the mid 2020s.  This appears to be a lot earlier than first delivery of the _Hunter_-class frigates.





> The program calls for steel to be cut on the first vessel in Osborne in late 2022 with the lead ship, HMAS _Flinders_, launched in the 2027-2028 timeframe and entering service between 2029 and 2031.


https://www.australiandefence.com.au/news/a-quiet-hunter-navy-s-future-frigate


----------



## Underway

Well there are three reasons that might be IMHO.

1) Our shipyard is already built. Australia is building/expanding one.
2) Our project is oddly enough further ahead of theirs.  We had more definition than they did when they accepted a winning bid and are still working out much of the details on capability.  This front end work helps quite a bit when the back end stuff starts.
3) That number is complete BS and means absolutely nothing.  2027 is actually "mid 2020's"...


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu:



> First delivery of the Canadian Surface Combatants is the mid 2020s


. 

No way. Here is schedule for RCN's A/OPS, and then two to be built by Irving for CCG; will be lucky to get first CSC much before 2030:



> ...
> Ship 6 delivery: 2024
> ...
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> No way. Here is schedule for RCN's A/OPS, and then two to be built by Irving for CCG; will be lucky to get first CSC much before 2030


Well, I think it might be at least theoretically possible for the first surface combatant to be delivered in the mid 2020s if we allow 2027 to be included as a part of the mid 2020s:

Arctic and offshore patrol ship 6 delivery: 2024
Arctic and offshore patrol ship 7 delivery: 2025
Arctic and offshore patrol ship 8 delivery: 2026
Surface combatant 1 delivery: 2027

I, however, do agree with you that delivery of the first surface combatant in the mid 2020s might be optimistic.


----------



## MarkOttawa

This gov't website still says this, very optimistic I think:



> ...
> Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)
> 
> Completed Start Options Analysis
> Completed Start Definition
> 2021/2022 Start Implementation
> 2026/2027 Initial Delivery
> ...
> http://dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca/en/defence-capabilities-blueprint/project-details.asp?id=1710



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## RDBZ

Underway said:
			
		

> Well there are three reasons that might be IMHO.
> 
> 1) Our shipyard is already built. Australia is building/expanding one.
> 2) Our project is oddly enough further ahead of theirs.  We had more definition than they did when they accepted a winning bid and are still working out much of the details on capability.  This front end work helps quite a bit when the back end stuff starts.
> 3) That number is complete BS and means absolutely nothing.  2027 is actually "mid 2020's"...



1 - Correct
2 - Australia actually mandated the combat system and weapons fit out, so the competition was really only for the hull and propulsion system.
3 - It will be interesting to see who actually _commissions_ a ship first.


----------



## Spencer100

RDBZ said:
			
		

> 1 - Correct
> 2 - Australia actually mandated the combat system and weapons fit out, so the competition was really only for the hull and propulsion system.
> 3 - It will be interesting to see who actually _commissions_ a ship first.



IT'S A RACE!  

I'm putting my money on BAE (ASC) any taker for a $20?  or a case of Beer  (If I'm still alive)


----------



## Cloud Cover

I would think the RAN is in more of a hurry than the RCN is allowed to be.


----------



## Uzlu

> And, the same month, the MOD revealed the Frigates would be armed with a new laser beam weapon that destroys drones and missiles and doesn't need ammunition.


https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/local-news/new-royal-navy-warships-amazing-3456491


----------



## Underway

No no.  The lasers go onto the sharks that are carried in the flex deck aquarium.  Then the sharks are launched at the enemy down a waterslide.


----------



## Uzlu

> However, it strikes me that Canada’s procurement approach to the development and execution of the RfP for CSC seemed much more complex and thus work-intensive for all concerned when compared to the RfT for Australia’s Future Frigate Program. This reflects an expensive way of doing business for Canada and for bidders that consumes immeasurable person-years of effort.


https://www.cgai.ca/another_way_to_buy_frigates#So


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> It is cool.  I was quite surprised when I found out about the data/testing contribution being so high.  The US is paying for most for the program in budgetary terms.  We contribute as much as possible in other ways..
> 
> Less need for a CWI for the Block 2.  It will have an active homing capability.  So you could potentially get a kill without using the CWI at all.



It would also be nice to have a missile that is even 75% effective at half the price, so the navies could actually afford some war stock.


----------



## Uzlu

> US designates Lockheed Martin Solid State Radar AN/SPY-7(V)1
> 
> The US Government has designated Lockheed Martin’s advanced solid-state radar technology as AN/SPY-7(V)1.
> 
> Lockheed Martin noted that AN/SPY-7(V)1 is the world’s latest generation solid-state radar technology.
> 
> The radar was previously known as Lockheed Martin’s Solid State Radar (LM SSR).
> 
> Japan chose the LM SSR to support its Aegis Ashore ballistic missile defence batteries in July last year.
> 
> The radar and Aegis Ashore will protect Japan from ballistic missile threats.
> 
> Spain and Canada also selected the latest generation radar. The solid state radar will equip the Royal Canadian Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant programme and the Spanish Navy’s F-110 frigates.
> 
> Lockheed Martin vice-president and general manager Paul Lemmo said: “Lockheed Martin’s solid state solution meets the mission now and is flexible to adapt to the evolving threats of the future.
> 
> “This new designation solidifies our ability to provide the most technically advanced capabilities our warfighters require.”
> 
> The company’s AN/SPY-7(V)1 radar is a modular and scalable solution that will enable continuous surveillance.
> 
> The system will be fully integrated with Lockheed Martin’s Aegis maritime ballistic missile defence system to offer protection for future ship classes.
> 
> In January last year, the company demonstrated the capability to connect components of the Aegis Ashore and Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) technologies.
> 
> The integration of the systems will improve situational awareness and provide earlier intelligence to the warfighter.
> 
> Aegis Ashore is the land-based version of the navy’s Aegis Weapons System.
> 
> The company’s solid state radar is a scalable radar building block based on gallium nitride (GaN) technology.


https://www.naval-technology.com/news/us-designates-lockheed-martin-solid-state-radar-an-spy-7v1/


----------



## Underway

I was just going to post that @Uzlu.  Now that we have an official name for the radar the information should be flowing a bit faster.

SPY 7 and SPY 6 seem to have similar design philosophies with the scalable modular portion an important part of the design.  Interestingly the SPY 7 was designed for very high availability rates.  Much less down time and maint then similar radars.  With many modern phased arrays when you lose a transceiver you lose that entire face of the radar, giving you a blind spot and/or a degraded picture (tracking is harder or you might lose a reference beam etc...). Repair requires shutting down the radar.  Losing a transceiver on a SPY 7 is a repair while the radar is operating underway.  You pull the duff one out and replace it, with only isolating the power to that particular spot. As you do this from the back of the radar it means no radiation issues. 

I love the scalability aspect of it as well.  Future proofing and modification for mission.


----------



## Good2Golf

> With many modern phased arrays when you lose a transceiver you lose that entire face of the radar...



Do you mean failure of an individual T/R module?  

I’d be very interested to hear which AESA radar manufacturers build in complete catastrophic failure instead of graceful degradation?  Redundancy is one of the core benefits of AESA. Sure, the RP fails, no radar...but one TRM taking the whole thing down...  #skeptical

Regards
G2G


----------



## NavyShooter

As a SONAR guy...I understand the concept of phased sensor arrays...that is a perfect description of how a SONAR dome with 36 staves (each covering 10 degrees), each stave having 10 Single Element Transducers in it works...losing an SET from a stave can cause the loss of that stave, depending on the failure mode.  Bypassing the SET is a straightforward process though which can bring that stave back online with 9/10 SETs functional...but here's the thing, during the period that the stave is down, there is still sound reception and coverage by the Staves on each side, and there is still an ability to localize targets on the 10 degree stave that's impacted...it's degraded, but still can be done.

I cannot imagine a RADAR system having a whole panel fall off-line for the loss of a single transceiver.  That makes....little sense to me as a technician and sounds like a problem that early generations of phased array systems may have encountered...but newer versions?  I have trouble believing it.

NS


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Do you mean failure of an individual T/R module?
> 
> I’d be very interested to hear which AESA radar manufacturers build in complete catastrophic failure instead of graceful degradation?  Redundancy is one of the core benefits of AESA. Sure, the RP fails, no radar...but one TRM taking the whole thing down...  #skeptical
> 
> Regards
> G2G



I was being intentionally vague as I wasn't sure where the OPSEC line was.  But yes you are correct as far as I know it.  There are single points of failure in many phased arrays, however the SPY-7 is designed to avoid this.


----------



## Uzlu

More ships similar to the surface combatants?





> The Type 4X Destroyer – An early look at an early concept
> 
> *The Type 4X, the Type 45 Destroyer replacement, is just an early concept at this stage but a variant of the Type 26 Frigate is officially being considered for the job.*
> 
> The UK Defence Journal has been speaking to Paul Sweeney, MP for Glasgow North East and former shipbuilder and we’ve been told that consideration is already being given to the development of an Anti-Air Warfare variant of the Type 26, a variant that will function as a future replacement for the Type 45 Destroyer fleet – the programme is currently referred to as as T4X.


https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/the-type-4x-destroyer-an-early-look-at-an-early-concept/?fbclid=IwAR3t0s90YX-OgP3hiGt3RVQlkw0rX_FHSLO-U06Tzazp8B5ajPFH12b7yws


----------



## Underway

RUMINT: All thirty two Mk41 VLS will be strike length.  There will be 24 CAMM midships (where the UK are putting theirs) for the Close In Air Defence requirement (I assume launched from the 6 ExLS launchers, quad packed).   There will be 8 NSM just aft of that.  

I was told the RCN was not interested in a gun based missile defence system so there will be no CIWS option.  The CIAD requirement was met by the CAMM.


----------



## Thumper81

Underway said:
			
		

> RUMINT: All thirty two Mk41 VLS will be strike length.  There will be 24 CAMM midships (where the UK are putting theirs) for the Close In Air Defence requirement (I assume launched from the 6 ExLS launchers, quad packed).   There will be 8 NSM just aft of that.
> 
> I was told the RCN was not interested in a gun based missile defence system so there will be no CIWS option.  The CIAD requirement was met by the CAMM.



I foresee the return of the Standard Missiles(SM-2 or SM-6. Probably not SM-3).  The no Phalanx option feels like a bad idea (reaction time, minimum engagement range, etc).  Perhaps get SeaRAM(Phalanx with RAM missiles) instead of Phalanx for CIWS.  Are they planning on having some smaller calibre guns outside of the 5 inch (ala Mk 38 Bushmaster or DS30)?  I know it is slightly different, but the RN Type 26 has TWO Phalanx's CIWS on the render drawing.


----------



## Dale Denton

Speaking of CIWS, been noticing half the mockups and promotional images either have Phalanx, SEARAM, or nothing. 

Reading up about the RN's 40MM option on the Type 31, seems like it could be a good option. Plus...broadsides...


----------



## Spencer100

So the decades of the RCN work with the ESSM is out the window?  with everything moving to CAMM.  

Could the SM-6 be Canada's response to ABM?  "see US we are doing something"


----------



## Swampbuggy

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> So the decades of the RCN work with the ESSM is out the window?  with everything moving to CAMM.
> 
> Could the SM-6 be Canada's response to ABM?  "see US we are doing something"



SM for long range, ESSM for intermediate and CAMM for close in. Better than a PHALANX with less chance of self damage.


----------



## AlexanderM

But there could also be lasers, yes? If so, don't forget the lasers for close in defense.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Somewhere deep in these threads from last year is a post where the RCN has committed to purchasing 23 brand new gatlin’ guns. They could be for the Felex/HUp program but at least 4 were for the JSS.


----------



## YZT580

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> But there could also be lasers, yes? If so, don't forget the lasers for close in defense.


 Do they even have the power available?


----------



## AlexanderM

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Do they even have the power available?


I thought someone previously stated that it's in the design.


----------



## AlexanderM

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/local-news/new-royal-navy-warships-amazing-3456491


The information is found in the link, it's already in the Type 26 design.

From the article:

And, the same month, the MOD revealed the Frigates would be armed with a new laser beam weapon that destroys drones and missiles and doesn't need ammunition.


----------



## Underway

Just to sort out a few things.

1) CIWS is not viewed in the RCN as a missile defence system.  It's viewed as a damage mitigation system.  If the CIWS is shooting its to reduce damage to the ship as you will still be sprayed with missile bits, just hopefully not the burny/explodie ones.  The CAMM has a very short minimum range for a missile (1km) and is much more accurate.  CAMM is just a vertically launched Rolling Airframe Missile if one wants to think of it this way.

As for CIWS anti-surface capabilities, these will be covered better with the 30mm guns designed for that specific purpose.

2) Don't trust models from shows.  They are only going to give you a generic idea.  It's not the bid.  I have seen 3 different versions of the CSC with Harpoons, CIWS, different radars, different flight deck arrangements, some with rear doors for the VDS and some without etc...

3) The Type 26 the UK and Australians are building are completely different from what we are building, and from each other except for general hull design and some engineering.  What other countries do are different as their requirements are different.

4) Yah lasers aren't there yet.   Future growth.

5) Canada isn't giving up on the ESSM.  Strike length VLS take quad packed ESSM 2.  Which means a huge capability for ESSM loadout as they are longer ranged than CAMM.  This being said I've read a few places of some exploration of a ESSM-ER (extended range) with a booster like the Aster 15 to 30 conversion.  SM6 are very expensive.  SM2 had to brought back into production in 2016 for foreign sales and is expensive as well, I don't know if its still in production.  An ESSM-ER might be just the ticket for a cheaper long range missile system.


----------



## Cloud Cover

A reloading anti air gun system is almost mandatory if the ship is to survive to fight the attack that comes after the initial saturation attack.

To that end (a) the 30mm is essential; (b) whatever the anti air missile load out might be, chances are “... there’s never enough”, but it doesn’t hurt to try; (c) soft kill, deception, ems are essential weapons; and (d) operational skill and applied engineering such as damage control, maneuvering, speed etc. will save lives and win the grid for another days fighting.


----------



## Good2Golf

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> But there could also be lasers, yes? If so, don't forget the lasers for close in defense.



Far better option than the Mk.29 Ill-Tempered Sea Bass. :nod:


----------



## Uzlu

> Canada's new frigates could take part in ballistic missile defence — if Ottawa says yes
> 
> *Defence expert says the frigates' design shows Ottawa is keeping 'the door open' to BMD*
> 
> Canada's new frigates are being designed with ballistic missile defence in mind, even though successive federal governments have avoided taking part in the U.S. program.
> 
> When they slip into the water sometime in the mid- to late-2020s, the new warships probably won't have the direct capability to shoot down incoming intercontinental rockets.
> 
> But the decisions made in their design allow them to be converted to that role, should the federal government ever change course.
> 
> The warships are based upon the British Type 26 layout and are about to hit the drawing board. Their radar has been chosen and selected missile launchers have been configured to make them easy and cost-effective to upgrade.
> 
> Vice-Admiral Art McDonald said the Lockheed Martin-built AN/SPY-7 radar system to be installed on the new frigates is cutting-edge. It's also being used on land now by the U.S. and Japan for detecting ballistic missiles.
> 
> "It's a great piece, and that is what we were looking for in terms of specification," McDonald told CBC News in a year-end interview.
> 
> Selecting the radar system for the new frigates was seen as one of the more important decisions facing naval planners because it has to stay operational and relevant for decades to come — even as new military threats and technologies emerge.
> 
> McDonald said positive feedback from elsewhere in the defence industry convinced federal officials that they had made the right choice.
> 
> "Even from those that weren't producing an advanced kind of radar, they said this is the capability you need," he said.
> 
> The whole concept of ballistic missile defence (BMD) remains a politically touchy topic.
> 
> BMD — "Star Wars," to its critics — lies at the centre of a policy debate the Liberal government has tried to avoid at all costs. In 2017, Canada chose not to join the BMD program. That reluctance to embrace BMD dates back to the political bruising Paul Martin's Liberal government suffered in 2004-05, when the administration of then-U.S. president George W. Bush leaned heavily on Ottawa to join the program.
> 
> In the years since, both the House of Commons and Senate defence committees have recommended the federal government relent and sign on to BMD — mostly because of the emerging missile threat posed by rogue nations such as North Korea.
> 
> *Liberals reluctant to talk BMD*
> 
> The question of whether to join BMD is expected to form part of the deliberations surrounding the renewal of NORAD — an undertaking the Liberal government has acknowledged but not costed out as part of its 2017 defence policy.
> 
> Missile defence continues to be a highly fraught concept within the federal government. Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan made a point of downplaying a CBC News story last summer that revealed how the Canadian and U.S. militaries had laid down markers for what the new NORAD could look like, pending sign-off by both Washington and Ottawa.
> 
> Asked about Sajjan's response, a former senior official in the minister's office said it raised the spectre of "Star Wars" — not a topic the Liberal government was anxious to discuss ahead of last fall's election.
> 
> The current government may not want to talk about it, but the Canadian navy and other NATO countries are grappling with the technology.
> 
> *Practice makes perfect*
> 
> Last spring, a Canadian patrol frigate, operating with 12 other alliance warships, tracked and shot down a supersonic target meant to simulate a ballistic missile. A French frigate also scored a separate hit.
> 
> For the last two years, NATO warships have practiced linking up electronically in defensive exercises to shoot down both mock ballistic and cruise missiles. A Canadian frigate in the 2017 iteration of the exercise destroyed a simulated cruise missile.
> 
> At the recent Halifax Security Forum, there was a lot of talk about the proliferation of missile technology. One defence expert told the forum Canadian military planners have been paying attention to the issue for a long time.
> 
> The frigate design is an important example.
> 
> "I think what they've tried to do is keep the door open by some of the decisions they've made, recognizing that missile proliferation is a significant concern," said Dave Perry, of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "They haven't shut the door on doing that and I think that is smart."
> 
> Opponents of BMD, meanwhile, have long argued the fixation by the U.S. and NATO on ballistic missile defence is fuelling instability and giving Russia and China reasons to co-operate in air and missile defence.
> 
> Speaking before a Commons committee in 2017, Peggy Mason, president of the foreign and defence policy think-tank Rideau Institute, said the United States's adversaries have concluded that building more offensive systems is cheaper than investing in defensive ones.
> 
> "The American BMD system also acts as a catalyst to nuclear weapons modernization, as Russia and China seek not only increased numbers of nuclear weapons but also increased manoeuvrability," said Mason, Canada's ambassador for disarmament from 1989 to 1994, testifying on Sept. 14, 2017.
> 
> She also warned that "there would be significant financial costs to Canadian participation" in the U.S. BMD program "given American demands" — even prior to Donald Trump's presidency — "that allies pay their 'fair share' of the collective defence burden."


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-ballistic-missile-defence-canada-1.5407226


----------



## Cloud Cover

2020 CSC Projection: much paper work, many meetings, project bloat, shocking cost increases and nothing of substance will occur.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-ballistic-missile-defence-canada-1.5407226



CSC's radar missile defence-capable--from a LockMart news release:



> Four Nations to Be Protected with Lockheed Martin's Next Generation Radar
> 
> Through partnerships with the U.S. Government, Spain, Japan, and Canada, Lockheed Martin’s solid state radar (SSR) technology will provide front-line defense to nations around the world with cutting-edge air and missile defense capabilities.These nations are part of a growing SSR family of 24 platforms, ushering in the next generation of maritime and ground-based advanced radar technology.The basis of SSR is the Long Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR), which the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) selected Lockheed Martin to develop in 2015 with an on-track delivery set for 2020. In 2019 Lockheed Martin’s SSR for Aegis Ashore Japan was designated by the United States Government as AN/SPY-7(V)1.
> 
> What is SSR Technology?
> 
> SPY-7’s core technology is derived from the LRDR program, which has been declared Technical Readiness Level 7 by the U.S. Government. The technology consists of a scalable and modular gallium nitride (GaN) based “subarray” radar building block, providing advanced performance and increased efficiency and reliability to pace ever-evolving threats. As part of its investment into the advancement of SSR, Lockheed Martin built a Solid State Radar Integration Site to conduct detailed testing to prove the maturity of the system and reduce fielding risk. Scaled versions of the LRDR site will be utilized for future radar programs including Aegis Ashore Japan, Canadian Surface Combatant and MDA’s Homeland Defense Radar in Hawaii.
> 
> Solid state offers powerful capabilities to detect, track and engage sophisticated air and missile threats, including the very complicated task of discriminating – or picking out – and countering lethal objects present in enemy ballistic missiles. The Lockheed Martin SSR uses state-of-the art hardware and an innovative software-defined radar architecture to meet current requirements while providing extensibility features to pace evolving threats for decades to come. Its unique maintain-while-operate capability provides very high operational availability and enables continuous 24-hour/7-day week operation.
> 
> Solid state radar is a multi-mission system providing a wide range of capabilities, from passive situational awareness to integrated air and missile defense solutions. The combined capability and mission flexibility of Lockheed Martin’s SSR has gained the attention of new and current users of the Aegis Weapon System, the world’s premier air and missile defense combat suite...
> 
> _Canada’s Department of National Defence also selected Lockheed Martin as the naval radar provider for its 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships. Lockheed Martin’s IAFCL is integrated with Canada’s combat management system, CMS 330, developed by Lockheed Martin Canada for the Royal Canadian Navy’s HALIFAX Class ships. The program will make Canada the owner of the world’s second largest Aegis fleet, and our SPY-7 radar variant will enable CSC to conduct highly advanced maritime missions for decades to come_ [emphasis added]...
> https://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=208918&cat=3



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

> Canada’s Department of National Defence also selected Lockheed Martin as the naval radar provider for its 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships. Lockheed Martin’s IAFCL is integrated with Canada’s combat management system, CMS 330, developed by Lockheed Martin Canada for the Royal Canadian Navy’s HALIFAX Class ships. The program will make Canada the owner of the world’s second-largest Aegis fleet, and our SPY-7 radar variant will enable CSC to conduct highly advanced maritime missions for decades to come [emphasis added]...
> https://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?shop=dae&modele=release&prod=208918&cat=3



Based on this logic (CMS330 = Aegis) Canada already owns the world's second-largest Aegis fleet.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Random thought, here:

Would the SPY-7 work in a ground based application, say, in the north?

If so, what would be the economics of using the same radar to re-capitalize the NWS for NORAD?


----------



## Kirkhill

Would that be anything like the Aegis Ashore systems fielded in Romania and Poland?  

What is the functional difference among the Spy-1, Spy-6 and Spy-7?


----------



## Cloud Cover

And does the NWS have sufficient power at each installation and the existing bandwidth to transmit so much more data from the system?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

CloudCover said:
			
		

> And does the NWS have sufficient power at each installation and the existing bandwidth to transmit so much more data from the system?



That is precisely the sort of things I am wondering.


----------



## FSTO

CloudCover said:
			
		

> And does the NWS have sufficient power at each installation and the existing bandwidth to transmit so much more data from the system?



If the installation is below 70 degrees N it may be able to tie into WGS constellation. But power supply would be a huge issue. Time for the mini Nuc power plants?  ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco

FSTO said:
			
		

> If the installation is below 70 degrees N it may be able to tie into WGS constellation. But power supply would be a huge issue. Time for the mini Nuc power plants?  ;D



Don't laugh. Ontario, Saskatchewan and NB are working jointly on developing exactly that.

It could solve the power problem, without massive amounts of diesel being shipped north each year.

As for the datalink issue,  a series of microwave towers southward until you get good satellite uplink (or can tie into a fibre network), could also work.

If this could be made to work, think of the economies of scales on parts and repairs that could be achieved.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Maybe mods can split this off into another thread.

What non military equipment can be co-locates with a refreshed NWS site? Weather, climate, air quality and environmental equipment?
Is a fixed constellation satellite radar system a better option than ground stations?


----------



## MarkOttawa

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> CSC's radar missile defence-capable--from a LockMart news release:
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa





> _Thin Pinstriped Line_ on UK and missile defence (also much else, relevant to current SDSR):
> 
> Fortress Britain? Is it time to rethink how we defend the UK from attack?
> ...
> The most likely platform to host a BMD capability, at least in the short term, would be the Type 45 destroyer. The class is ideally suited to this sort of role and could probably be upgraded with relative ease – for example HMS DARING participated in BMD trials in the Pacific a few years ago and other trials have occurred since (see this article by ‘Save The Royal Navy’ for a good update).
> 
> The bigger question though is less about the specific package of weapons and radars you want to fit to the ship and more one of asking about what impact such a move would have on the Royal Navy.
> The six strong Type 45 class can get 2-3 ships to sea on a routine basis, and those that are available are increasingly intended to operate as part of the Carrier Strike Group. If the decision were taken to move to a BMD role for the class, this would necessitate some very difficult decisions on how best to deploy them and how you could maintain a credible BMD capability.
> 
> Would it, for example, mean keeping the force on patrol at sea able to fire if required, essentially maintaining a conventional deterrent that would require 100% uptime, or would it be an occasional role that ships could slip in and out of as required. Also, where would the patrol areas be, and what impact would this have on generating ships to escort the Carrier?
> 
> The potential challenges are significant because policy makers will need to make a deliberate decision between providing ships to do a credible ballistic missile defence, or providing ships to escort the carrier – there is little point in having one do both if your BMD platform is needed at home, but is deployed in the far East.
> 
> More widely, what impact would assigning Type 45 hulls to BMD patrol have – to do it effectively requires being on patrol in specific areas to be able to intercept missiles. The US Navy already does this and essentially has a force of ships that do nothing but steam in circles around a patrol area. It is a retention killer and the wider people impact could be very harmful.
> 
> This is the sort of question that has to be looked at because if people are serious about mounting a credible form of BMD capability then it needs to be adopted with the same mentality and resource support as mounting the deterrent, and not just as an additional rather nice to have capability.
> 
> It would come at the cost of taking ships away from wider naval presence, and probably forcing difficult decisions on what else to invest in as a result. The balance that needs to be struck is between that of mounting a credible defence at home, and abroad as required – and this is not easy...
> https://thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com/2020/01/fortress-britain-is-it-time-to-rethink.html



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hence the reason you have coastal artillery units. You can man the radars and missiles at significantly lower costs and manpower. The down side is that they are more likely to be in a fixed position and easily targeted. Portable missile launchers solve part of that, but harder to get the larger radar portable. A radar and missile system with a 300km range in the Shetlands covers a significant amount of the Northern approaches, throw in one near Aberdeen and Isles of lewis and you have the Northern approaches well covered with some overlap.


----------



## Dale Denton

Where would we station these units, if we had them?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Defending Canada would be easy and hard at the same time. West coast,  langara island, Cape Scott, Bamfield. Some road building required, along with docks and buildings. East Coast, 2-3 spots on Newfoundland and same Nova Scotia. That would defend against surface ships, but not subs.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Random thought, here:
> 
> Would the SPY-7 work in a ground based application, say, in the north?
> 
> If so, what would be the economics of using the same radar to re-capitalize the NWS for NORAD?



The SPY-7's first purchase was by the Japanese for two large systems to use for BMD from North Korea.  The main advantage in the Japanese choosing the system was its high availability rates, where you can repair and maintain the system without turning it off.  Might work, lots of pro's and con's to look at.


----------



## Underway

An informative video on the Aegis Combat System and the SPY 7 Radar, of note there are a number of references to the CSC program.  It's a good primer on the system, radar and where Lockheed sees their product going.

Lockheed Combat Systems Portfolio Video


----------



## Czech_pivo

Any sense on when we'll hear about any updates on the next phase of the CSC programme.  Things have been very quiet as of late, no news for months now.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Any sense on when we'll hear about any updates on the next phase of the CSC programme.  Things have been very quiet as of late, no news for months now.



They are still nailing down the design approvals and specifications (definition phase). If it isn't completed already, it will be soon.  As soon as that's done I expect there will be a wave of public affairs and Lockheed/BAE released information on the ship and its specifications.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile the Aussies now have three of these:


> Final Air Warfare Destroyer Added to the Royal Australian Navy Fleet
> 
> On February 28, 2020, the final of three Air Warfare destroyers was handed over officially to the Royal Australian Navy.
> 
> NUSHIP Sydney is the final of the three ships being delivered by the Air Warfare Destroyer Alliance, which includes the Department of Defence, Raytheon Australia, and ASC Shipbuilding supported by Navantia Australia.
> 
> Minister for Defence Linda Reynolds attended the acceptance ceremony at the Osborne Naval Shipyard in Adelaide.
> 
> “While the delivery of NUSHIP Sydney marks the end of this program, it represents an exciting time for the National Naval Shipbuilding Enterprise, as we continue to build upon the unique skills developed at this precinct and transfer them across the whole shipbuilding ecosystem,” Minister Reynolds said.
> 
> “I congratulate the 5000 workers who have worked directly on this program over the past decade, from the design phase through to the construction, integration and delivery of these magnificent ships.
> 
> “The significance of this success cannot be understated and is reflected in the truly world-class capability of these warships, and the naval shipbuilding and combat system integration skills that have been developed at Osborne.”
> 
> NUSHIP Sydney will now sail to her home port at Garden Island in Sydney and, once commissioned later this year, will join HMA Ships Hobart and Brisbane to complete Navy’s new fleet of its most capable warships to date.
> 
> And in an August 6, 2018, I reported on a visit and interview with the Captain of the first of the Air Warfare destroyer. That article follows:
> 
> The HMAS Hobart is the first of the three Aegis Air Warfare destroyers to be operational with the Navy and the second ship will be commissioned later this year.
> 
> The ship introduces a new level of combat capability into the Royal Australian Navy in which the ship’s reach is significantly greater than any previous ship operational in the Aussie fleet because of its Aegis Combat system.
> 
> It is a key building block in shaping an integrated air-sea task force navy in that the capabilities onboard the ship can contribute to an integrated C2, ISR and strike grid in which the evolving capabilities of the ADF can cover a wider area of operation in the waters surrounding Australia or in service of missions further abroad.
> 
> As Rear Admiral Mayer noted during an interview conducted with him while he was Commander of the Australian fleet:
> 
> “We are joint by necessity.
> 
> “Unlike the US Navy, we do not have our own air force or our own army. Joint is not a theological choice, it’s an operational necessity.”
> 
> What clearly this means is that the future of the Hobart class is working ways to operate in an integrated battlespace with land-based RAAF F-35s, Tritons and P-8s among other air assets.
> 
> Their future is not protecting the carrier battle group, as the Aussies have no carrier.
> 
> Rather, their future is “to provide air defence for accompanying ships in addition to land forces and infrastructure in coastal areas, and for self-protection against missiles and aircraft.”
> 
> The skill sets being learned to operate the ship, notably the workflow on board the ship, in terms of the use of data, ISR and C2 systems, working situational awareness throughout the work stations onboard the ship, are foundational for other ships coming to the fleet.
> 
> With the coming of the Brisbane, the HMAS Hobart will no longer be a single ship but the lead into a class of ships.
> 
> And with the Australian decision with regard to its new frigates which will leverage the Aegis combat system capability as well, the HMAS Hobart has become the lead into a whole new approach to how the Australian fleet will shape its combat networks as well.
> 
> This means that the training and support provided to HMAS Hobart is a foundation for a larger effort for the Navy as well.
> 
> And with the addition of F-35 as well as P-8s and Tritons as well as the evolution of the KC-30A tanker, the fleet looks to become a core element for an integrated air-maritime task force approach.
> 
> Indeed, when visiting HMAS Hobart one can already see crew from the Brisbane onboard getting ready for its initial deployments as well.
> 
> The Aegis combat system pioneered by the US Navy and Lockheed Martin has become a global capability as an Aegis Global Enterprise has emerged in which new types of ships have been built carrying variants of the Aegis combat system...[read on]
> https://sldinfo.com/2020/02/final-air-warfare-destroyer-added-to-the-royal-australian-navy-fleet/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

So in the newest issue of the Canadian Naval Review there was a good article on the SPY-7 Radar.  I'll post highlights below as I'm not going to export a PDF from outside a paywall, but I encourage finding the article if you can.  Canadian Naval Review is a decent publication.  

My editorializing in yellow...

-AESA radar with multiple transmitters built directly into the back of the array's surface 
-sub-arrays are shoebox-sized, modular and can be removed in as little as 30 seconds for repair, long edge of shoebox faces outwards
-digital and software-defined signals
-maintenance can be performed without shutting down the array, only required to turn off the problem sub-array
_-none of the above is a great surprise, the shoebox shape is new though_

-Lockheed stated that the CSC will be getting SPY 1 range with a much smaller footprint
_-wait what!?  That is impressive.  It doesn't mean its precision and tracking are as good but still.  Max power output in the 4-6MW range is a lot of juice_

-radar configuration for CSC will be two four-panel arrays.  One four-panel S-band search and track, one four-panel X-band illumination radar (provided by MDA Canada).  Each X-band will be paired to the S-band on the same face
_-some of us predicted this, so its not a huge surprise.  I wonder if the X-band will be able to backup as a search/track radar as well_


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don't even pretend to understand modern naval radars, does each "shoebox" contain a transmitter and receiver? Can they do both at the same time or is it still a 'gate" of transmit/receive? Me and my ancient Decca 101 want to know.  Do I still need grease pencils?  :dunno:


----------



## MTShaw

Colin P said:
			
		

> I don't even pretend to understand modern naval radars, does each "shoebox" contain a transmitter and receiver? Can they do both at the same time or is it still a 'gate" of transmit/receive? Me and my ancient Decca 101 want to know.  Do I still need grease pencils?  :dunno:



Here’s a start: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Range_Discrimination_Radar

And Spy-7’s competitor:

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/products/spy6-radars

Michael


----------



## Colin Parkinson

So does each block transmit on the same frequency, or is each block on a separate frequency? I imagine if they all broadcast at once you be getting multiples returns on the same object? Or do they delay them so a pattern of blocks all transmit at once while the rest are in receive mode and the pattern changes allowing for the receipt of signals returning at ever so slightly different angles?


----------



## MTShaw

Colin P said:
			
		

> So does each block transmit on the same frequency, or is each block on a separate frequency? I imagine if they all broadcast at once you be getting multiples returns on the same object? Or do they delay them so a pattern of blocks all transmit at once while the rest are in receive mode and the pattern changes allowing for the receipt of signals returning at ever so slightly different angles?



My understanding is that an AESA radar can slew through an entire spectrum.  In the case of the SPY-7 each of those “boxes” would have a range of ~ 2-4ghz. Each box contains many transceivers and can point its radar beam in any area in its regard.

Workman’s description.


----------



## MTShaw

Most detailed modelS I’ve yet see


----------



## OceanBonfire

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Most detailed modelS I’ve yet see
> 
> "snip"



Would be great to have a source so we'd know when those pictures were taken if it's the most recent model. Small differences compared to earlier though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQxoP1-l93o


----------



## MTShaw

OceanBonfire said:
			
		

> Would be great to have a source so we'd know when those pictures were taken if it's the most recent model. Small differences compared to earlier though:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQxoP1-l93o



Posted on Twitter on January 16, 2020 by a guy named Guy Larter.  He looks to be taking photos of SNA.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> So does each block transmit on the same frequency, or is each block on a separate frequency? I imagine if they all broadcast at once you be getting multiples returns on the same object? Or do they delay them so a pattern of blocks all transmit at once while the rest are in receive mode and the pattern changes allowing for the receipt of signals returning at ever so slightly different angles?


As the SPY-7 is an Active electronically scanned array which generally works as follows:

Each shoebox-sized element is capable of generating its own signal, as well as altering its phase and amplitude. Because it generates its own signal at any given time, each of the elements may be operating at a different frequency. An antenna element may change its frequency of operation around 1000's of times per second. Thus, the radar beam now does not operate at a single frequency, but rather a frequency band (in this case S-band or roughly 2-4 GHz as stated by MTShaw). As the radar energy is now spread over a band, instead of a precise single frequency, the enemy thinks that this signal is simply background noise and ignores it. This is why such radars are called LPI (low probability of Intercept) radars.

Each element can steer its own beam electronically.  Each beam can be assigned a zone in space to look into.  For example, some beams may be assigned to horizon search and others for above 60 degrees in elevation.  More elements = more overlapping beams, more redundancy and less chance you miss something sliding between beams.


----------



## Spencer100

MTShaw said:
			
		

> Most detailed modelS I’ve yet see



Where is the CIWS? I see 32 VLS in the bow with the 5 inch, 8 VLS midship, 2 remote guns,  8 SSM.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Right behind the funnel, before the Anti Ship Missiles, you'll see two 3 cell VLS. They're for CAMM, which is said to be replacing PHALANX with 24 point defense missiles.


----------



## Swampbuggy

The NRWS mounts aft on both sides look more like DS30M units than a 25mm Mk.38. That's a nice upgrade, if the model is correct.


----------



## Lumber

32 VLS? For 24 SM-2s and 32 quad-packed ESSMs? 

Pretty Please?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would she also carry torpedoes as well?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It would be really nice if CBC would spend some money doing something like this for our ships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0NzDVPVWoc&fbclid=IwAR3J_LXzyNi27S6rrhk91i87tHqSpvrCkKvXubAW5laOsdWmXy_NaWqM9uM&app=desktop

Might be a great way to recruit and to educate the public on what our navy does.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> Would she also carry torpedoes as well?



Yes, for both the helicopters and a ship-based launcher for self-defense.  I think the UK have their torpedo launcher placed on the starboard side behind a panel that opens.


----------



## Dale Denton

Colin P said:
			
		

> It would be really nice if CBC would spend some money doing something like this for our ships https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0NzDVPVWoc&fbclid=IwAR3J_LXzyNi27S6rrhk91i87tHqSpvrCkKvXubAW5laOsdWmXy_NaWqM9uM&app=desktop
> 
> Might be a great way to recruit and to educate the public on what our navy does.



Don't want to derail, but the level of quality and effort put in to these types of RN documentaries make for genuinely quality TV, and also makes you sad we don't do any of this at all.

Really hope that once the first RCN T26 is ready they'll bombard the public with shows like this. I figure with all of my CF/military web traffic that i'd get at least one ad...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Well HMCS Toronto gets a cameo at 28:13, so that's our contribution.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Colin P said:
			
		

> Would she also carry torpedoes as well?



If you look under the two remote controlled light guns (whatever type they are) on both sides of the helicopter hangar, you see two (one each side) square openings (closed in the pictures) these are the 'portholes' for the torpedo launchers on either side of the ship.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Weird they don’t have MASS but appear to have a throwback chaff launcher installed beside the SSM mounts.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> If you look under the two remote controlled light guns (whatever type they are) on both sides of the helicopter hangar, you see two (one each side) square openings (closed in the pictures) these are the 'portholes' for the torpedo launchers on either side of the ship.



They were bid as BAE 30mm Mk38's but it could end up as 25mm to match the AOPs.  

There are square panels are forward on the ship as well.  I think they are removed to place/handle lines.  It doesn't seem to have a torp launch panel on this model.  I have seen other images where there is a longer swing panel for a torp tube on the stbd side forward of the square panel and astern of the multi-mission deck.  Could be wrong though, models are only so accurate.



			
				CloudCover said:
			
		

> Weird they don%u2019t have MASS but appear to have a throwback chaff launcher installed beside the SSM mounts.



I was told that they are torpedo decoy launchers like these, not chaff/flares.  No more throwing decoys in the water from the bridge wing anymore apparently.  Of course, my source could be wrong and 130mm tubes like that can also fire chaff/flares.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

To be fitted for but not with when TB comes at the program with the cutting knife.


----------



## Underway

Not necessarily CSC, but it's related. Posted here for comparison and discussion purposes.

The USN has chosen the FREMM for its next frigate.

Note the cost and the reason for the cost: The Navy is providing a significant portion of government furnished equipment, including a variant of the AN/SPY-6 radar destined for the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers under construction, and those costs are not included in the $5.58 billion.

As argued here by various members, much of the costs of new ships are hidden in other government-furnished equipment and different forms of subsidization/accounting practices.

Also interesting the shipyard that won the contract is in Wisconson, which if it goes against Trump will most likely cause his loss in the next election as it's considered a critical battleground.

The timelines indicate that the first ship to be finished by 2026. (which is probably around when we will expecting CSC as well).  This doesn't surprise me to much as that shipyard has quite the infrastructure and tradition building ships recently.  It's also interesting as all the new FF(X) will have to pass through Canadian waters to even reach the ocean.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Underway said:
			
		

> Not necessarily CSC, but it's related. Posted here for comparison and discussion purposes.
> 
> The USN has chosen the FREMM for its next frigate.
> 
> Note the cost and the reason for the cost: The Navy is providing a significant portion of government furnished equipment, including a variant of the AN/SPY-6 radar destined for the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers under construction, and those costs are not included in the $5.58 billion.
> 
> As argued here by various members, much of the costs of new ships are hidden in other government-furnished equipment and different forms of subsidization/accounting practices.
> 
> Also interesting the shipyard that won the contract is in Wisconson, which if it goes against Trump will most likely cause his loss in the next election as it's considered a critical battleground.
> 
> The timelines indicate that the first ship to be finished by 2026. (which is probably around when we will expecting CSC as well).  This doesn't surprise me to much as that shipyard has quite the infrastructure and tradition building ships recently.  It's also interesting as all the new FF(X) will have to pass through Canadian waters to even reach the ocean.



Also here, making similar points about costs. But I believe in a 2026 CSC delivered as I believe in the tooth fairy; there are still five A/OPS to be "delivered" for RCN and two for CCG (https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/services/procurement/arctic-offshore-patrol-ships.html):
https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/128231/post-1608834.html#msg1608834

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

You’re likely on safe ground about 2026, in fact I’d wager never26. If the gravity of our 300 billion dollar deficit doesn’t strike our PM, it will definitely strike the armed forces multi billion dollar projects  and pretty much everything else.


----------



## AlexanderM

Underway said:
			
		

> Not necessarily CSC, but it's related. Posted here for comparison and discussion purposes.
> 
> The USN has chosen the FREMM for its next frigate.
> 
> Note the cost and the reason for the cost: The Navy is providing a significant portion of government furnished equipment, including a variant of the AN/SPY-6 radar destined for the Flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers under construction, and those costs are not included in the $5.58 billion.
> 
> As argued here by various members, much of the costs of new ships are hidden in other government-furnished equipment and different forms of subsidization/accounting practices.
> 
> Also interesting the shipyard that won the contract is in Wisconson, which if it goes against Trump will most likely cause his loss in the next election as it's considered a critical battleground.
> 
> The timelines indicate that the first ship to be finished by 2026. (which is probably around when we will expecting CSC as well).  This doesn't surprise me to much as that shipyard has quite the infrastructure and tradition building ships recently.  It's also interesting as all the new FF(X) will have to pass through Canadian waters to even reach the ocean.


Not sure if I'm the only one who wishes we could have taken that FREMM deal but.....


----------



## MTShaw

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> Not sure if I'm the only one who wishes we could have taken that FREMM deal but.....



The FREMM bid wouldn’t go through the bidding process because they didn’t want to do a full knowledge transfer. And the 30Bn from the FREMM just accounts for the building the ships and nothing else.

We would be beholden to France and Italy for all of the service. So it was a shitty deal for us.  

I like the FREMMs and am happy the Americans found something that fits their needs.


----------



## MilEME09

Given that the CSC will maintain jobs in Halifax and elsewhere, I get  a feeling it would be political suicide if they canceled the program.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:
			
		

> The FREMM bid wouldn’t go through the bidding process because they didn’t want to do a full knowledge transfer. And the 30Bn from the FREMM just accounts for the building the ships and nothing else.
> 
> We would be beholden to France and Italy for all of the service. So it was a shitty deal for us.
> 
> I like the FREMMs and am happy the Americans found something that fits their needs.



I agree on all points.  To elaborate there seems to be a large difference between the FREMM that was bid for Canada and the US bid.  Due to the entire combat system, electronics, and weapons being government-furnished equipment FREMM was basically bidding an empty warship.  The competition was basically for a hull and prime mover.  The bid for Canada was everything, which is why I'm sure the French/Italians were not happy with it.  There's little to be lost if the Italians hand over ship hull plans.  Hardly top secret information.


----------



## Good2Golf

What Underway said. :nod:


----------



## Good2Golf

What Underway said. :nod:

FREMM for Canada would have been a Capital ship and huge commitment with Canada and its shipbuilding industry ‘all in.’

FREMM for the US is a halfway between the LCS experiment and true DDGs.  It’s the little brother to OHPs.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> FREMM for the US is a halfway between the LCS experiment and true DDGs.  It’s the little brother to OHPs.



OHP's are the old US frigates.  I assume you meant Burkes.  FREMM for the US will be a good competitive frigate.  Better than the new UK Type 31.  Based on what I have seen its a bit behind our and Australia's Type 26.  32 VLS, 21 RAM, 57mm Bofors, Spy 6 variant radar.  It's perfect for what the US needs.


----------



## Good2Golf

ABs, yes. :nod:


----------



## FSTO

DDG 1000 and LCS (both variants) are a pair of costly failures for the USN. Once the USFREMM's come on line I can see the US selling all of the LCS to a couple of countries who need coastal patrol ships and can afford the cost of operating them. The cost of operating LCS will limit the customer list for sure and maybe the fate of the LCS will be the scrap yard.
The 3 versions DDG 1000 will likely never see operations and will be a test bed for many future conceptions.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MTShaw said:
			
		

> The FREMM bid wouldn’t go through the bidding process because they didn’t want to do a full knowledge transfer. And the 30Bn from the FREMM just accounts for the building the ships and nothing else.
> 
> We would be beholden to France and Italy for all of the service. So it was a shitty deal for us.
> 
> I like the FREMMs and am happy the Americans found something that fits their needs.



Also training and other things that we normally do in house. The $30B is actually about the same as what we have budgeted for the capital side of CSC to do it in Canada, so it would have cost more over the long run, to not have any IP rights,  training facilities, while not having any people employed building them.  It looked great though when you only compared the sticker price, and ignored that it was a clementine compared to a big apple.


----------



## MTShaw

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Also training and other things that we normally do in house. The $30B is actually about the same as what we have budgeted for the capital side of CSC to do it in Canada, so it would have cost more over the long run, to not have any IP rights,  training facilities, while not having any people employed building them.  It looked great though when you only compared the sticker price, and ignored that it was a clementine compared to a big apple.



I would be a Canadian LCS it terms of service. Pulling in to friendly ports waiting for he Naval Group to make time to fix a problem that we should be able to fix ourselves.


----------



## Spencer100

My question the US orders 10 with 10 to be bid again they get the full data and IP package. Canada is going to order 15 and we can't. Is it "we are the US Navy" or is it an Irving thing?


----------



## MilEME09

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> My question the US orders 10 with 10 to be bid again they get the full data and IP package. Canada is going to order 15 and we can't. Is it "we are the US Navy" or is it an Irving thing?



Irving thing


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Irving thing




Could someone elaborate?  I know Irving isn't held in high regards by the Navy folks, but I don't know any details other than what I've read in various threads here.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

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.


----------



## Underway

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.



Agreed.  There is also the fact it was the Italian FREMM that was bid for the FFG(X) not the French FREMM (like in Canada).  The Italian CEO of Ficcantieri recently spoke at an interview and highlighted the growth margins, and power plant the ship provided. And yes there is no way the French would have signed over their military IP to anyone.  They want the return customer.


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> And yes there is no way the French would have signed over their military IP to anyone.  They want the return customer.


Did Naval Group just make Australia pay extra for access to their intellectual property?





> Concerns over warranties and technology transfer are believed to be the main sticking points in the tough negotiations between the Australian Commonwealth and French-owned Naval Group.


https://sldinfo.com/2018/09/aussie-french-sub-deal-hits-turbulent-waters/



> Australia’s ambitious project to jointly build 12 Attack-class submarines with the France is now estimated to cost nearly $90 billion, up by 12% (or $10 billion) in five months.


https://www.defenseworld.net/news/26898/Australia_to_spend__90B_for_12_Attack_class_Submarines


----------



## Underway

Maybe.  Australia has a bit looser requirements it seems for holding IP (form the outside looking in).  Given how the French work I'm surprised that they seem surprised about this.  They must be too used to working with much more co-operative companies not tied to geopolitical goals (Sweeds, Spainish etc...).


----------



## Navy_Pete

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.



Having more users for a shared hull and powerplants is generally good for the navies though; I know the weapons kits are sexy but the majority of of the maintenance is on the hull, powerplant, hotel services etc, so the more people using the same pumps and whatnot the cheaper they are to maintain, and longer they will likely be maintained for. The IP for all those bits would be owned by the original companies anyway (not the builder/designer) so if they just use standard commercial terms it's probably pretty easy to get them to agree to transfer to the USN or other customers.  If they have specific terms and conditions beyond that, it's a bunch more complicated, but companies generally like having more widgets in operation that will need to have parts and support over a long term.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> What Underway said. :nod:
> 
> FREMM for Canada would have been a Capital ship and huge commitment with Canada and its shipbuilding industry ‘all in.’
> 
> FREMM for the US is a halfway between the LCS experiment and true DDGs.  It’s the little brother to OHPs.



I think the US Frigate design is a couple of thousand tons heavier than our Halifax's


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin P said:
			
		

> I think the US Frigate design is a couple of thousand tons heavier than our Halifax's



Specs I see for CSC are 7,600 short tons.  Are you saying FFG(X) will be almost 10,000 short tons?  ???


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Specs I see for CSC are 7,600 short tons.  Are you saying FFG(X) will be almost 10,000 short tons?  ???



FFG(X) displacement is stated as 7,400 short tons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFG(X)

 :cheers:


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Specs I see for CSC are 7,600 short tons.  Are you saying FFG(X) will be almost 10,000 short tons?  ???



Type 26 tonnage quotes are all over the map.  The British Type 26 is listed as 6800 tons a few places with a max load of 7800.  The Canadian one is listed as 7600 and the Australian one is listed as 8800.  So I'm gonna go with somewhere closer to the Australian one, given the radar we are putting on this thing is going to substantially heavier than the UK one.  Not to mention then the power plant needs to be able to power it, etc... so who knows where it's going to end up.

The ship will have a max design margin so whatever happens one needs to stay within it.  I expect it's pretty high, given the beam and length of the ship.


----------



## Good2Golf

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Specs I see for CSC are 7,600 short tons.  Are you saying FFG(X) will be almost 10,000 short tons?  ???



Oops. Misread CSC for Halifax.  

My comment related to the fact that while both CSC Type 26 and FFG(X) FREMM are approximately the same displacement (mid-7000 tons), for Canada, CSC is the biggest combat ship we’ll have, whereas USN FREMM is a relatively very small ship compared to their CVNs, CGs and DDGs ‘status wise.’


----------



## Uzlu

Underway said:
			
		

> The ship will have a max design margin so whatever happens one needs to stay within it.


Will it have a very large growth margin  similar to the _Arleigh Burke_-class destroyers?  There was a huge increase in displacement from Flight I to Flight III.


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> Will it have a very large growth margin  similar to the _Arleigh Burke_-class destroyers?  There was a huge increase in displacement from Flight I to Flight III.



Sort of.  The different Flights I and II are the same hull.  Flight IIA and Flight III of the Burkes are different.  They get physically larger (in length) as you go down the line.  The first 28 Burke's didn't have hangars etc... which was corrected on Flight IIA.  But Flight IIA are a meter longer.  The Flight III, I understand have reached the maximum design margin for that particular ship design.

Actually now that I think about it the Arleigh Burke is a good comparison ship for the Type 26 design margins.  The Burke is 154m long and has a 20m beam.  Type 26 is 150m long and 20.8m beam.

What I meant by that comment is that there is a maximum tonnage that a ship can have.  If the Aussies have an 8800 ton ship and we want a 7800-ton ship then there are at least 1000 tons we can grow into, with a growth margin of about 13% on the same hull. A Burke Flight II is about 8400 tons so the numbers are comparable (yes the Burke is 5m longer but that extra 0.8 beam on the Type 26 is has more influence then its meagre number might indicate).

But tons are not as important as they used to be.  I had an excellent conversation before all the social distancing hit with my offices Nav Arch.  He explained to me how things have changed over the years on important numbers for ships.  
At first, it was number of guns you could mount.  Basically the weight of shot.  That was the critical design feature of warships.  More guns equaled better warships.

As time went on it changed to tonnage.  How big you could make the ship allows you to pile on armour, big guns, and powerplant to move it. More tons equaled better warship.

Now its about topside space.  How many sensors, comms and EW can you cram on the ship that don't interfere with each other.  Every system is fighting each other for the prime real estate on the mast. Do you have the space to place all the missiles, land a helo, launch boats?  More space equals better warship.  This is one of the reasons that current warship design has gone with internal walkways instead of the old school railings and open upper deck (stealth is the other reason).

It's all related of course... more space is directly related to dimensions, but tons are not all created equal.  More tons up high need to be calculated for to ensure stability (ie: a 4 ton wieght 4 decks above the waterline could equate to approx 60 tons of lead ballast, which is wasted design margin).


----------



## MilEME09

If true Underway that we have roughly 1000 tons to work with, it sounds like that gives us a lot of flexibility down the road in regards to upgrades, since if the NSP works as intended by the time the last CSC rolls out the first one would be ready for a refit. Really if the NSP goes well I hope we see yards expanded to allow concurrent building of more ships, combined with a national recruitment program to encourage people into trades schools (which regardless of the trade is really needed)


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If true Underway that we have roughly 1000 tons to work with, it sounds like that gives us a lot of flexibility down the road in regards to upgrades, since if the NSP works as intended by the time the last CSC rolls out the first one would be ready for a refit. Really if the NSP goes well I hope we see yards expanded to allow concurrent building of more ships, combined with a national recruitment program to encourage people into trades schools (which regardless of the trade is really needed)



Generally they build ships with a design margin to allow for growth on tonnage, cooling, electrical generation and distribution and other things that would let you do future upgrades. PG&D is one of the trickier ones, as something with a bigger power draw will also need bigger breakers, cables etc all the way back to the generator, so it's a huge amount of work to do if it's not built in, but if you overdo it at the start it's inefficient and eats a bunch of your weight/stability margins.


----------



## Underway

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> If true Underway that we have roughly 1000 tons to work with, it sounds like that gives us a lot of flexibility down the road in regards to upgrades, since if the NSP works as intended by the time the last CSC rolls out the first one would be ready for a refit. Really if the NSP goes well I hope we see yards expanded to allow the concurrent building of more ships, combined with a national recruitment program to encourage people into trades schools (which regardless of the trade is really needed)



Yes, IF true.  I don't trust the displacement numbers from the Hunter Class or CSC that have been released publicly.  They are ballpark figures.  There is no way that at this part of the project process they have an accurate number.  I'm sure the mast design isn't even finalized.  And those radars, with their cooling and the associated EW suites, are heavy.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Of course we could ask for 12 of these to be built in Canadian yards and by time we finish killing that program, the current CSC will look like small potatoes.  8)


----------



## MilEME09

Colin P said:
			
		

> Of course we could ask for 12 of these to be built in Canadian yards and by time we finish killing that program, the current CSC will look like small potatoes.  8)



Why not a Nuclear powered battleship with rail guns and laser CIWS (I can't believe we are at a point where this statement can be serious)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Why not a Nuclear powered battleship with rail guns and laser CIWS (I can't believe we are at a point where this statement can be serious)



Well you see Irving will offer to build these at the same cost as your suggestion, so we pay for your idea and get a watered down version of mine and two for the CCG.  ;D


----------



## CBH99

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Why not a Nuclear powered battleship with rail guns and laser CIWS (I can't believe we are at a point where this statement can be serious)




Tried that ladies & gents, i.e. Zumwalt class

Turns out, they are just a wee bit expensive.  Too expensive for the USN even, which is saying something


----------



## calculus

Underway said:
			
		

> Yes, IF true.  I don't trust the displacement numbers from the Hunter Class or CSC that have been released publicly.  They are ballpark figures.  There is no way that at this part of the project process they have an accurate number.  I'm sure the mast design isn't even finalized.  And those radars, with their cooling and the associated EW suites, are heavy.


Hunter class numbers are all over the map. This link suggests a full-load displacment of 9700 tonnes: https://www.monch.com/mpg/news/naval-channel/7055-royal-australian-navy-hunter-class-frigate.html

If that is actually true, it suggests a ton (pun intended) of growth margin  in the T26 design.


----------



## Uzlu

How different will the surface combatants be compared to the versions for the United Kingdom and Australia?





> Sinking feeling: frigate heads back to drawing board
> 
> The navy's $35 billion fleet of new frigates is undergoing design changes because they have become too heavy, risking a cost blowout for taxpayers and potentially compromising their performance.
> 
> The Defence Department confirmed BAE System's Hunter class frigate has become longer, while its weight has increased.
> 
> BAE Systems conceded the frigate may have to swell in size but insisted it would still meet the navy's requirements.
> 
> The Australian Financial Review understands senior naval officers are beginning to have misgivings, although the relationship is nowhere near as strained as it is with the French submarine designer Naval Group.
> 
> The government selected BAE Systems in June 2018 to build nine frigates in Adelaide ahead of Spanish shipbuilder Navantia and Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri.
> 
> Both European shipbuilders had put forward designs based on ships already in service with their respective navies, but BAE's Type 26 was a new design and at that stage only had one ship under construction for the Royal Navy.
> 
> The initial design, as pitched to the government, gave the frigate a weight of 8800 tonnes when fully loaded and length of 149.9 metres.
> 
> The winning bid deviated from the base UK design because it was required to include the Australian developed CEA phased array radar, the American Aegis combat system and an Australian developed combat tactical interface by SAAB.
> 
> Construction of the first ship is due to start in December 2022.
> 
> Defence industry sources said incorporating the radar, which is regarded as world leading, was proving problematic because of its weight and power consumption.
> 
> Unlike conventional radars, the data processing by the CEAFAR radar is done within the mast, making it very top-heavy. It also uses more power than standard radars.
> 
> One industry source said the frigate's weight was on track to exceed 10,000 tonnes, necessitating the need for the hull to become bigger, which could affect its speed, acoustic performance and ability to conduct stealthy anti-submarine warfare operations.
> 
> A larger vessel has several flow-on costs, including construction, needing extra fuel for sailing and the provision of wharf infrastructure.
> 
> Alternatively, the navy might need to accept lower capability to keep the boat close to the original design parameters.
> 
> "Australia purchased a design concept and the design is changing significantly, and that is going to increase risk to the program," the source said.
> 
> A second source said the onus was on BAE Systems to "fix it up, because they put up a paper ship saying it could meet all the requirements, while their competitors had proven, in-service designs".
> 
> A third defence industry source likened the frigate to the car designed by cartoon character Homer Simpson, who wanted a raft of features to create the perfect car, only to create anything but.
> 
> In the frigate's case, the navy has demanded top-shelf military kit such as the radar and combat systems in a brand new design, but no builder has put the combination together before in the same vessel.
> 
> The Defence Department confirmed changes were being made.
> 
> "The first Type 26 frigate is being constructed in Glasgow and design changes flowing from production have increased the design’s baseline weight and slightly extended its overall length," it said.
> 
> "The Australian changes being made to the Type 26 design, including the incorporation of CEA Technologies’ advanced phased array radar, remain within the agreed weight and space envelopes of the Hunter Class design."
> 
> Craig Lockhart, managing director of BAE subsidiary, ASC Shipbuilding, which will construct the frigates, said the Australian version was much more complex than its British parent and the topside was different.


https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/sinking-feeling-frigate-heads-back-to-drawing-board-20200625-p55639


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hopefully a lot of the design issues and solutions from the UK/Aussie builds flow to our CSC design team.


----------



## Spencer100

10,000 ton Frigate?  OK


----------



## Spencer100

almost that is bigger than their destroyers.  

Is the CEA heavier than the Spy 7?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> 10,000 ton Frigate?  OK



Keeping up with the Japanese and their "helicopter Destroyer"


----------



## Uzlu

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> 10,000 ton Frigate?


How about 9 000 tonnes?  Since the end of World War II, frigate displacements have continuously increased—more space required for weapons, sensors, computers, electronics, etc.  Countries are realizing that, since building and operating frigates is expensive and they can afford only a limited number of frigates, might as well go high end and get something very suitable for global deployments.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> almost that is bigger than their destroyers.
> 
> As near as I can tell, it's about 3000 tonnes more displacement, than their HOBART'S.


----------



## Underway

Few things I picked out from that article.  The Glasgow ship (UK Type 26) is bigger and heavier than originally advertised.  CEAFAR processing is done in the mast (which is no that weird given that processing should be as close to the emitter as possible).  And the best one, that the Australians are just as screwed up as we are!  Yay! Misery loves company.



			
				Spencer100 said:
			
		

> 10,000 ton Frigate?  OK



Everyone please stop using tons to classify ships!  Ships are classified on role.  (see carrier, AOR etc...).  And modern multipurpose blue water ships are frigates.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:
			
		

> And the best one, that the Australians are just as screwed up as we are!  Yay! Misery loves company.



They sure are.  That's why I shake my head whenever people say "we should just model our military/procurement after the ADF".  Their procurement process is slightly better in that they just throw money at the problem.  

If you really want to read up on a procurement blowout, check out their upcoming Attack-class submarines to replace the Collins-class.  It's a French SSN design that they want to make as an SSK, with American (and other) systems inside.  Australia will be the launch customer and the 12 subs are to be delivered over almost 25 years, so the last boats will be different than the first ones.  

If the program doesn't go completely pear-shaped, I'll eat my hat.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway said:
			
		

> Everyone please stop using tons to classify ships!  Ships are classified on role.  (see carrier, AOR etc...).  And modern multipurpose blue water ships are frigates.



Actually, the term "destroyer" is sort of falling out of favour, save perhaps in the anglosphere. Most nations in the world only use the term "frigate", then specify the role: ASW frigate, Air Defence frigate, General Purpose frigate, and so on.

Remember that "destroyers" started as "torpedo-boats destroyers". When was the last time someone tried to destroy a torpedo boat? and how many torpedo-boats are out there to be destroyed?  ;D


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, the term "destroyer" is sort of falling out of favour, save perhaps in the anglosphere. Most nations in the world only use the term "frigate", then specify the role: ASW frigate, Air Defence frigate, General Purpose frigate, and so on.
> 
> Remember that "destroyers" started as "torpedo-boats destroyers". When was the last time someone tried to destroy a torpedo boat? and how many torpedo-boats are out there to be destroyed?  ;D



Destroyer is still popular in Asia as well.  Using the term frigate with the specificity of ASW/AD etc... supports my point.  Ships are classified based on role.  Not tonnage.


----------



## MilEME09

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Remember that "destroyers" started as "torpedo-boats destroyers". When was the last time someone tried to destroy a torpedo boat? and how many torpedo-boats are out there to be destroyed?  ;D



Taiwan and North Korea come to mind, but they also call them fast attack craft now. Taiwan actually has a new class coming soon with 4 x anti ship missiles.


----------



## Uzlu

Uzlu said:
			
		

> How different will the surface combatants be compared to the versions for the United Kingdom and Australia?
> https://www.afr.com/politics/federal/sinking-feeling-frigate-heads-back-to-drawing-board-20200625-p55639





> Australian shipbuilder pushes back against reports of frigate design concerns
> 
> MELBOURNE, Australia — The builder of the Royal Australian Navy’s new Hunter-class frigates has told Defense News that the ship’s design remains “within agreed weight and space envelopes,” despite a recent report in Australian media claiming recent changes have caused concern.
> 
> ASC Shipbuilding was responding to a June 26 story in the Australian Financial Review that said growth in the ship design’s weight and length is “sparking concerns.”
> 
> But ASC Shipbuilding Managing Director Craig Lockhart said Thursday the company remained confident in its ability to meet Australia’s capability requirements and specifications.
> 
> “ASC Shipbuilding is going through the normal naval design process for the Hunter-class frigate and is working collaboratively with the [Australian Defence Department’s] Capability Acquisition and Sustainment Group and the Royal Australian Navy to design a ship that meets Australia’s capability and performance requirements,” Lockhart said.
> 
> Australia is building nine Hunter-class frigates under the AU$35 billion (U.S. $24 billion) Project Sea 5000. The ship is based on BAE Systems’ Global Combat Ship, which is under construction in the U.K. for the Royal Navy as the Type 26 and will also be built in Canada as the Canadian Surface Combatant. However, the Australian government has mandated the incorporation of a CEA Technologies electronically scanned radar, which is designed and manufactured in Australia. It has also required the Lockheed Martin Aegis combat system and an Australian interface designed by Saab Australia.
> 
> Australia’s specifications have impacted the size and weight of the Australian vessel’s radar mast as well as its power and cooling requirements, but Lockhart maintains the ship is not undergoing a redesign. Rather it is in the midst of what he calls a “normal naval design process,” and he sees nothing to date which will challenge the design margins.
> 
> “This design work involves understanding the impact of the Australian-specific systems and equipment and incorporating the agreed design activities, which have occurred as the first-of-class Type 26 Global Combat Ship design matures,” Lockhart said.
> 
> “Contrary to the suggestion made in the article, Hunter is not being redesigned, but instead our team is right in the middle of a normal naval ship design process for Hunter,” he added. “Importantly, the design activities being undertaken remain within the agreed weight and space envelopes for Hunter, and we remain confident in our ability to meet the capability requirements and specifications for the commonwealth on time and on budget.”
> 
> Prototyping construction work is expected to begin at ASC’s new purpose-built shipyard in Osborne, South Australia, in December, ahead of cutting steel for the first ship in December 2022. This first vessel is planned to become operational with the Royal Australian Navy around the end of the decade.


https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2020/07/02/australian-shipbuilder-pushes-back-against-reports-of-frigate-design-concerns/


----------



## Underway

Some SPY-7 reading for those interested.

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2020/why-spy-7-is-the-world-s-most-versatile-radar.html


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:
			
		

> Some SPY-7 reading for those interested.
> 
> https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/news/features/2020/why-spy-7-is-the-world-s-most-versatile-radar.html



Little out of date.   Japan cancelled the Aegis ashore a couple of weeks ago.


----------



## MilEME09

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.


----------



## Dale Denton

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

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

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  rly: )

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


----------



## MTShaw

Karel Doorman said:
			
		

> Think you would have come close to that 60B figure;(knowing the French  rly: )
> 
> I mean,training,spareparts,ugrades,etc,etc



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


----------



## RDBZ

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CC, amazing that T45 only has 10-15 years left in it...so used to seeing 40-50 year cycles, not 20-25.


----------



## MarkOttawa

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

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

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).


----------



## Cloud Cover

JMCanada said:
			
		

> 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.



9 and 9 would be a nice outcome.


----------



## JMCanada

In the summer-2020 number of MEJ there is an introducing article to CSC. From now on MEJ (maritime eng. journal) is available at
https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/maritime-engineering-journal.html

Wish you enjoy it.


----------



## Underway

JMCanada said:
			
		

> In the summer-2020 number of MEJ there is an introducing article to CSC. From now on MEJ (maritime eng. journal) is available at
> https://www.canada.ca/en/department-national-defence/corporate/reports-publications/maritime-engineering-journal.html
> 
> Wish you enjoy it.



This is my favourite part of course:



> CSC Combat System: The CSC combat system is being designed around the Aegis Fire Control Loop and SPY-7 AESA 3D radar, and will include collaborative engagement capability and solid-state illuminators, all controlled by an upgraded Canadian CMS 330 combat management system. The ship will carry a 127-mm gun, and a 32-cell vertical launch system capable of handling Standard and Tomahawk missiles. When it is complete, the overall configuration will produce one of the most capable combat systems in the world. We will examine the technical and programmatic challenges of integrating a wide range of complex systems obtained from Canadian and international defence suppliers, including significant procurements through US GovernmentForeign Military Sales.


----------



## NavyShooter

CloudCover said:
			
		

> 9 and 9 would be a nice outcome.




In terms of platforms, that would be...actually somewhat unfortunate.


You'd be increasing the load on the training system by having multiple platforms, plus increasing the load on the maintenance facilities.


Going with a single platform means greater redundancy of parts, confluence of training, and the supply chain will be....happier....for it.

With the Halifax Class, there were a considerable number of systems that there were, quite literally, only 13 of ever built.  1 for each ship, and one for the school.  As they broke, the one at the school got taken away, then they robbed from other ships, then they only supporting the single (or two) HR deployers, then they only supported based on the intended OP Area...


I believe we would be far better served as a small navy with a single class of ships.


My fear/concern is that the Government is going to look at the ~$60B price-tag, and cancel the whole shebang, and tell the Navy that instead, they're going to get a dozen extra AOPS after the 2 CCG ones are built...and the Navy can transfer whatever C3I capability to them that they can, and up-gun them from 25mm to deck mounted (non-deck penetrating configuration) 57mm, with 1x CEROS + 4x VLS cells plus a spot to plunk the CIWS....and a redesign of the mast to include the SMART-S.  Max budget of an extra $100mil per AOPS.  


They'd save billions doing that, and the general public for the most part doesn't know any different between one gray ship and another....so long as it's got a flag and a gun, they're happy.



NS


----------



## Swampbuggy

I guess if they made it a Flight II AOPS, with a 100+ ft increase in length (for a VLS, mission Bay, etc) and an MT30 (along with added length makes a few more knots) it wouldn't be the worst thing that could happen. But, still no world standard radar, no stealth to speak of (she's pretty high and slab sided) and some survivability questions (no CBRN citadel etc) would make this a real loss in capability for the RCN. Now, if you wanted to build 8 of those in addition to, say, 12 CSC as a step up/replacement for the MCDV, I could see a case being made.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Leak in UK Daily Telegraph that RN as result of defence review might end up with just three Type 26s and five cheaper, less capable Type 31s--what would happen to ASW in North Atlantic, esp Scotland to Iceland?



> Exclusive: anti-submarine warships could be cut down to single figures
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/08/26/exclusive-anti-submarine-warships-could-cut-single-figures/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Uzlu

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Leak in UK Daily Telegraph that RN as result of defence review might end up with just three Type 26s and five cheaper, less capable Type 31s--what would happen to ASW in North Atlantic, esp Scotland to Iceland?





> Type-26 Royal Navy frigates being slashed from 'eight to three' is 'fake news', claims source
> 
> *Devonport MP says cutting number of new warships from eight to three is a 'genuine risk' to national security 'when Russia is on the rise and China has territorial ambitions'*
> 
> Plymouth Sutton and Devonport MP Luke Pollard has reacted with horror to reports that the number of Royal Navy Type-26 frigates being ordered is being slashed from eight to three.
> 
> The Telegraph reports that the Government is considering not ordering any further Type 26 anti-submarine warfare frigates after the initial batch of three ships has been delivered.
> 
> However, a Ministry of Defence source told PlymouthLive the report was 'fake news'.
> 
> Plymouth fought a long campaign to base these ships in Devonport as they represent a like-for-like replacement for the Type 23 anti-submarine warfare frigates that are currently based in Devonport.
> 
> Labour MP Luke Pollard, who is Vice-Chairman of the All Party Armed Forces Group, said: “Devonport was promised eight Type 26 Anti-submarine frigates to replace the current Type 23 frigates. Work is underway to prepare for the arrival of these world-class frigates that will secure Devonport’s future as a base for the Royal Navy’s surface fleet.
> 
> "If reports in the media today are correct then it looks like the Conservatives are intending to slash the orders from eight to just three Type 26 frigates. The Tories cut the order from 13 frigates to just eight when they came to power so we must not rule out that they won’t do it again.
> 
> “A further cut to just three Type 26 frigates will pose a genuine risk to our national security at a time when Russia is on the rise and China has territorial ambitions that threaten our allies.
> 
> "As I have warned for years the Type 31 light frigates, more akin to a corvette, do not have the war fighting capabilities or survivability of the new Type 26 frigates and certainly are not equipped to take on submarines in the Atlantic which is what the Type 26 are designed for.
> 
> “As Devonport’s MP I fought against the decision by Conservative Ministers to sell HMS Ocean and led the campaign to protect Devonport’s two amphibious assault ships from Tory cuts.
> 
> "As a city we now need to prepare for a full-scale fight against new Government plans to slash frigate numbers and to defend our amphibious capabilities based in Devonport.
> 
> “Today’s article is a wake-up call for those who care about the Royal Navy and Devonport that Ministers must not be allowed to slash our ship numbers even further than they have already.”
> 
> However an MoD source says the revelation is "completely fake news".
> 
> "I'd love to see evidence for these claims," they said.


https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/news/plymouth-news/type-26-royal-navy-frigates-4463985


----------



## Czech_pivo

Anyone have a sense of when the next decision milestone on the CSC's is? What, realistically, will be achieved in pushing the peanut uphill on the CSC's before year-end?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:
			
		

> Anyone have a sense of when the next decision milestone on the CSC's is? What, realistically, will be achieved in pushing the peanut uphill on the CSC's before year-end?



Preliminary Design Review is next but you won't hear about it in the media likely.  But if that is passed then money is awarded.  It also frees up money to do more specific design functions.

The way the ship building projects generally work at this point are:

Preliminary Design Review:  contractor is convincing the customer that the general design direction they want to go will meet the requirements.  These documents describe general connections and block diagrams (aka: Nav radars connect to combat management, gyro, GPS and navigation system)

Critical Design Review: show the customer specific implementation.  Documents should be much more representative of the final solution. (specific Nav Radar chosen, power feeds, locations of equipment, types of cables connecting to CMS, gyro, GPS, nav system) 

Final Design Review:  show the customer you can now build.  Documents are the ones you can build the system off of.  The blueprints.  At this point there should be no engineering changes, or problems from the customer, as the customer signs off on the final design and you get to building.

I suspect that CSC will do similar things to AOPS and JSS where the build will be happening concurrent to this process.  For example there is no reason you can't start building low risk blocks, such as crew quarters or storage spaces early without having a Final Design Review approved.  There are flaws as change late in the game can lead to cost and delay, but waiting until FDR to start building is also expensive.  There might also be some systems that go through FDR at different times depending on their urgency or the fact they are installed after the ship is built.


----------



## suffolkowner

Australia is slowly progressing with theirs

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/asc-shipbuilding-signs-contract-for-hunter-class-frigate-prototyping/

and looking to locally source gearboxes?

https://www.naval-technology.com/news/australia-launches-feasibility-study-into-gearboxes-for-hunter-batches/

it's interesting in that I thought there was going to be a common propulsion system at least and would hardly make sense for anyone to run such small one off runs

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/powering-the-stealthy-submarine-hunter-type-26-frigate-propulsion-system-in-focus/

especially as it looks like it's hard enough to keep these niche industries going

https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/closure-of-ge-rugby-electric-motor-plant-threatens-supply-of-royal-navy-propulsion-systems/

any idea what the RCN plans are?


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Australia is slowly progressing with theirs
> 
> https://www.naval-technology.com/news/asc-shipbuilding-signs-contract-for-hunter-class-frigate-prototyping/
> 
> and looking to locally source gearboxes?
> 
> https://www.naval-technology.com/news/australia-launches-feasibility-study-into-gearboxes-for-hunter-batches/
> 
> it's interesting in that I thought there was going to be a common propulsion system at least and would hardly make sense for anyone to run such small one off runs
> 
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/powering-the-stealthy-submarine-hunter-type-26-frigate-propulsion-system-in-focus/
> 
> especially as it looks like it's hard enough to keep these niche industries going
> 
> https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/closure-of-ge-rugby-electric-motor-plant-threatens-supply-of-royal-navy-propulsion-systems/
> 
> any idea what the RCN plans are?


GE made a pitch.  https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/news/defence-news/2018/june-2018-navy-naval-defense-news/6264-ge-pitching-lm2500-gas-turbine-for-canada-s-surface-combatant-program.html


----------



## suffolkowner

Thanks Uzulu so the UK, Australia and Canada could have completely different propulsion systems? I can see where this can get bogged down as I doubt all these components can be swapped out with a snap of the fingers 1 gas turbine, 4 diesels, 2 electric motors and the gearboxes

The Rolls-Royce MT30 is rated at 36MW so the comparable GE would be LM2500+G4 (35.3 MW)?


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The Rolls-Royce MT30 is rated at 36MW so the comparable GE would be LM2500+G4 (35.3 MW)?


FREMM uses the LM2500+G4.  And maybe also FFG(X)?


----------



## YZT580

except for the obvious advantage of fleet commonality for parts and training (if applicable) is there any upside to changing power systems from those in the initial plans?  Hull design, mounting supports, cable runs would all have to be recalculated and new blueprints drafted, proofed etc.  That is costly and increases the potential for design error.  So why consider it?


----------



## Cloud Cover

Because that’s what we do.


----------



## YZT580

sounds like someone with too little to do trying to justify his/her position rather than looking for real work


----------



## suffolkowner

It probably worth exploring I guess in the sense of parts availability and security if we can source Canadian/American alternatives, and maybe introduce some competition for the sake of cost control. I mean the Australians are doing the same thing so? Hard to believe that Australia or Canada could maintain their own supply lines on these systems economically though, but I have no idea. Do we have someone in Canada that can handle the GT, diesels, gearing and electric motors?


----------



## Underway

YZT580 said:
			
		

> except for the obvious advantage of fleet commonality for parts and training (if applicable) is there any upside to changing power systems from those in the initial plans?  Hull design, mounting supports, cable runs would all have to be recalculated and new blueprints drafted, proofed etc.  That is costly and increases the potential for design error.  So why consider it?



Because there is probably a certain amount of the contract that must be spent in Australia.  Canada does the exact same thing all the time.  Unless the solution is already Canadian made one of the major parts of shipbuilding is to develop/increase Canadian industry.  Why by diesel generator X when generator Y is supposed to do the same thing, then we charge Canada for the change, the redesign work and get the check in the box for Canadian content.  This is how projects work.

Commonality with allied fleets was never, ever one of the goals of the CSC project or the Hunter class.  It was just picked out by us navy nerds as an advantage.


----------



## Stoker

Pretty impressive


----------



## Underway

*edit- took to long to load so my comment made no sense*

Looks like the RCN is going public with the Tomahawk.  Yay I can talk about it now!

This is a pretty comprehensive list of main equipment.  I'm glad I can now point to the RCN glossy and say "I told you so" to so many people... lol (none on here of course).


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:
			
		

> I feel like I'm missing an image of the ship in the centre of the glossy.  It feels half done.
> 
> Where did it come from?  Link?


http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/fleet/rcn_csc_factsheet-8x11_web.pdf


----------



## Cloud Cover

Also in latest edition of Proceedings: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/november/future-canadian-surface-combatant

There will be only 1 variant this ship. All 15 will be built. There will not be another class of surface combatant in the RCN. Embarked pers=204. May sometimes include special forces and RCMP among others.


----------



## AlexanderM

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/fleet/rcn_csc_factsheet-8x11_web.pdf


They are showing both the Tomahawk and the Kongsberg which is the Joint Strike Missile, which is fine, one ship-to-ship, the other longer range, good capabilities. They are also showing the SM2, which is also fine, but if they do add a booster to the ESSM it would make the cells go further, more missiles.


----------



## Underway

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Also in latest edition of Proceedings: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/november/future-canadian-surface-combatant
> 
> There will be only 1 variant this ship. All 15 will be built. There will not be another class of surface combatant in the RCN. Embarked pers=204. May sometimes include special forces and RCMP among others.



That's a very good article detailing why the single variant.  Operational availability.  Or the "Iroquois Effect" where the sudden rust out of a ship class led to the loss of AAW capability.  Super excited to see that they are far enough along to begin releasing this info to the public.


----------



## Navy_Pete

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Also in latest edition of Proceedings: https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2020/november/future-canadian-surface-combatant
> 
> There will be only 1 variant this ship. All 15 will be built. There will not be another class of surface combatant in the RCN. Embarked pers=204. May sometimes include special forces and RCMP among others.



204 is such a low number when we don't have a training fleet suitable for most trades. Not a big deal if you have a bigger fleet with a variety of ships, but don't understand why we chronically under-bunk our ships, and the trend is getting worse since the CPF. Crew comfort is fine, but it is shortsighted to build a multitool then limit it's capabilities by not having enough space for a crew to use all the tools you plan to slap on it.


----------



## CBH99

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> 204 is such a low number when we don't have a training fleet suitable for most trades. Not a big deal if you have a bigger fleet with a variety of ships, but don't understand why we chronically under-bunk our ships, and the trend is getting worse since the CPF. Crew comfort is fine, but it is shortsighted to build a multitool then limit it's capabilities by not having enough space for a crew to use all the tools you plan to slap on it.




Could be that by reducing the number of crew required by 30ppl or 50ppl per ship, and understanding that a ship operating off the African coast most likely won't need to do everything it can on the high end -- alleviate some of the deployment burdens on our sailors, and also help crew more of the ships without members jumping around?

I have no idea if any of the above makes sense.  That's what I took away from the lower crew requirement.  That, and increased automation.  


 :dunno:


----------



## Lumber

Retired RCN said:
			
		

> Pretty impressive



Sea Ceptor, ESSM, SM2, NSM and Tomahawk? F*** me we're going to need a whole unit dedicated to missile readiness inspections. I'd volunteer but I'll be post-command by the time these babies actually start trialing their missiles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You would think that wherever possible you have 2 bunks in any space for 1, that way you can double up as need be.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Are there any image mock ups of how the support bay is supposed load these mystery vehicles into the 12M RHIB and then retrieve them. I’m assuming the vehicle is 6x6 gator or similar. 

Edit: found this but not sure if this layout is what RCN is looking at.  The early concept for the GCS had a mission stores bay that had an elevator down one deck and the mission bay on that lower deck extended all the way to aft to the end of the flight deck. ( my bad: that was the Black Swan- see attached image)
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-1-design-and-development/
https://www.savetheroyalnavy.org/the-type-26-frigate-mission-bay-part-2-configuration-and-contents/


----------



## Kirkhill

Lumber said:
			
		

> Sea Ceptor, ESSM, SM2, NSM and Tomahawk? F*** me we're going to need a whole unit dedicated to missile readiness inspections. I'd volunteer but I'll be post-command by the time these babies actually start trialing their missiles.



How many of those can be launched from the back of a truck?  

Tomahawk 






NSM 





ESSM-NASAMS





NASAMS also launches the AIM-120 and the AIM-9 used by the RCAF.

Rounds in inventory.  Logistics nailed.

So when does the RCA adopt some/all of them?  Or is it going to continue to fixate on 105mm howitzers?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How many of those can be launched from the back of a truck?
> 
> 
> 
> So when does the RCA adopt some/all of them?  Or is it going to continue to fixate on 105mm howitzers?



Well we could become the 15th Coast Brigade again manning anti-ship missiles


----------



## FSTO

Colin P said:
			
		

> Well we could become the 15th Coast Brigade again manning anti-ship missiles


York Redoubt (Halifax) already has protective hardstands for the missile launchers.

https://www.google.com/maps/@44.5964557,-63.5531741,3a,75y,124.6h,88.03t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCOJ2uu7rNyo8V97D0b4UsQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DCOJ2uu7rNyo8V97D0b4UsQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D156.98506%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656


----------



## Cloud Cover

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So when does the RCA adopt some/all of them?  Or is it going to continue to fixate on 105mm howitzers?



Interesting you should mention that.  The 127mm gun will fire the first 20 rounds in automatic load. That will take about 1 minute if all rounds are expended from the auto mag. In land attack mode, that’s the same as a field artillery battery ( probably close anyway).  After that the gun requires 6 people to load and operate the mount and system for sustained fire. If HVP and Vulcano like rounds are more available by the time these ships are operational, then the RCN will have a very powerful long range land attack weapon that the Army will want whenever possible and the RCA will no doubt want to have some degree of involvement with it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Could be that by reducing the number of crew required by 30ppl or 50ppl per ship, and understanding that a ship operating off the African coast most likely won't need to do everything it can on the high end -- alleviate some of the deployment burdens on our sailors, and also help crew more of the ships without members jumping around?
> 
> I have no idea if any of the above makes sense.  That's what I took away from the lower crew requirement.  That, and increased automation.
> 
> 
> :dunno:



There is a lot of terminology thrown around about core crew vs max crew and whatnot, but normally the minimum crew required for non-combat operations is a fraction of the number of bunks.

For example, the 280s had around 300 bunks, but with 1960s designs with 1980s automation they could sail around the coast with just over 100 crew, and they were far more labour intensive then the CPFs.

However, if you need to, you can fill every single bunk and pack on enough food, water and provide hotel services (hot water, toilets etc) for everyone. Also your lifeboats are based on the max capacity, so that was never an issue.

The beds themselves aren't an issue, it's the things like lifeboats and all the other safety items, plus food, water and all the other sundries you need that very quickly become a problem. Those things need to be sorted out at the design phase, as you normally can't just make your fridges and storage tanks bigger without significant changes. You can easily operate with extra capacity no problem on those things, and give you a lot more flexibility to do things like send a ship to see with a raft of trainees (which we do all the time).


----------



## Spencer100

Tomahawks?  I'll believe that when I see it. That sounds very offencey lol

Also would the cyclone need an upgrade for mid course direction?


----------



## Thumper81

Underway said:
			
		

> *edit- took to long to load so my comment made no sense*
> 
> Looks like the RCN is going public with the Tomahawk.  Yay I can talk about it now!
> 
> This is a pretty comprehensive list of main equipment.  I'm glad I can now point to the RCN glossy and say "I told you so" to so many people... lol (none on here of course).



Hey Underway,

I saw this at work a few months ago.  It is great to see this in the public realm.  Curious is Sea Ceptor sharing the Mk 41 Launchers (I know like ESSM, they can be quad-packed) or are they using their own VLS?  24 Tomahawks or SM-2's, 16 ESSM, and 16 Sea Ceptor is a hell of a load out.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we can afford to fill them all launchers at one time......


----------



## AlexanderM

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> Hey Underway,
> 
> I saw this at work a few months ago.  It is great to see this in the public realm.  Curious is Sea Ceptor sharing the Mk 41 Launchers (I know like ESSM, they can be quad-packed) or are they using their own VLS?  24 Tomahawks or SM-2's, 32 ESSM, and 32 Sea Ceptor is a hell of a load out.


The Sea Ceptor has it's own launchers towards the back of the ship.


----------



## MarkOttawa

From US gov't:



> Canada – Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IIIC Missiles
> 
> PDF Version
> Canada_20-82.pdf
> Media/Public Contact
> pm-cpa@state.gov
> Transmittal No
> 20-82
> 
> WASHINGTON, November 5, 2020 - The State Department has made a determination approving a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Canada of Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IIIC missiles and related equipment for an estimated cost of $500 million. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency delivered the required certification notifying Congress of this possible sale today.
> 
> The Government of Canada has requested to buy one hundred (100) Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IIIC missiles; and one hundred (100) MK 13 Vertical Launch Systems (VLS) (canisters modified to employ the SM-2 Block IIIC missile). Also included is obsolescence engineering; integration and test activity associated with production of subject missiles; canister handling and loading/unloading equipment and associated spares; training and training equipment/aids; technical publications and data; U.S. Government and contractor engineering, technical, and logistics support; and other related elements of logistical and program support. The total estimated program cost is $500 million.
> 
> This proposed sale will support the foreign policy and national security objectives of the United States by helping to improve the military capability of Canada, a NATO ally that is an important force for ensuring political stability and economic progress and a contributor to military, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations around the world.
> 
> This proposed sale will provide Canada with SM-2 Block IIIC missiles for installation on its planned 15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships, ensuring its ability to operate alongside U.S. and Allied naval forces against the full spectrum of naval threats. Canada will have no difficulty absorbing this equipment into its armed forces.
> 
> The proposed sale of this equipment and support will not alter the basic military balance in the region.
> 
> The principal U.S. contractor will be Raytheon Missiles and Defense, Tucson, AZ. The purchaser typically requests offsets. Any offset agreement will be defined in negotiations between the purchaser and the contractor(s).
> 
> Implementation of the proposed sale will require U.S. Government and contractor personnel to visit Canada on a temporary basis in conjunction with program technical oversight and support requirements, including program and technical reviews, as well as to provide training and maintenance support in country.
> 
> There will be no adverse impact on U.S. defense readiness as a result of this proposed sale.
> 
> This notice of a potential sale is required by law. The description and dollar value is for the highest estimated quantity and dollar value based on initial requirements. Actual dollar value will be lower depending on final requirements, budget authority, and signed sales agreement(s), if and when concluded.
> 
> All questions regarding this proposed Foreign Military Sale should be directed to the State Department's Bureau of Political Military Affairs, Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, pm-cpa@state.gov.
> https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/canada-standard-missile-2-sm-2-block-iiic-missiles


----------



## Thumper81

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> The Sea Ceptor has it's own launchers towards the back of the ship.



Well damn.  You could have 28 SM-2's and 16 ESSM's


----------



## Underway

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> Well damn.  You could have 28 SM-2's and 16 ESSM's


The CAAM (Sea Ceptor) will be launched from a six ExLS grouping just aft of the main stack on the fwd top of the modular mission space.  As they are quad packed it means 24 Sea Ceptor.  So add that to the math.

Of course, the loadout will vary based upon the role, mission and whatever the warfare centre models as the best mix based on the threat of the day. 

So odd thought given the timing of the sudden influx of CSC info after a long time of silence.  The parliamentary budget committee started examining the CSC program before the pandemic.  Bets on that report is about to come out?


----------



## Gorgo

Soon as I saw "extendable" in the system title, I thought immediately of the old Sea Sparrow launching systems on the 280s pre-rebuild.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

500 million for 100 missiles and Cannisters is quite eye watering. Although that means roughly 6-7 missiles per ship and no reloads.


----------



## MilEME09

Hold up we are building 15 ships but only ordering 13 VLS systems? Something is not adding up.


----------



## Lumber

Colin P said:
			
		

> 500 million for 100 missiles and Cannisters is quite eye watering. Although that means roughly 6-7 missiles per ship and no reloads.



The onlu ships that ever embark a full load of missiles are those deploying on actual operations, which is typically max 2 ships at a time. Anyone else is either carrying only a few telemetric missiles for trials, or sailing completely empty.


----------



## AlexanderM

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Hold up we are building 15 ships but only ordering 13 VLS systems? Something is not adding up.


We are ordering 100 SM-2 missiles and 100 cannisters for those 100 missiles. I believe the MK13 is a cannister that goes inside the VLS cell, "and one hundred (100) MK 13 Vertical Launch Systems" (VLS).

Notice different cannisters for different missiles here:

https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf


----------



## Underway

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> We are ordering 100 SM-2 missiles and 100 cannisters for those 100 missiles. I believe the MK13 is a cannister that goes inside the VLS cell, "and one hundred (100) MK 13 Vertical Launch Systems" (VLS).
> 
> Notice different cannisters for different missiles here:
> 
> https://fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/weaps/mk41-strike.pdf



This is correct.  We aren't ordering the mk41 VLS.  We are ordering the missiles and their protective/install canisters.  Also this project will be building ships from 2024 to approx 2045.  It would be ridiculous to order all 15 ships of missiles up front, as ammunition has a best before date...

Also the order is now because of a manufacturing window (or so I gather), with a number of NATO and ASEAN countries ordering missiles. Get in while the line is in operation.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I get that, but also get that the likelihood of us being able to arm and reload even half our fleet at once will be doubtful. If lasers and guns can down a portion of the likely targets, they very quickly pay for themselves. The 127mm gun is going to be a significant upgrade on the 57mm guns in terms of range and capability.


----------



## Thumper81

Underway said:
			
		

> This is correct.  We aren't ordering the mk41 VLS.  We are ordering the missiles and their protective/install canisters.  Also this project will be building ships from 2024 to approx 2045.  It would be ridiculous to order all 15 ships of missiles up front, as ammunition has a best before date...
> 
> Also the order is now because of a manufacturing window (or so I gather), with a number of NATO and ASEAN countries ordering missiles. Get in while the line is in operation.



We probably still have the Mk 41 cells still kicking around in storage from the 280's.  They would just need new controllers and interface to the new FCS.


----------



## AmmoTech90

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> just need new controllers and interface to the new FCS.



 :rofl:

"just"


----------



## Navy_Pete

Thumper81 said:
			
		

> We probably still have the Mk 41 cells still kicking around in storage from the 280's.  They would just need new controllers and interface to the new FCS.



Honest to god that was proposed, until it was pointed out that the 'cells' are effectively just metal shells, and the FCS, controllers, wiring, power supply etc would all need to be overhauled. On top of that, the structural points had 25 years of metal fatigue, and it would have cost more to do NDT then to just build a new cell. Plus storage etc; those things are really big, and it would have cost a lot to remove, maintain and store them. All this to slap them on brand new ships that hadn't even selected any weapons at the time, and had zero desire to pay for any of that.

Fortunately no one wanted to pay for it all, so it was all run through the shredder and we at least got scrap value. Was pretty ridiculous as it would have cost more overall to overhaul the used ones then just buy new, if that's what they decided to do eventually.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We could refit some muzzle loaders as well, nothing like a 68lb Cannonade ball to put paid to those pirates  8)

Of course the disbelief on the faces of the crew of a Chinese spy trawler as the Type 26 pulls along side and begins opening her gun ports would almost be worth it.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> We could refit some muzzle loaders as well, nothing like a 68lb Cannonade ball to put paid to those pirates  8)
> 
> Of course the disbelief on the faces of the crew of a Chinese spy trawler as the Type 26 pulls along side and begins opening her gun ports would almost be worth it.



I'm dead serious. That would be epic.  We will have a modular mission bay... Hmmm....  Just roll up the garage door and blast away.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> I'm dead serious. That would be epic.  We will have a modular mission bay... Hmmm....  Just roll up the garage door and blast away.



At the very least we should paint the classic black and white gun port scheme on the side.  ;D


----------



## JMCanada

Why not? The AOPS already has got some round holes at the fore ... for oars, hahaha.


----------



## JMCanada

Uzlu said:
			
		

> BAE claims that the Type 26 has a top speed of 26+ knots.
> https://www.baesystems.com/en-uk/product/global-combat-ship
> 
> FrontLIne Defence appears to be suggesting something different for the Canadian variant.
> 
> "Current plans state a top ship speed of 28+ knots"
> 
> https://defence.frontline.online/article/2018/5a/10488-TEAM-LOCKHEED
> 
> If the hull will not change, then power must be increased.  Because where is this extra two knots coming from?



From the previous pdf it seems like speed is finally 27 knots. Nevertheless they're so smart as to avoid stating "TOP speed".
Might Alion be right on his claim about speed? Only a few ones will know, I doubt the final figure will ever be public, for obvious reasons (reserved data).


----------



## Navy_Pete

Top speed is pretty arbitrary anyway; you get the right current and wind conditions, it will go up/down a few knots. Sometimes you hit one of your full power parameters early anyway if it's hot out, so it's really an 'it depends' number.

Not really sure why it matters anyway; the torpedo decoy run assumptions are always a pretty optimistic thought experiment, and a few knots is completely irrelevant when you are looking at super/hypersonic missiles.

It's not like we're running quarter mile races for the pink slip on the ocean (although that would be pretty cool).


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Top speed is pretty arbitrary anyway; you get the right current and wind conditions, it will go up/down a few knots. Sometimes you hit one of your full power parameters early anyway if it's hot out, so it's really an 'it depends' number.
> 
> Not really sure why it matters anyway; the torpedo decoy run assumptions are always a pretty optimistic thought experiment, and a few knots is completely irrelevant when you are looking at super/hypersonic missiles.
> 
> It's not like we're running quarter mile races for the pink slip on the ocean (although that would be pretty cool).



I've seen the "2 GT cross con, 100 yard dash" a couple of times in my career and it is an awesome thing standing on the flight deck of a frigate pushing 30kts, deck plates vibrating away, with a massive white wake behind the ship.  Most notably, we RAS'd once on the way out of the Arabian Sea and on our the last day in theatre.  The CO took us away from the RAS at full power and we ran towards the outchop line at full power.  It was pretty fun eating up Nautical Miles that fast!


----------



## Navy_Pete

Yeah, it's pretty fun.  My favourite one was on the 280s, which had a massive rooster tail wake, where I was on deck as the lifebouy sentry or something during a periodic full power trial. There happened to be some dolphins in our area that were playing in our wake as we worked our way up there so it was pretty amazing, and probably my favourite day at sea.

The downside is you could literally watch the analogue tank gauges drop once we got up to a sustained top speed as the old FT4s were not fuel efficient!

The frigates are similarly fun, and it's nice to come up to high speeds on those RAS breakaways and show off a bit, but if you ever do the full power trial with the crashbacks (where you switch from full ahead to full astern) the stopping distance and reversal time for a 5000 tonne ship is surreal.  Even when I was the EO and fully aware that we would have a bunch of work if something went sideways being around the engines at that power was better than a pot of coffee.

Will be sweet to see what the CSC can do; don't really expect it to be any different really then the 280s or CPFs in that performance area, but hard not to enjoy dropping the hammer once in a while and experience the visceral, childlike joy at seeing 50 000+ shaft horse power in action.


----------



## JMCanada

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Top speed is pretty arbitrary anyway; you get the right current and wind conditions, it will go up/down a few knots. Sometimes you hit one of your full power parameters early anyway if it's hot out, so it's really an 'it depends' number.
> (...)



I fully agree. Just to remind an old and closed dispute.


----------



## Uzlu

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/royal-canadian-navy-unveils-new-details-on-csc-frigates/


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dig this:



> ...
> 
> The fastest destroyers of World War II actually entered service during the mid 1930s. These destroyers were the Le Fantasque class of France. The Le Fantasque class were designed to operate with France’s high speed battleship and cruiser forces. To perform in this role, the Le Fantasque class needed to equip powerful engines in a large hull for the nessacary speed and seaworthiness.
> 
> Six ships of this class were built, consisting of the ships Le Fantasque, Le Malin, Le Terrible, L’Indomptable, L’Audacieux, and Le Triopmhant. Though the ships were large, exceeding 430′ (132m) in length, they carried a correspondingly large powerplant. The destroyers could produce up to 81,000shp, enough to propel the ships to speeds of 45 knots. This not only made them the fastest destroyers of World War II, but the fastest destroyers of all time!..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.navygeneralboard.com/the-fastest-warships-of-world-war-2/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Navy_Pete

That's a neat piece of history, thanks.

Also, awesome names and probably had bad ass crests and motos.

Loved the CHA, but not going to lie, it's an embarassingly lame name for a warship. 'Le Terrible', Le Triomphant etc all sound fight-y at least.


----------



## Underway

As stated earlier top speed is pretty arbitrary.  New ship hulls have generally lower top speeds then historical designs... on a flat calm day in the English channel.  Current ship designs retain their speed in all weather conditions better.  A modern frigate with a top speed of 30kts can do that speed over a larger range of sea states than a WWII hull form of similar tonnage.

As for the tactical applications of top speed, its critical for a number of subsurface and surface warfare situations.  Top speed doesn't generally have a strategic impact, though cruising speed certainly does.


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/11/royal-canadian-navy-unveils-new-details-on-csc-frigates/



That's a good article. I like how Xavier picks out the uniqueness of the design, which gives me a bit of pride, like the Halifax Class does. We build too our own requirements.  One thing I did not know was that no other surface navy uses tomahawks.  I thought for sure at least the Aussies or the Korean's did. Learn something new every day!


----------



## MarkOttawa

Underway said:
			
		

> That's a good article. I like how Xavier picks out the uniqueness of the design, which gives me a bit of pride, like the Halifax Class does. We build too our own requirements.  One thing I did not know was that no other surface navy uses tomahawks.  I thought for sure at least the Aussies or the Korean's did. Learn something new every day!



But:



> ...All cruisers, destroyers, guided missile and attack submarines in the US Navy are equipped with a Tomahawk weapons system...
> https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/tomahawk-long-range-cruise-missile/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:
			
		

> That's a good article. I like how Xavier picks out the uniqueness of the design, which gives me a bit of pride, like the Halifax Class does. We build too our own requirements.  One thing I did not know was that no other surface navy uses tomahawks.  I thought for sure at least the Aussies or the Korean's did. Learn something new every day!



Also interesting we are opting for missiles for both point defense and CIWS.


----------



## JMCanada

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> That's a neat piece of history, thanks.
> 
> Also, awesome names and probably had bad ass crests and motos.
> 
> Loved the CHA, but not going to lie, it's an embarassingly lame name for a warship. 'Le Terrible', Le Triomphant etc all sound fight-y at least.



Those names took me back to the late 18th century ships of the line...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Fantasque_(1758)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Triomphant_(1779)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Terrible_(1780)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Audacieux_(1784)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Indomptable_(1789)


----------



## Kilted

JMCanada said:
			
		

> Those names took me back to the late 18th century ships of the line...
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Fantasque_(1758)
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Triomphant_(1779)
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Terrible_(1780)
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Audacieux_(1784)
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_ship_Indomptable_(1789)



Has anyone suggested Frigatty McFrigface for the name of the class yet?


----------



## MarkOttawa

Now look what the Italians are planning to get, first in 2028 (!) after their FREMMs and PPA Class Multi-Purpose Offshore Patrol Vessels (https://www.naval-technology.com/projects/ppa-class-multi-purpose-offshore-patrol-vessels/):



> Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery
> 
> Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.
> 
> After building 10 FREMM-class frigates — the same type acquired by the United States — as well as designing new 4,500-ton multimission ships, a 33,000-ton landing helicopter dock and new logistics vessels, a risk-reduction study is due to start on two 10,000-ton destroyers dubbed DDX.
> 
> “Destroyers are fundamental for a blue water fleet like Italy’s, which must be capable of projecting capability at sea and from the sea while operating across the whole spectrum of maritime and joint operations,” Vice Adm. Aurelio De Carolis, deputy chief of staff of the Italian Navy, told Defense News.
> 
> “Apart from carriers, amphibious vessels and submarines, you need destroyers with land strike and task group-protection capabilities,” he added.
> 
> The Navy wants the 175-meter-long vessels to replace two aging destroyers, the ITS Durand de la Penne and ITS Mimbelli. Those two vessels entered service in the early 1990s and were joined in service by Italy’s two more recent Horizon-class ships, which the Navy classifies as destroyers.
> 
> “We have always had two pairs of destroyers in service, dating back to the 1960s,” De Carolis said.
> 
> With €4.5 million (U.S. $5.3 million) budgeted so far for two-year feasibility and risk-reduction studies starting early next year, the Navy aims to have a final operational requirement by 2022, sign a construction contract in 2023 — funding permitting — complete the design in 2025, and receive the first ship by 2028.
> 
> _Current plans envisage vessels that are 24 meters wide with a 9-meter draft and more than 300 crew, while offering a top speed of over 30 knots using the CODOGAL (COmbined Diesel Or Gas And eLectric) propulsion system_ [emphasis added, that Ferrari DNA], De Carolis said. The system allows the use of either gas or diesel turbines, plus electric propulsion for lower speeds.
> 
> Italy is renewing its Navy amid the Mediterranean Sea’s shift from a backwater to a tinderbox as Turkey throws its weight around, Libya remains tense after years of conflict and Russia tries to increase its regional influence.
> 
> When fully budgeted, the ships likely will be built by Italian state firm Fincantieri, keeping the yard busy after a run of recent naval construction thanks to Italy’s $6.3 billion so-called Naval Law in 2014 that led to the landing helicopter dock (LHD), multimission vessels (PPA) and logistic ship programs.
> 
> *Equipping the warship*
> 
> _Long-range firepower for the destroyers will be guaranteed by six eight-cell missile launchers for a total of 48 cells, with two launchers toward the bow (ahead of the bridge) and the remainder amidships_ [emphasis added].
> 
> Aster anti-air missiles, already in use on other Italian vessels, will be adopted, as well as a land-strike missile. “The Navy needs a credible land-strike capability and we are considering options now,” De Carolis said.
> 
> That could lead the Navy to consider MBDA’s naval variant of the Scalp missile. What is confirmed is the acquisition of the European consortium’s Teseo Mk2 Evolved anti-ship missile, which the admiral said offers “land-strike capability in the littoral.” The weapon will be fired from launchers located immediately behind the bridge, he confirmed.
> 
> A rear helicopter deck and hangar will be able to host two Navy EH101 or two SH90 helicopters.
> 
> The _ship’s cannons will be the same Italian-built types that have become standard issue for Italy’s naval vessels in recent years. A Leonardo 127mm gun at the front of the vessel will fire the firm’s Vulcano guided munitions, while two Leonardo 76mm guns at the center of the vessel will fire the guided Dart munition, again developed by the Italian firm.
> 
> A third 76mm gun sits astride the helicopter hangar at the rear of the ship. Dubbed “Sovraponte” and built to be positioned on top of ship structures, the cannon was first developed for the PPA vessels_ [emphasis added]. “We are satisfied with Sovraponte,” the admiral said [read on]...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2020/11/09/italy-plans-new-destroyers-for-2028-delivery/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Also interesting we are opting for missiles for both point defense and CIWS.



The US, Japan, etc use the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) in addition to gun-based CIWS.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Kilted said:
			
		

> Has anyone suggested Frigatty McFrigface for the name of the class yet?



Can we have a French translation in Aisle 4 please?


----------



## PuckChaser

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Can we have a French translation in Aisle 4 please?



Le Frigatty McFrigface.

#MerciHighSchoolFrenchClass


----------



## Underway

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The US, Japan, etc use the Rolling Airframe Missile (RAM) in addition to gun-based CIWS.



They do.  RAM also replaces gun-based CIWS on many ships.  It also has a much shorter max range than Sea Ceptor. 

I'm confident the decision to use Sea Ceptor was based heavily on modeling, simulation, and doctrine studies at the Warfare Centre (which is a NATO Gold Medal Facility). If Sea Ceptor is the choice over another option it's because it's data-driven.  That doesn't mean the other options are bad, just the Sea Ceptor was better in our particular fleet organization, sensors, and other defensive options.  

An example of this is that Sea Ceptor doesn't have firing arcs (that is to say it has a 360-degree firing arc).  A RAM or Phalanx system would, necessitating maneuver or multiple mounts to cover all angles.  With the speed missiles can go and the anticipated introduction of hypervelocity missiles maneuver is probably out of the question. A system that can shoot in any direction while not taking up that prime real estate topside is valuable.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

The CSC is an impressive ship. If we get 15 of these, as designed, the RCN will be a world beater.


----------



## MilEME09

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The CSC is an impressive ship. If we get 15 of these, as designed, the RCN will be a world beater.



If only due to "work shortages and layoffs" they build a few more. Who knows could happen, another 4 would mean replacing the 280s and the Halifax's 1 for 1.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The CSC is an impressive ship. If we get 15 of these, as designed, the RCN will be a world beater.



Same tonnage as WWII light Cruiser, armed to the teeth, except I am not clear on what AAW armament will it have? I will be stoked if we get all 15 and armed as mentioned.


----------



## FSTO

Kilted said:
			
		

> Has anyone suggested Frigatty McFrigface for the name of the class yet?


While I was in quarantine at Trenton I sent a fairly detailed email to the Deputy Commander RCN on how we could go about naming all the CSCs after the indigenous people of Canada. Call it Tribals 3.0.

I got a fairly positive reply and he was going to forward it to the Ships Naming Committee. His wife is Metis and she liked the idea as well.
I've heard crickets since but my glass half full attitude is that the RCN is doing the background work to get permissions from the First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities before going public with anything. Tribal or named after prominent Matriarchs/Patriarchs would work for me as well.


----------



## Uzlu

FSTO said:
			
		

> Tribal or named after prominent Matriarchs/Patriarchs would work for me as well.


I like tribal or river—preferably tribal.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:
			
		

> While I was in quarantine at Trenton I sent a fairly detailed email to the Deputy Commander RCN on how we could go about naming all the CSCs after the indigenous people of Canada. Call it Tribals 3.0.
> 
> I got a fairly positive reply and he was going to forward it to the Ships Naming Committee. His wife is Metis and she liked the idea as well.
> I've heard crickets since but my glass half full attitude is that the RCN is doing the background work to get permissions from the First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities before going public with anything. Tribal or named after prominent Matriarchs/Patriarchs would work for me as well.



I would love this.  My only dislike is that Haida wouldn't be available, as the name is still currently in commission for the ceremonial flagship.  Would have loved to see HMCS Haida sailing around doing the business again.  My other vote would be for Canadian mythological creatures.  HMCS Wendigo would win the cool name award.  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> *snip*.. except I am not clear on what AAW armament will it have? *snip*



AAW will be a combination of Sea Ceptor, ESSM II and SM2 MkIII.  Because the ESSM and SM2 would be placed in the VLS on the foc'sle those numbers may vary depending on the mission/threat.  The main AAW weapon however would be the SM2.  ESSM is good as "point defence" not area defense.  You can help a buddy who's close but its like the infield compared to the entire ballpark that is SM2.

I would expect a standard loadout would be 24 Sea Ceptors (as their launchers are dedicated to them), 24 ESSM (taking up 8 VLS as they are quad packed) and then 24 SM2.  If you were carrying tomahawks of course the SM2 numbers might be reduced to as low as 16.  That's speculation though, you could mix and match all those VLS numbers for your mission.  You could specialize in the role for the task group.  One CSC as a dedicated land attack platform carries all the tomahawks and the other three carry the SM2's to protect it.

I'm not entirely sure what capability the 127mm has for air warfare, I think its advertised as having some, but with its rate of fire/traverse I would suspect that it's not considered a viable option for anything other than slow moving targets.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Dang I was tired, thanks for the AAW answer, but meant to say ASW weapons?


----------



## Uzlu

Colin P said:
			
		

> Dang I was tired, thanks for the AAW answer, but meant to say ASW weapons?


https://www.dsca.mil/press-media/major-arms-sales/canada-mk-54-lightweight-torpedoes


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:
			
		

> I would love this.  My only dislike is that Haida wouldn't be available, as the name is still currently in commission for the ceremonial flagship.  Would have loved to see HMCS Haida sailing around doing the business again.  My other vote would be for Canadian mythological creatures.  HMCS Wendigo would win the cool name award.
> 
> AAW will be a combination of Sea Ceptor, ESSM II and SM2 MkIII.  Because the ESSM and SM2 would be placed in the VLS on the foc'sle those numbers may vary depending on the mission/threat.  The main AAW weapon however would be the SM2.  ESSM is good as "point defence" not area defense.  You can help a buddy who's close but its like the infield compared to the entire ballpark that is SM2.
> 
> I would expect a standard loadout would be 24 Sea Ceptors (as their launchers are dedicated to them), 24 ESSM (taking up 8 VLS as they are quad packed) and then 24 SM2.  If you were carrying tomahawks of course the SM2 numbers might be reduced to as low as 16.  That's speculation though, you could mix and match all those VLS numbers for your mission.  You could specialize in the role for the task group.  One CSC as a dedicated land attack platform carries all the tomahawks and the other three carry the SM2's to protect it.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what capability the 127mm has for air warfare, I think its advertised as having some, but with its rate of fire/traverse I would suspect that it's not considered a viable option for anything other than slow moving targets.



Or have each ship in the TG carry the exact same missile loadout, since the CSC will have Cooperative Engagement Capability, they can launch each other’s missiles. There is no reason now the AAWC has to carry all the SM2s- you can spread them out.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Or have each ship in the TG carry the exact same missile loadout, since the CSC will have Cooperative Engagement Capability, they can launch each other’s missiles. There is no reason now the AAWC has to carry all the SM2s- you can spread them out.



Absolutely. I believe that you are correct that CEC will change entirely the way task groups fight, and therefore are armed.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Dang I was tired, thanks for the AAW answer, but meant to say ASW weapons?



Mk54 ship launch torp, don't quote me on this but I suspect there is only a single launcher (going with the current trends in new European ships)

The most important weapon though is a Cyclone.  The rest of the stuff is nice but the Cyclone is the monster that hunts and kills things.


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:
			
		

> While I was in quarantine at Trenton I sent a fairly detailed email to the Deputy Commander RCN on how we could go about naming all the CSCs after the indigenous people of Canada. Call it Tribals 3.0.
> 
> I got a fairly positive reply and he was going to forward it to the Ships Naming Committee. His wife is Metis and she liked the idea as well.
> I've heard crickets since but my glass half full attitude is that the RCN is doing the background work to get permissions from the First Nations, Metis, and Inuit communities before going public with anything. Tribal or named after prominent Matriarchs/Patriarchs would work for me as well.



From being on the 280s we seemed to have pretty good relations with the namesake tribes. Hopefully something like that actually happens, and they use it as an opportunity to both honour the different bands while educatating the sailors (I hadn't really heard about the Athabaskan tribes growing up in S. Ontario around the Six Nations, so it was interesting to learn about them). 

Also, great chance to get some actually warlike crests for warships; always liked the tribal crests.


----------



## Gorgo

That definitely has my vote.  Would be nice for the name _Haida_ to be recycled along with the others.


----------



## Spencer100

I really can not see in todays world a Tribal V.3.  Even with total buy in from the First Nations.  There will some SWJ or University prof. that will complain.  All for this government to not agree is a complaint from some of the Toronto or Montreal set.  I for the life of me can't see it happening.  Using those names some have history in them WW2 and the cold war too. First strike.  Second strike is the connection of First Nations and war or weapons of war.  This is not a concept that will sit well with these people.  

The third is it is what I want so you will never get it.. :Tin-Foil-Hat:  rly: :rofl:


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:
			
		

> I really can not see in todays world a Tribal V.3.  Even with total buy in from the First Nations.  There will some SWJ or University prof. that will complain.  All for this government to not agree is a complaint from some of the Toronto or Montreal set.  I for the life of me can't see it happening.  Using those names some have history in them WW2 and the cold war too. First strike.  Second strike is the connection of First Nations and war or weapons of war.  This is not a concept that will sit well with these people.
> 
> The third is it is what I want so you will never get it.. :Tin-Foil-Hat:  rly: :rofl:



Many of the groups that had names were historically warrior peoples and took pride in warships being named after them. 

What needs to change is many of the ship's crests, which had questionable/stereotyped depictions of first nations peoples running from skin colour (red) to headdress/garb.  Getting a first nation artist from each of the namesake bands/tribes/groups to redo or refresh some the crests would be an amazing start.  Instead of a ships sponsor being an individual perhaps a ships "sponsor" as an organization that represents the various bands of the peoples being named.  We already have sponsor cities, it's not a big step. 

And of course asking permission/blessing for the ship to be named is a good step as well.
Done properly these sorts of activities can be healing, bridge gaps and lead to educational opportunities.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:
			
		

> Many of the groups that had names were historically warrior peoples and took pride in warships being named after them.
> 
> What needs to change is many of the ship's crests, which had questionable/stereotyped depictions of first nations peoples running from skin colour (red) to headdress/garb.  Getting a first nation artist from each of the namesake bands/tribes/groups to redo or refresh some the crests would be an amazing start.  Instead of a ships sponsor being an individual perhaps a ships "sponsor" as an organization that represents the various bands of the peoples being named.  We already have sponsor cities, it's not a big step.
> 
> And of course asking permission/blessing for the ship to be named is a good step as well.
> Done properly these sorts of activities can be healing, bridge gaps and lead to educational opportunities.



I agree with this 100 percent with this.  I think most First Nations would love to have the new ships named after them. I think it would be great. But in the end it is not about the FN its about the "feelz" and perception of racism. Take some sport teams.  A great example is FSU and the Seminoles.  Every year there are complaints and papers and petitions.  Even thought the Seminole tribe has said they love the name and support the team 1000 percent. There more examples that just comes to mind as I see it when I visit the parents in FL.  I don't think the current government would at all stand up if there was any complaints. (Sorry I just don't but love to proven wrong)  If you notice most of the calls of racism and culture appropriation are coming from different areas.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> Many of the groups that had names were historically warrior peoples and took pride in warships being named after them.
> 
> What needs to change is many of the ship's crests, which had questionable/stereotyped depictions of first nations peoples running from skin colour (red) to headdress/garb.  Getting a first nation artist from each of the namesake bands/tribes/groups to redo or refresh some the crests would be an amazing start.  Instead of a ships sponsor being an individual perhaps a ships "sponsor" as an organization that represents the various bands of the peoples being named.  We already have sponsor cities, it's not a big step.
> 
> And of course asking permission/blessing for the ship to be named is a good step as well.
> Done properly these sorts of activities can be healing, bridge gaps and lead to educational opportunities.



Yeah, that was part of what I had in mind; if it was an existing ship name, then the tribe can come up with a crest and slogan. There are a lot of amazing active FN artists that are still doing traditional style art as well as modern updates. We may end up with the equivalent to Boaty McBoatyface in Cree or Inuk I guess but it would probably be so subtle as to be kind of hilarious.


----------



## FJAG

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Yeah, that was part of what I had in mind; if it was an existing ship name, then the tribe can come up with a crest and slogan. There are a lot of amazing active FN artists that are still doing traditional style art as well as modern updates. We may end up with the equivalent to Boaty McBoatyface in Cree or Inuk I guess but it would probably be so subtle as to be kind of hilarious.



Kent Monkman is an amazing FN artist, however, I seriously doubt the present government regime would have anything to do with him.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/kent-monkman-backlash-trudeau-painting-1.5577452

 ;D


----------



## ringo

Province class CSC would hopefully ensure a minimum of 10 to be completed, rather doubt we'll see 15.
 I seem to remember some talk of 24 Halifax class then 18 and settled with 12.


----------



## suffolkowner

I believe it was VCDS Norman some years ago that stated that the program was headed towards only 9 ships. As it stands has the government not commited to and budgeted to for the 15 ships? Dropping to lower numbers of the CSC, would it not nessecitate a much different force structure (ideally) with more intermediate ships similar to what the UK is doing with the type 31?


----------



## YZT580

The demise of several ships could be an unexpected victim of the U.S. election.  Without Trump harassing OW about the 2% the liberals might find it easier to chop the defense budget to spend money on windmills so as to have a target to tilt at.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:
			
		

> Many of the groups that had names were historically warrior peoples and took pride in warships being named after them.
> 
> What needs to change is many of the ship's crests, which had questionable/stereotyped depictions of first nations peoples running from skin colour (red) to headdress/garb.  Getting a first nation artist from each of the namesake bands/tribes/groups to redo or refresh some the crests would be an amazing start.  Instead of a ships sponsor being an individual perhaps a ships "sponsor" as an organization that represents the various bands of the peoples being named.  We already have sponsor cities, it's not a big step.
> 
> And of course asking permission/blessing for the ship to be named is a good step as well.
> Done properly these sorts of activities can be healing, bridge gaps and lead to educational opportunities.


 This is exactly what I proposed in my email. As I said above, the cricket sounds are hopefully a good sign.


----------



## MilEME09

ringo said:
			
		

> Province class CSC would hopefully ensure a minimum of 10 to be completed, rather doubt we'll see 15.
> I seem to remember some talk of 24 Halifax class then 18 and settled with 12.



Politics and bad timing killed the 3rd flight of Halifax's. First it was canceled to pay for the navy getting nuclear subs. Then an election happened and the navy got neither sadly.


----------



## Cloud Cover

The 2nd flight of the CPF was supposed to be a full on AAW variant with a lengthened hull and a 32 cell Mk41 VLS, up to 6 units in the class. Somewhere back in these threads I posted the design images. 

It was unofficially referred to by some as the Montreal Class and by others as Provincial class. In any case it died an unseemly death at the hands of accountants and defence cutbacks and the second batch was the same as batch 1.  Batch 3 stood no real prospect of making it to a vote. 

It would appear that the CSC T26 will greatly surpass that design in both sensors, armament and breadth of capability.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CloudCover said:
			
		

> The 2nd flight of the CPF was supposed to be a full on AAW variant with a lengthened hull and a 32 cell Mk41 VLS, up to 6 units in the class. Somewhere back in these threads I posted the design images.
> 
> It was unofficially referred to by some as the Montreal Class and by others as Provincial class. In any case it died an unseemly death at the hands of accountants and defence cutbacks and the second batch was the same as batch 1.  Batch 3 stood no real prospect of making it to a vote.
> 
> It would appear that the CSC T26 will greatly surpass that design in both sensors, armament and breadth of capability.



As the post went to press.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Press release from Lockheed

https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/royal-canadian-navy-to-be-protected-with-lockheed-martin-s-advanced-and-versatile-spy-7-radar-under-newly-signed-contract-805682582.html


----------



## Cloud Cover

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> As the post went to press.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Yes, that’s the standard disclaimer for all Canadian procurement visions and plans.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

As usual, the story of the 18 Halifax's is a little more complex.

First of all, the first 12 - batch I - were all to be the same design, known as the City class. And we got them all.

Batch II was to be modified if possible to carry AAW area weapons and replace the IRO's. They were to be known as the Province class and bear the names of provinces (the four largest plus one from each end of the country).

The Batch II was sacrificed as a result of the Mulroney  government White Paper so that the money saved would cover the extra cost of switching the submarine replacements from 4 to 6 diesel to 6 to 8 nuclear boats. Had it happened, a navy with 12 HAL's and even just 6 Trafalgar (the preferred choice) boat would have been a lot more powerful than a HAL/Province group of 18 vessels plus 6 diesel boats.

Then two things happened: Huge federal deficits due to the recession of 1982 and, much more importantly, the sudden end of the Cold War as the USSR collapsed and the Wall fell, leading to a demand for a "peace dividend". That is what did in both the submarine replacement program (the whole thing, in any form) and the Batch II Province class vessels.


----------



## ringo

IMHO the Tribal names should be reserved for next generation submarines.


----------



## Gorgo

ringo said:
			
		

> IMHO the Tribal names should be reserved for next generation submarines.



That's another possibility


----------



## Lumber

ringo said:
			
		

> "next generation submarines."



The what now?


----------



## dapaterson

Lumber said:
			
		

> The what now?



This...


----------



## MilEME09

dapaterson said:
			
		

> This...



Coming in 2200


----------



## YZT580

great concept expect significant federal funding for the development.  Wouldn't need the JSS so big savings there.  Fully green so both the NDP and Green party will sign on as well.


----------



## dapaterson

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Coming in 2200



Well, the Brits need to get all the useful life out of it before we get it.


----------



## Underway

Very nice article in the War Zone about the CSC.

Canada's New Frigate Will Be Brimming With Missiles


Some things they look at that are new: the potential for Anti Ship Tomahawk Cruise missiles and point to the anti-access/area-denial capability of these kinds of weapons, the fact that only the US, France and GB have land-attack cruise missiles in NATO and that the Sea Ceptor can double as a point defence missile if necessary. 

Also an interesting opinion piece about BMD by Stealth in the CSC, from the Canadian Naval Review.


----------



## Underway

Podcast with RAdm Donovan who's the RCN's head guy for the CSC.

https://www.cgai.ca/designing_the_navys_future_ship  

Some good info for those interested in the project and how the RCN actually interacts with projects.

There are plenty of other interesting podcasts on this channel as well.  Good resource.


----------



## suffolkowner

So it seems from the graphic that we're staying with the same propulsion system as the type 26. 

With regard to the the torpedoes it says twin launch tubes. But does that mean 1 x 2 tubes, or 2 x 2 tubes, or 2 x 3 tubes? So twin launchers or twin tubes?


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> So it seems from the graphic that we're staying with the same propulsion system as the type 26.
> 
> With regard to the the torpedoes it says twin launch tubes. But does that mean 1 x 2 tubes, or 2 x 2 tubes, or 2 x 3 tubes? So twin launchers or twin tubes?



A lot of the Euro navies have gone with a single twin (double barreled...) launcher.  Newer torps can turn towards the target even under the ship, whereas older ship launched torps didn't do that.  For the CSC (speculation follows) I would suspect either its a single twin launcher or two twin launchers.  Of those options I would bet on the single twin launcher.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Underway said:
			
		

> A lot of the Euro navies have gone with a single twin (double barreled...) launcher.  Newer torps can turn towards the target even under the ship, whereas older ship launched torps didn't do that.  For the CSC (speculation follows) I would suspect either its a single twin launcher or two twin launchers.  Of those options I would bet on the single twin launcher.



I thought that we would acquire RUM 139C for the VLS, but a twin launcher frees up cells so thats also good news for the punch.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

CloudCover said:
			
		

> I thought that we would acquire RUM 139C for the VLS, but a twin launcher frees up cells so thats also good news for the punch.



With enemy submarines about to add a SAM capability as the CSC's are entering service which would be a tremendous threat to our helicopters, does it not make sense to add a few cells of VL-ASROC?  The rationale being that it ensures opposing submarine captains know that if they try to engage our Huey's, by exposing themselves they will be subject to immediate targeting by the mother ship....even if the ship is at a significant distance away.  It seems like it would be a relatively cheap way to ensure that the submarine captain is more likely to try to hide from our Huey's as opposed to potentially getting cocky and trying to hunt them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> With enemy submarines about to add a SAM capability as the CSC's are entering service which would be a tremendous threat to our helicopters, does it not make sense to add a few cells of VL-ASROC?  The rationale being that it ensures opposing submarine captains know that if they try to engage our Huey's, by exposing themselves they will be subject to immediate targeting by the mother ship....even if the ship is at a significant distance away.  It seems like it would be a relatively cheap way to ensure that the submarine captain is more likely to try to hide from our Huey's as opposed to potentially getting cocky and trying to hunt them.



That is the beauty of Mk41 VLS- once you own the launcher, you can add pretty much any missile the US makes, whenever you want.


----------



## AlexanderM

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> With enemy submarines about to add a SAM capability as the CSC's are entering service which would be a tremendous threat to our helicopters, does it not make sense to add a few cells of VL-ASROC?  The rationale being that it ensures opposing submarine captains know that if they try to engage our Huey's, by exposing themselves they will be subject to immediate targeting by the mother ship....even if the ship is at a significant distance away.  It seems like it would be a relatively cheap way to ensure that the submarine captain is more likely to try to hide from our Huey's as opposed to potentially getting cocky and trying to hunt them.


Or even if the helicopter is otherwise busy. I've often thought this would be a good backup to have, even just a couple would be good, I would think.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That is the beauty of Mk41 VLS- once you own the launcher, you can add pretty much any missile the US makes, whenever you want.



Honestly, as soon as I saw "Strike Length Cells" I and assumed it was for BMD and ASROC.  I was shocked that the actual intention was Tomahawks.

Do we ever do exchanges with the Americans or Japanese so we'd know how they tactically employ ASROC if it were later to be added to the CSC quiver?


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Honestly, as soon as I saw "Strike Length Cells" I and assumed it was for BMD and ASROC.  I was shocked that the actual intention was Tomahawks.
> 
> Do we ever do exchanges with the Americans or Japanese so we'd know how they tactically employ ASROC if it were later to be added to the CSC quiver?



I think the true intention was future proofing.  If you have strike length you can go smaller.  As for ASROC if we got them we would do the proper training and planning to use them properly.  If that requires courses or training with allies it would be part of the plan.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:
			
		

> I think the true intention was future proofing.  If you have strike length you can go smaller.  As for ASROC if we got them we would do the proper training and planning to use them properly.  If that requires courses or training with allies it would be part of the plan.



Given that Lockheed Martin is at the top of the contractor cake, I would be stunned if the LRASM wouldn’t at least be offered. And any ABM missile purchases would be hush-hush.

So who knows.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Underway said:
			
		

> I would love this.  My only dislike is that Haida wouldn't be available, as the name is still currently in commission for the ceremonial flagship.  Would have loved to see HMCS Haida sailing around doing the business again.  My other vote would be for Canadian mythological creatures.  HMCS Wendigo would win the cool name award.
> 
> AAW will be a combination of Sea Ceptor, ESSM II and SM2 MkIII.  Because the ESSM and SM2 would be placed in the VLS on the foc'sle those numbers may vary depending on the mission/threat.  The main AAW weapon however would be the SM2.  ESSM is good as "point defence" not area defense.  You can help a buddy who's close but its like the infield compared to the entire ballpark that is SM2.
> 
> I would expect a standard loadout would be 24 Sea Ceptors (as their launchers are dedicated to them), 24 ESSM (taking up 8 VLS as they are quad packed) and then 24 SM2.  If you were carrying tomahawks of course the SM2 numbers might be reduced to as low as 16.  That's speculation though, you could mix and match all those VLS numbers for your mission.  You could specialize in the role for the task group.  One CSC as a dedicated land attack platform carries all the tomahawks and the other three carry the SM2's to protect it.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure what capability the 127mm has for air warfare, I think its advertised as having some, but with its rate of fire/traverse I would suspect that it's not considered a viable option for anything other than slow moving targets.



A little (reloadable) point defence humour:


----------



## AlexanderM

CloudCover said:
			
		

> A little (reloadable) point defence humour:


That would be 32 ESSM's in 8 vls cells. Oops, that was meant for Underway.


----------



## suffolkowner

Thanks Underway and others for the torpedo comments

Now another question, given that we are not planning on using the CIWS anymore.  What capacity do the 30mm have to engage incoming airborne targets?

Just to note the primary differences in armament between the UK/AUS/CAN versions. via Wikipedia 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate

the UK and AUS plan to have 2xCIWS

the UK 12 vls for Sea Ceptor so 48
           24 cell mk41
CAN with 6 vls for Sea Ceptor so 24
           32 cell mk 41
AUS with a 32 cell mk 41 and no Sea Ceptor


----------



## Underway

AlexanderM said:
			
		

> That would be 32 ESSM's in 8 vls cells.



Math is hard.



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Now another question, given that we are not planning on using the CIWS anymore.  What capacity do the 30mm have to engage incoming airborne targets?



None that I know of.  Maybe low and really slow, like hovering slow.  The 30mm are for surface engagements.  Having them on the quarters is a good place for them as if you turn the ship away from fast boat attackers you have quite good arcs of fire.  And you increase the time to intercept.  It's like the Brits planned it that way.



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> the UK and AUS plan to have 2xCIWS
> 
> the UK 12 vls for Sea Ceptor so 48
> 24 cell mk41
> CAN with 6 vls for Sea Ceptor so 24
> 32 cell mk 41
> AUS with a 32 cell mk 41 and no Sea Ceptor



It's interesting the different ways each nation has gone.  All three have selected a different radar and different weapons loadouts for their particular strategic situations and fleet mix.  Not having a large amphib or carrier to defend our fleet mix is different, thus our choices were as well.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Is it known for a hard fact that the RCN is not going to add on the CIWS? I know its not on the drawing and the release table but does that really mean it is scrubbed for good? 

Also, the Sea Ranger 20mm (Rheinemetall) seems to be developed for dealing with swarm drone attacks, particularly its ammunition. This is something I would think we would be all over since they would quickly get inside the engagement envelope of the Sea Ceptor and probably the 30mm. Or is this type of low cost secondary armament just not worth listing at this time for such a large and complex program?  

Cheers.


----------



## Underway

CloudCover said:
			
		

> Is it known for a hard fact that the RCN is not going to add on the CIWS? I know its not on the drawing and the release table but does that really mean it is scrubbed for good?



AFAIK the Phalanx wasn't even part of the bid.  In almost every category Sea Ceptor is way better than the CIWS. And with a 30mm to cover off the surface engagement portion there really is no need for CIWS.

My personal opinion is that CIWS time has come.  Its a bandaid measure that's cheap, familiar and does little in a modern battlespace.  It's the smaller calibre armament that is waiting for its Battle of Tsushima moment.  Better to have a dedicated small boat killer weapon (30mm) which is designed to do that job, and can engage multiple targets over longer engagements.



			
				CloudCover said:
			
		

> Also, the Sea Ranger 20mm (Rheinemetall) seems to be developed for dealing with swarm drone attacks, particularly its ammunition. This is something I would think we would be all over since they would quickly get inside the engagement envelope of the Sea Ceptor and probably the 30mm.



So I looked up the 30mm from BAE and the open-source states that it's got the ability to attack UAS with the _"capability to engage close-in air threats at greater than 65 degrees elevation coupled with the air-bursting munition offers outstanding probability of hit and mission success"_.  The 30mm version can be fitted with a coaxial 50 cal, it also uses FLIR, EO/IR and laser rangefinding to track targets.  The range is approx 3 km (which is interesting because Sea Ceptor has a min published range of 1km).

They are also working on a laser weapon that could be mounted in the same place of be coaxial to the 30mm.

So yah, options vs UAS.  Not sure how effective but options.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Agreed on the gun-based CIWS as a necessity as an opponent can easily send 100 small and relatively slow munitions (think IAI Harpy loitering munitions), and by force of numbers overwhelm your defensive missiles.  

I hope the RCN PMO is reviewing exactly how Turkey used them in Armenia as that should provide a decent illustration of where that threat is going to develop.


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> Agreed on the gun-based CIWS as a necessity as an opponent can easily send 100 small and relatively slow munitions (think IAI Harpy loitering munitions), and by force of numbers overwhelm your defensive missiles.



Question.  How many targets do you think two CIWS can engage before you need to reload?  Answer.  Much less than 24 Sea Ceptors can.  Not to mention Sea Ceptors and reach out an touch those munitions while they are loitering.  A CIWS cannot.



			
				Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I hope the RCN PMO is reviewing exactly how Turkey used them in Armenia as that should provide a decent illustration of where that threat is going to develop.



Reviewing operational requirements is not the PMO's job, that's the RCN Warfare Centre's job.   Also future threat analysis was used over the previous 5 years before design selection to define the requirements for the bidders.  This is why the configuration of the ship is the way it is.  Because of future threats.  Loitering munitions in a task group environment are much much less of a threat than hypersonics for example IMHO.

The way the CSC is configured loitering munitions will be being hit by SM2, ESSM and Sea Ceptor from a whole task group before they get on station.  Even the 127mm can probably hit them.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Underway said:
			
		

> Question.  How many targets do you think two CIWS can engage before you need to reload?  Answer.  Much less than 24 Sea Ceptors can.  Not to mention Sea Ceptors and reach out an touch those munitions while they are loitering.  A CIWS cannot.
> 
> Reviewing operational requirements is not the PMO's job, that's the RCN Warfare Centre's job.   Also future threat analysis was used over the previous 5 years before design selection to define the requirements for the bidders.  This is why the configuration of the ship is the way it is.  Because of future threats.  Loitering munitions in a task group environment are much much less of a threat than hypersonics for example IMHO.
> 
> The way the CSC is configured loitering munitions will be being hit by SM2, ESSM and Sea Ceptor from a whole task group before they get on station.  Even the 127mm can probably hit them.



And if there are more of those small munitions than the CSC has missiles, you would contend that it would be unwise to having something like the 35mm Oerlikom Millennium Gun as an extra layer?  I don't understand that logic.


----------



## AlexanderM

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> And if there are more of those small munitions than the CSC has missiles, you would contend that it would be unwise to having something like the 35mm Oerlikom Millennium Gun as an extra layer?  I don't understand that logic.


Going by memory here, but I do seem to remember that in the design there is the ability to add lasers later on. I do believe this came up once before, quite some time ago.

https://www.navalreview.ca/2020/10/dew-system-for-canadas-csc-frigates/


----------



## MTShaw

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> And if there are more of those small munitions than the CSC has missiles, you would contend that it would be unwise to having something like the 35mm Oerlikom Millennium Gun as an extra layer?  I don't understand that logic.



I will add the DS30M cannons on the Type 23 can mount 5-7 “Martlet” Missiles. They’re apparently effective for fast boats.


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> And if there are more of those small munitions than the CSC has missiles, you would contend that it would be unwise to having something like the 35mm Oerlikom Millennium Gun as an extra layer?  I don't understand that logic.



If the footprint of that gun took away from having the missiles in the first place or took away topside space for ECM or other electronics (Which a Millennium Gun definitely will on the CSC)... yes.  It would be very unwise IMHO.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Agreed, there’s only so much deck real estate. It would be nice if they could address that 200 rounds on the 30mm.  Even on the Phalanx everybody knows the guns will do their job once for sure and if you’re lucky and have time, twice.


----------



## AlexanderM

Just wanted to mention that the Kongsberg anti-ship missile is compatible with the MK41 VLS, it can and has been fired from a ship. So it is an option, would clear up deck space, then the problem is that the 32 cells fill up quickly so I expect it will stay in the separate launchers. The wild card then might be if we do develop a booster for the ESSM which could then provide additional options. 

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/why-f-35-pilots-love-naval-strike-missile-113991


----------



## Pelorus

The employment of traditional shipboard weapons systems against small autonomous targets is in my opinion a temporary band-aid solution which uses established defensive systems for novel problems outside of their primary intended purpose.

A trade of a ship's bullets or missiles to defeat a threat originating from ashore is _usually_ a bad trade over the long term. Shore-based weapons (including drones, loitering munitions, missiles, etc.) are most likely going to be held in much higher numbers and with quicker reload/cycle times than ship-board defenses, just as a simple matter of available exterior real estate on the hull for launching platforms/cells, interior real estate for magazines, and reloading capability of a crew.

Without having a crystal ball to see the future, I am reasonably confident that once the technology matures (no idea when that will be) you will see almost all modern surface combatants equipped with laser or other DEW defensive systems to counteract small, swarm-style threats, with ships saving their traditional weapons for more high-risk threats such as anti-ship missiles.

Given the expected delivery date of CSC and its intended lifespan, hopefully the design has at least partially accounted for this (via surplus Power Generation capacity as well as potentially physical space for large capacitor banks), but I don't have any insight on that front.


----------



## Furniture

boot12 said:
			
		

> The employment of traditional shipboard weapons systems against small autonomous targets is in my opinion a temporary band-aid solution which uses established defensive systems for novel problems outside of their primary intended purpose.
> 
> A trade of a ship's bullets or missiles to defeat a threat originating from ashore is _usually_ a bad trade over the long term. Shore-based weapons (including drones, loitering munitions, missiles, etc.) are most likely going to be held in much higher numbers and with quicker reload/cycle times than ship-board defenses, just as a simple matter of available exterior real estate on the hull for launching platforms/cells, interior real estate for magazines, and reloading capability of a crew.
> 
> Without having a crystal ball to see the future, I am reasonably confident that once the technology matures (no idea when that will be) you will see almost all modern surface combatants equipped with laser or other DEW defensive systems to counteract small, swarm-style threats, with ships saving their traditional weapons for more high-risk threats such as anti-ship missiles.
> 
> Given the expected delivery date of CSC and its intended lifespan, hopefully the design has at least partially accounted for this (via surplus Power Generation capacity as well as potentially physical space for large capacitor banks), but I don't have any insight on that front.



Ships will always have a disadvantage against shore batteries, it has been that way since the dawn of projectile weapons. Lasers and other gadgets will never make up for it, because as lasers get more effective, more effective shore based weapons will be developed. The CSC needs to be able to fight other ships, and put up a reasonable defense against peer/near-peer enemies on shore. 

Also, the CSC is not designed to fight alone in a "hot" war. It will be part of a TG with layered defenses, so the missiles/lasers/plasma rifles in the 40w range, etc. on the CSC aren't likely to be the first layer of defense any threat encounters.


----------



## AlexanderM

boot12 said:
			
		

> The employment of traditional shipboard weapons systems against small autonomous targets is in my opinion a temporary band-aid solution which uses established defensive systems for novel problems outside of their primary intended purpose.
> 
> A trade of a ship's bullets or missiles to defeat a threat originating from ashore is _usually_ a bad trade over the long term. Shore-based weapons (including drones, loitering munitions, missiles, etc.) are most likely going to be held in much higher numbers and with quicker reload/cycle times than ship-board defenses, just as a simple matter of available exterior real estate on the hull for launching platforms/cells, interior real estate for magazines, and reloading capability of a crew.
> 
> Without having a crystal ball to see the future, I am reasonably confident that once the technology matures (no idea when that will be) you will see almost all modern surface combatants equipped with laser or other DEW defensive systems to counteract small, swarm-style threats, with ships saving their traditional weapons for more high-risk threats such as anti-ship missiles.
> 
> Given the expected delivery date of CSC and its intended lifespan, hopefully the design has at least partially accounted for this (via surplus Power Generation capacity as well as potentially physical space for large capacitor banks), but I don't have any insight on that front.


This was previously posted on this page.

https://www.navalreview.ca/2020/10/dew-system-for-canadas-csc-frigates/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I would love to walk through this!

https://www.baesystems.com/en-ca/article/csc-celebrates-first-visualization-suite-opening-in-ottawa?fbclid=IwAR0QlpcR9Nr9rIBQUDlta1YnSvH8x7KouCGMg5w9gfl21rd-4WjkWwuU6wk

The visualization technology will transform the way warships are designed, built and delivered for the Royal Canadian Navy.  Using the technology to create a virtual prototype and “Digital Twin” enables a deep understanding of the vessel and the experience of those serving on board before manufacturing begins.

The technology allows a fully detailed view of the ship’s design from any angle or area with the ability to inspect and examine equipment and systems quickly and easily, a key benefit in maturing and ensuring design, and in supporting the program’s prime contractor, Irving Shipbuilding, as it plans for build.  Our engineers are able to mature design across countries and time zones, working together with our partners and customer to create the right ship for Canada.


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> I would love to walk through this!



Tell you what @Colin P.  When the ship is built I'll give you a personal tour.  PM me in 10 years...


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:
			
		

> Tell you what @Colin P.  When the ship is built I'll give you a personal tour.  PM me in 10 years...




You optimist you


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:
			
		

> Tell you what @Colin P.  When the ship is built I'll give you a personal tour.  PM me in 10 years...



I am going to call you on that, but the beer/drinks will definitely be on me.  8)


----------



## Underway

Colin P said:
			
		

> I am going to call you on that, but the beer/drinks will definitely be on me.  8)



Yes they will... lol  :cheers:

I've recently been able to see an excellent progress presentation of the CSC.  All I can say is "wow".  New career goal.  Sail on that ship.  The attention to detail is frankly astounding.  The effort to future proof this thing is evident in every system.  I think when it hits the water it will be the world's most advanced frigate, no joke.


----------



## Cloud Cover

And here comes the media, spinning the evil SPY7 all sorts of different ways. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-radar-lockheed-martin-1.5822606

Edit: if you want to keep your sanity do not look at the comments section on that article.


----------



## MarkOttawa

CloudCover said:
			
		

> And here comes the media, spinning the evil SPY7 all sorts of different ways.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/frigate-radar-lockheed-martin-1.5822606
> 
> Edit: if you want to keep your sanity do not look at the comments section on that article.



It is disgraceful how most of our media, including Murray Brewster who could do much better, consistently spin their defence reporting to make matters politically contentious--rather than cover the substance involved. Doubtless that is what editors want as they assume (probably rightly) that any other approach will not attract viewers/readers/clickers.

Too sad and childish.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

Not in much of a position to fact check the article.


----------



## suffolkowner

I would have thought the SPY-7 was an evolutionary development of the previous radars and fairly low risk


----------



## MarkOttawa

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I would have thought the SPY-7 was an evolutionary development of the previous radars and fairly low risk


http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C156

But he is Murray Brewster and you are not. Facts...

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

Well here is a fact he can't change. When these ships are built, Canada is likely to be the worlds second most numerous operator of AEGIS systems, after the United States (according LM website: https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-ca/features/why-spy-7-is-the-world-s-most-versatile-radar.html

More on AEGIS and SPY 7: https://youtu.be/hb4yP8dKJ78


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Underway said:
			
		

> If the footprint of that gun took away from having the missiles in the first place or took away topside space for ECM or other electronics (Which a Millennium Gun definitely will on the CSC)... yes.  It would be very unwise IMHO.



So assuming something more advanced than the linked system becomes common place within the next ten years, how would you propose the CSC defend itself in contested littoral waters?  A laser is going to take up a similar foot print to the Millennium Gun would it not?  In that context would it not make sense to dedicate those spaces now (as opposed to solely relying on CAMM) and then integrate the best system available as the ships are being constructed?  If at that time the best option is a Millennium Gun or Bofors 40mm/57mm, you go with that.  If laser technology has advanced and is stable, reliable and effective, you go with that.  My point is that CAMM in isolation as the sole CIWS system appears to create an opportunity for an assymetric mismatch for an opponent with a relatively low cost microdrone system....and if we allow that on our brand new multibillion dollar frigate, we have a big problem.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37062/china-conducts-test-of-massive-suicide-drone-swarm-launched-from-a-box-on-a-truck


----------



## Cloud Cover

If only Krakens could fly, then we could release them unto the drones.


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> So assuming something more advanced than the linked system becomes common place within the next ten years, how would you propose the CSC defend itself in contested littoral waters?  A laser is going to take up a similar foot print to the Millennium Gun would it not?  In that context would it not make sense to dedicate those spaces now (as opposed to solely relying on CAMM) and then integrate the best system available as the ships are being constructed?  If at that time the best option is a Millennium Gun or Bofors 40mm/57mm, you go with that.  If laser technology has advanced and is stable, reliable and effective, you go with that.  My point is that CAMM in isolation as the sole CIWS system appears to create an opportunity for an assymetric mismatch for an opponent with a relatively low cost microdrone system....and if we allow that on our brand new multibillion dollar frigate, we have a big problem.
> 
> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/37062/china-conducts-test-of-massive-suicide-drone-swarm-launched-from-a-box-on-a-truck



Few thoughts:

A powerful EW suite is important as the networked nature of those swarms don't work well in a jamming environment.  This is why the article constantly refers to ground troops, as they generally don't have the capability to jam/distract/seduse/dazzle etc... as a warship does.  

CSC also carries two of these...  specifically designed to deal with those sorts of problems.  Much better capability than a Phalanx for those threats as it has submunitions.

Of course never mentioned in these discussions is the range and mobility inherent with a ship.  Intelligence and threat assessment informs the plan, allowing you to keep to safer areas, or areas where you will have plenty of warning of a launch.  

As far as a laser system, the CSC is being designed with power margins to accept DEW in the future.  Where its placed or how it integrates into the ship is a future engineering problem. I assume that they would be placed where the 30mm (or secondary gun system as its called) is placed.

And assuming swarms of UAS become a real threat there is easily enough space in the ship's flex bay to house our own swarm of defensive UAS (and become "The Hive Ship"  buahahahaha!).


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

So looking at existing design, the two 30mm guns are both mounted at the rear of the ship leaving the front arc exposed.  Assuming all are in agreement that drone swarms will constitute a threat during the life of these ships (hard to determine how rapldly that tech will advance), does it not make sense to i) Install an interim gun solution that could provide immediate defensive capability which fits into the existing footprint (so replace the 30mm with the new compact Bofors 40mm), and ii) at the very least build the platform and wiring into the deck area for future forward mounts outside of the main vls cells?

Just in terms of my objectives in my chain of questions, I'm just trying to avoid an expensive retrofit later, when we could build the future capability into the evolving design, prior to the start of any construction.

Just one additional thought is that in terms of the EW suite,  although jamming remote signals at this time makes sense, we may be less than 10 years away from low cost AI options which would mean even small systems would not need an external signal to reach their targets.  If you're instead proposing directed microwaves to fry internal circuitry, that still seems like be likely to would work these smaller slower AI threats, and in combination with a gun/laser system would make me much more comfortable.


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> So looking at existing design, the two 30mm guns are both mounted at the rear of the ship leaving the front arc exposed.  Assuming all are in agreement that drone swarms will constitute a threat during the life of these ships (hard to determine how rapldly that tech will advance), does it not make sense to i) Install an interim gun solution that could provide immediate defensive capability which fits into the existing footprint (so replace the 30mm with the new compact Bofors 40mm), and ii) at the very least build the platform and wiring into the deck area for future forward mounts outside of the main vls cells?
> 
> Just in terms of my objectives in my chain of questions, I'm just trying to avoid an expensive retrofit later, when we could build the future capability into the evolving design, prior to the start of any construction.
> 
> Just one additional thought is that in terms of the EW suite,  although jamming remote signals at this time makes sense, we may be less than 10 years away from low cost AI options which would mean even small systems would not need an external signal to reach their targets.  If you're instead proposing directed microwaves to fry internal circuitry, that still seems like be likely to would work these smaller slower AI threats, and in combination with a gun/laser system would make me much more comfortable.



Why do you think a 40mm bofors is any better than a 30mm? 30mm has more rounds and a higher rate of fire, with frangible munitions.   It takes a ship 30 seconds to alter its heading and open up firing arcs for weapons on the quarters.  So only attacks from a 90-120 degree arc forward of the ship will be outside of the 30mm firing arcs.  And you'll be sailing away from the threat then increasing the time required for the threat to get to you.

Why do you think the 127mm can't engage air targets?  Slow moving UAS might be the perfect target for an 127mm airburst.  Maybe there is an EMP 127mm round in development (since we are all about the imaginary future).

There are tradeoffs here.  Any large fast-moving UAS is basically a missile.  It can be dealt with using missile defenses.  Any small slow-moving UAS will be dealt with using the 30mm and EW.  EW isn't a hard kill system, its soft kill.  

Small UAS have uncomplicated targeting systems and simple networking AI.  A networked AI can't handle the power output of a jammer, it will overwhelm their network and therefore each UAS is operating on its own.  Secondly what sensor is the UAS using to target the ship?  IR, video, radar, laser?  All of these systems can be jammed, distracted or seduced away from the ship.  Small UAS don't have the space to harden themselves against that sort of situation.  A flare will distract them, chaff confuses them and a laser dazzler will blind them.  Offboard decoys will pull them on wild goose-chases.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

My neophyte understanding is that 30mm we're installing are tailored to target surface targets as opposed to air targets.  In addition although the 40mm has fewer available rounds, you should need fewer per target, and as a system it has a much deeper effective range.  

Re: The 127mm being uses to cover the frontal arc, as embarrassing as it is to admit, I totally whiffed on that thought.  

Doh!


----------



## Underway

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> My neophyte understanding is that 30mm we're installing are tailored to target surface targets as opposed to air targets.  In addition although the 40mm has fewer available rounds, you should need fewer per target, and as a system it has a much deeper effective range.
> 
> Re: The 127mm being uses to cover the frontal arc, as embarrassing as it is to admit, I totally whiffed on that thought.
> 
> Doh!



I can understand that.  If I had a nickel for every mistake I've typed in these forum...   

If you look at the link for the 30mm from a previous post of mine it speaks about how the Rafael 30c 30mm naval gun is designed for UAS engagements.  127mm is not really perfect for air engagements but I'm not super boned up on its capabilities.  Its a big explosive radius but its not designed for tracking and shooting air targets.  I assume a "swarm" might be a good target though as even though each individual UAS might be maneuvering the whole formation might be generally stable (flock of birds).  A big airburst from a 125mm might be a good idea in that situation.  *total speculation*


----------



## Cloud Cover

I think we can agree there likely is not one single solution to swarm attacks by sea or air “drones”.  In fact a swarm attack is no less likely than any other type of attack that the CSC might have to contend with. Expending  (exhausting?)point defence missiles to deal with a high volume saturation attack may be the actual objective of such an attack in order to draw down available resources that could be used to defend against a volley fired cruise missile attack or to force maneuvering which might impair defences from a torpedo attack.

I think the CSC is somewhat better positioned to deal it with than the 330’s, as in the best defences are (1) a disruptive pre-emptive attack ;(2) better ECM including dazzle, chaff, jamming and flares; (3) probable DEW availability in medium future and highly likely before 1st launch of CSC ; (4) the SPY 7 discrimination radar coupled with more intelligent and more aware combat management system (5) hull form and machinery, propulsion and drive that is far more combat reactive for speed and maneuvering; (6) ESM; (7) evolved thinking and training for combat department;  (8) more weapons of higher quality; (9) AEGIS cooperative engagement; (10)  reduced radar cross section and stealth materials; (11) the old standby: https://www.instagram.com/p/CIVwhfkn_BH/?igshid=bn5yvcop12g4


Would more guns and missiles help? Sure but at some point every ship has limitations. It’s pretty clear these ships are not designed to fight like destroyers nor are the simply patrol frigates. What they will require is an excellent weapons logistics train which at this point appears to be limited to the 2 Protector class AOR and apparently plans to set up forward deployed bases with stocks.  It’s not a bad plan, yes could be improved but better than we have right now.

edit: on the issue of A mount and the gun to deal with swarm attacks, and this is not a popular idea but there is the option of deleting the 127mm and installing the 57mm which is what the USN is choosing for the _Constellation _class.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

5" guns were in late WWII Pacific the most successful guns for AD, I am assuming that the modern 127mm would work very well with Loitering ammunition that travels likley no faster than a WWII fighter? It also combines shore bombardment and can engage surface targets far from the ships, forcing boat swarms to have to fight their way into attack range. Public information put's the range as 23km against surface targets and 15km in AD mode.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Colin P said:
			
		

> 5" guns were in late WWII Pacific the most successful guns for AD, I am assuming that the modern 127mm would work very well with Loitering ammunition that travels likley no faster than a WWII fighter? It also combines shore bombardment and can engage surface targets far from the ships, forcing boat swarms to have to fight their way into attack range. Public information put's the range as 23km against surface targets and 15km in AD mode.



Not so fast, Colin. The reading that I have done put the 40mm Bofors as the most effective late war gun in the Pacific, responsible for about 50% of all surface to air shoot downs of Japanese aircraft, with the various 5 inch mounts (equipped  with radar direction and VT fusing) coming in at second. 20mm got most of the rest.

There is a definite balance between payload/range (the 5 inch ordnance) and rate of fire (the 40mm mount). In a modern context, the 5 inch ordnance still gives you decent payload and not a bad rate of fire. I am glad we are getting them back in the RCN, but they would not be my first choice for an AA engagement.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The 40mm was more widespread, plus covered the entire war and theatres. It in turn was quickly being replaced by the 3"/50 which also performed admiringly, and which Canada adopted for the DDE's as well. During that timeframe fuzing options were limited in the 40mm, and I think 3" was the smallest they could fit a proximity fuze to? Late war pacific timeframe allows you to compare 3 excellent AD systems. But that's a lovely debate for another thread.

Interesting to compare a loitering munitions to a kamikaze? Maybe hull and upperworks armour will make a comback?


----------



## Underway

The modern 40mm and 127mm look the same but are most definitely not the same weapons.  
It's like comparing a rotary phone to a iPhone 10.  Sure they both make a call but the limitations of the former are staggering in the modern world.

The effectiveness of guns comes from the quality of their fire control solution, which in modern times is way better.  No more eyeball the target, now you have gyro stabilization, muzzle velocity detection, air and temp effects, round weight, improved sensors, predictive modeling, round tracking radar etc...

Of these, perhaps the most important new developments are firing patterns and "intelligent" munitions.  Proximity fuses are a good backup, but a firing pattern exploding in an area where the target is going to travel through is actually much better.

That being said targets are harder to hit, coming in lower, faster with better maneuvering options, or with more stealth.  It's an entirely different ecosystem, and comparisons with historical models should be done with a healthy dose of salt.  That being said, they who ignore the lessons of history ...  It's good to know where we have been.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Interesting to compare a loitering munitions to a kamikaze? Maybe hull and upperworks armour will make a comback?



IMHO loitering munitions are no different than any missile system except that they can wait for their target.  This actually might make them less effective in actually killing naval targets, as if you are flying around in an area a ship could detect them and just avoid that area.  Of course that might be exactly the effect that the enemy was looking for.  Mission kills count.

*edit: spelling/phrasing*


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

I was just looking for literature on the Bofors and Leonardo 40mm CIWS and found an article indicating the British have are arming each Type 31 with (1) 57mm and (2) 40mm guns per hull.  I was unaware they had made those decisions.

https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/10/bae-secures-bofors-naval-guns-order-for-uk-type-31-frigate-program/


----------



## Cloud Cover

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> I was just looking for literature on the Bofors and Leonardo 40mm CIWS and found an article indicating the British have are arming each Type 31 with (1) 57mm and (2) 40mm guns per hull.  I was unaware they had made those decisions.
> 
> https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/10/bae-secures-bofors-naval-guns-order-for-uk-type-31-frigate-program/



Yoga pants sailor action figure sold separately. 

https://www.navyrecognition.com/index.php/world-naval-forces/west-european-navies-vessels-ships-equipment/royal-navy-vessels-ships-equipment/systems/621-bofors-40-mk4-naval-gun-system-bae-systems-40mm-datasheet-pictures-photos-video-specifications.html


----------



## Uzlu

https://www.cgai.ca/launching_the_canadian_surface_combatant_project


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:
			
		

> https://www.cgai.ca/launching_the_canadian_surface_combatant_project



Near end: "Whether one is struggling to deliver a warship, a maritime helicopter or a tactical armoured vehicle, such complex weapons systems platform projects..." For most countries tactical armoured vehicles (TAPV, took seven years for first delivery 1) https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-854775.html#msg854775 2) https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-1449503.html#msg1449503 ) are NOT #complex weapons sytems platform projects".
https://www.cgai.ca/launching_the_canadian_surface_combatant_project#So

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cloud Cover

"It is also important to recognize that by the time the 15th CSC would be in play around the mid-2030s and some 20 years since the SOR was set for the 2016 RFP, it is likely that a modified SoR would have been generated to address the many emergent changes in technology and threats."

The first ship will almost certainly not be the same as the last given the fact that when the last ship is built the program will be nigh on 30 years since the program was begun.  That would be like building Annapolis class in the late 90's without any changes.


----------



## MilEME09

CloudCover said:
			
		

> "It is also important to recognize that by the time the 15th CSC would be in play around the mid-2030s and some 20 years since the SOR was set for the 2016 RFP, it is likely that a modified SoR would have been generated to address the many emergent changes in technology and threats."
> 
> The first ship will almost certainly not be the same as the last given the fact that when the last ship is built the program will be nigh on 30 years since the program was begun.  That would be like building Annapolis class in the late 90's without any changes.



Given the long stretch out could we see the CSC emerge as two separate classes? The main first flight and then a sub class as a second flight?


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Given the long stretch out could we see the CSC emerge as two separate classes? The main first flight and then a sub class as a second flight?


It is probably going to be batches.  My guess would be five batches of three.


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:
			
		

> It is probably going to be batches.  My guess would be five batches of three.



For sure there will be batches, in particular for contracting and the money people.  It's not like we're gonna hand over 60 billion up front.  And as things progress there will be engineering changes that need to be accounted for.  The RCN will have to decide whether it's better to integrate them after delivery or do it up front.  There might be issues that are critical (or simple fixes) that can/need to be addressed in Ship 2 or things that might be better pushed down the line to the second batch as that's where engineering/design money is available.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:
			
		

> For sure there will be batches, in particular for contracting and the money people.  It's not like we're gonna hand over 60 billion up front.  And as things progress there will be engineering changes that need to be accounted for.  The RCN will have to decide whether it's better to integrate them after delivery or do it up front.  There might be issues that are critical (or simple fixes) that can/need to be addressed in Ship 2 or things that might be better pushed down the line to the second batch as that's where engineering/design money is available.



It will always be better to integrate them upfront, and that's specifically why they build things in flights. But it's also going to take long enough to build that things (ie electronics) on ship 1 will be obsolete by the time they hit ship 8+, so some of it will likely be a lot of that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Near end: "Whether one is struggling to deliver a warship, a maritime helicopter or a tactical armoured vehicle, such complex weapons systems platform projects..." For most countries tactical armoured vehicles (TAPV, took seven years for first delivery 1) https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-854775.html#msg854775 2) https://milnet.ca/forums/threads/87547/post-1449503.html#msg1449503 ) are NOT #complex weapons sytems platform projects".
> https://www.cgai.ca/launching_the_canadian_surface_combatant_project#So
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



Well we did manage to muck up a pistol replacement contract, because apparently that to is a "complex weapon system"


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> It will always be better to integrate them upfront, and that's specifically why they build things in flights. But it's also going to take long enough to build that things (ie electronics) on ship 1 will be obsolete by the time they hit ship 8+, so some of it will likely be a lot of that.



Not always. Sometimes it's better to install after acceptance, with design margins left for that equipment. The design cycle is such that equipment can be overtaken by events.  A company can go out of business or stop supporting items.  Or the entire fleet is moving to a solution and the new ship doesn't have that solution.  

And sometimes is such a pain in the *** to have the contractor install/integrate something that it's just easier for everyone to have FMF do it after the fact.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> And sometimes is such a pain in the *** to have the contractor install/integrate something that it's just easier for everyone to have FMF do it after the fact



You are new to the Navy, I see...


----------



## Dale Denton

Underway said:
			
		

> Not always. Sometimes it's better to install after acceptance, with design margins left for that equipment. The design cycle is such that equipment can be overtaken by events.  A company can go out of business or stop supporting items.  Or the entire fleet is moving to a solution and the new ship doesn't have that solution.
> 
> And sometimes is such a pain in the *** to have the contractor install/integrate something that it's just easier for everyone to have FMF do it after the fact.



Is it prudent to buy more than 8 or so of each system? Won't many of these systems be outdated by the time the hull is ready for them to be installed (even though we are buying cutting edge)? It'd be like buying 2020 tech for a 2040 ship - or in simpler terms - 1970s tech on the 1996/last Halifax.


----------



## NavyShooter

And....new to procurement too...


I have in front of me right now one of the original MWM-Deutz Diesel Driven Fire Pump motors - now being maintained by another company because they bought out Deutz.  The engine is 30 years old - they aren't made anymore.  We're down to recycling the ones we have left into the repair/overhaul stream until they're beyond overhaul.


If we're buying 15 ship sets worth of stuff, we'll likely buy 15 - have all 15 delivered, and install them one at a time over the span of the construction period.  The 15th will have been sitting in storage for probably a decade by the time we install it.


I recall getting the SHINNADS system installed on CHA in 1999 or 2000 - it was brand new, I was the first person to open the NAVO Laptop box - and the 4 year warranty had expired a couple of months prior.  They were purchased, but there was no money to install them, so they sat in a warehouse until there was.


The logistics chain is limited by what the contracts say.  Example - on the FELEX project, the thin client computer solution for the OPS room was superseded in service - but the contract specified installation of the original hardware, so they had to install all of the old computers as part of the refit, then when the ships were handed over, we had to do upgrades to that part of the system.  They were installing 8 year old (or more) computers, knowing that they had to be replaced immediately after installation.


I highly doubt that the contracts will be written with such flexibility to allow mid-stream changes to hardware.


That would indicate that they 'learned lessons' from the FELEX project...


NS


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You are new to the Navy, I see...





			
				NavyShooter said:
			
		

> And....new to procurement too...



 :cheers:

Trust me.  With a new build sometimes it's better to not spend the $300,000 in engineering redesign/meetings/consults to fix a $100 part.  It's easier to have FMF fix it.  Which says quite a bit about the relative difficulty working with shipbuilders vs the EC process. (not even discussing the separate piles of money arguments either...).



			
				NavyShooter said:
			
		

> Example - on the FELEX project, the thin client computer solution for the OPS room was superseded in service - but the contract specified installation of the original hardware, so they had to install all of the old computers as part of the refit, then when the ships were handed over, we had to do upgrades to that part of the system.  They were installing 8 year old (or more) computers, knowing that they had to be replaced immediately after installation.



This is exactly too what I was referring. Its easier to get FMF to replace the parts with new then it is to implement change with the contractor.


----------



## Uzlu

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> If we're buying 15 ship sets worth of stuff, we'll likely buy 15 - have all 15 delivered, and install them one at a time over the span of the construction period.  The 15th will have been sitting in storage for probably a decade by the time we install it.


It is not going to be for all fifteen at once.  It is going to be for batch one.  Then it is going to be for batch two.  Then it is going to be for batch three.  Etc.  There will probably be little change to the propulsion machinery and hull—well, maybe a stretched version is possible.  But the weapons, sensors, electronics, computers, software, etc. will be changing from batch to batch—similar to the _St. Laurent_, _Restigouche_, _Mackenzie_, and _Annapolis_-class ships.


----------



## Navy_Pete

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> And....new to procurement too...
> 
> 
> I have in front of me right now one of the original MWM-Deutz Diesel Driven Fire Pump motors - now being maintained by another company because they bought out Deutz.  The engine is 30 years old - they aren't made anymore.  We're down to recycling the ones we have left into the repair/overhaul stream until they're beyond overhaul.
> 
> 
> If we're buying 15 ship sets worth of stuff, we'll likely buy 15 - have all 15 delivered, and install them one at a time over the span of the construction period.  The 15th will have been sitting in storage for probably a decade by the time we install it.
> 
> 
> I recall getting the SHINNADS system installed on CHA in 1999 or 2000 - it was brand new, I was the first person to open the NAVO Laptop box - and the 4 year warranty had expired a couple of months prior.  They were purchased, but there was no money to install them, so they sat in a warehouse until there was.
> 
> 
> The logistics chain is limited by what the contracts say.  Example - on the FELEX project, the thin client computer solution for the OPS room was superseded in service - but the contract specified installation of the original hardware, so they had to install all of the old computers as part of the refit, then when the ships were handed over, we had to do upgrades to that part of the system.  They were installing 8 year old (or more) computers, knowing that they had to be replaced immediately after installation.
> 
> 
> I highly doubt that the contracts will be written with such flexibility to allow mid-stream changes to hardware.
> 
> 
> That would indicate that they 'learned lessons' from the FELEX project...
> 
> 
> NS



Part of the issue as well is the initial batch tends to get used as spares for the fleet when you have that long of an initial activation, so you end up not being able to do the final installs with the original equipment unless you update the design. We've seen this in multiple systems, and happens because the supportable life cycle for a lot of the electronics is measured in a few years, and the replacement won't be fit/form equivalent.

And yeah, it still makes sense to pay for a redesign upfront, otherwise you are still paying for an install, removal, new install plus a redesign anyway. With an eventual drumbeat of a CSC/year, with around 18-20 years for overall delivery off all of them, it's really stupid to do otherwise. CSC 1 will be at midlife by the time CSC 15 is delivered, so not expecting to be evergreening the design during build is dumb.

Long lead mechanical systems will be fine, but we should plan for updating electronics during the build. Most of the time it's an update to the internal mounting arrangement, so really doesn't affect anything external to the cabinet. That's a really minor change which will have negligible/no impact to the general ship build. Worse case you would have some kind of power interface change, but the LOE to do that during the build is far smaller then once the ship is delivered (by a factor of 3-4 times less person hours required). There is really no excuse to pass that on to an in service project.


----------



## Dale Denton

This project is in the news more than ever, all shedding this in a bad light, all avoidable.

Should've started 2 warship projects, both very different.

First project should've been for 3 or 4 AAW/DDGs to replace the Tribals ASAP. Should have built them first before the AOPS. All design, shipyard refit, and teething would've been sorted in this project. Pre-select an 'in the water' design in use in NATO, a proven and mature design that is almost old like the Horizon or Type 45. Rush this project and use the lessons on the next ASW/General frigate project. Use many of the same systems in both projects. Run a DDG refit project halfway through the frigate project to keep the technology fresh. The high-tech DDG could balance the cost of the cheaper/general version of the 2-variant frigate project. Yes, its more expensive to run 3 different warship types, but operations costs never make the news, project budgets do.

This 15 ship project has to compete with a similarly priced Fighter project at the same time, it makes both easy targets to balance a budget. Shift priorities and timelines based on avoiding competing projects, since many things need replacing at the same time.
 :2c:


----------



## Uzlu

LoboCanada said:
			
		

> Should've started 2 warship projects, both very different.
> 
> First project should've been for 3 or 4 AAW/DDGs to replace the Tribals ASAP. Should have built them first before the AOPS. All design, shipyard refit, and teething would've been sorted in this project. Pre-select an 'in the water' design in use in NATO, a proven and mature design that is almost old like the Horizon or Type 45. Rush this project and use the lessons on the next ASW/General frigate project.


I thought the decision to build the _Harry DeWolf_s first before building destroyers or frigates was to give Irving some experience in building large ships before they start on something as complex as destroyers or frigates.  The last frigate built in Canada was in 1996.  What you propose, therefore, would have been very risky.  I do not think there were any easy solutions available.  What the governments of Canada should have done was, starting with the _Iroquois_-class destroyers, order a new destroyer or frigate to be built in Canada about every twelve to eighteen months.


----------



## NavyShooter

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I foresee the Canadian Government cancelling the CSC Project, and buy an extra dozen AOPS instead.


The AOPS project will be 'adjusted' to enable the Navy to up-gun and up-radar the 12 additional ships, using whatever they can rip off the Halifax Class to re-use.
- CIWS
- 57mm (no through deck penetration though - have to hand-load through the back door of the turret) 
- 3D Radar (if there's space)
- Link 16
- slightly improved OPS room-ish sort of thing


Then we have a single fleet of similar ships, we'll save money, time on planning, the general public won't know the difference...ISI gets to build more ships...perfection!


NS


----------



## Cloud Cover

Was something published that’s bringing this on?  It seems to me the Government, MND and the RCN have been clear recently: there will be 15 CSC built, no less than that. There will not be more than 1 variant and they will all perform the same role and functions. 

I don’t trust the politicians either ( any of them) but the messaging has been remarkably consistent and clear this year.  :dunno:


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NavyShooter said:
			
		

> As I've mentioned elsewhere, I foresee the Canadian Government cancelling the CSC Project, and buy an extra dozen AOPS instead.
> 
> 
> The AOPS project will be 'adjusted' to enable the Navy to up-gun and up-radar the 12 additional ships, using whatever they can rip off the Halifax Class to re-use.
> - CIWS
> - 57mm (no through deck penetration though - have to hand-load through the back door of the turret)
> - 3D Radar (if there's space)
> - Link 16
> - slightly improved OPS room-ish sort of thing
> 
> 
> Then we have a single fleet of similar ships, we'll save money, time on planning, the general public won't know the difference...ISI gets to build more ships...perfection!
> 
> 
> NS



A real warship has 68lb cannonades on the bow, and some 24lbers along each side  8)


----------



## FM07

Are we going to phase out a Halifax-class frigate for every new CSC delivered? Or how will that work, will CSC's and Halifax-class frigates coexist for a time? Or will it be one or the other.


----------



## Cloud Cover

Well, maybe once Australia starts to retire its Hunter class in 2045 we can just buy them used. They cut steel today on the first one: https://www.navalnews.com/naval-news/2020/12/australias-hunter-class-frigate-program-enters-prototyping-phase/


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Since AAW is one of the roles envisioned for the CSC, this article on the Type 45 current and future armament should be useful https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/imp...G91EGR82pgbC9U4hcLh7dbmxztcYlcrmuzYwTmgskn3lM


----------



## Underway

FMoore7 said:


> Are we going to phase out a Halifax-class frigate for every new CSC delivered? Or how will that work, will CSC's and Halifax-class frigates coexist for a time? Or will it be one or the other.


They will likely co-exist for a while.  CSC is a 20-year build so we're going to have to keep some frigates around for at least 15 years after delivery of the first one.  So expect at least a few of the frigates to be around for 25 more years.  I'm assuming that they'll retire the worst off ones first and then steal parts to keep the others going.


----------



## Stoker

Does anyone know the reason why we went with 15 CSC vice 16 factoring in the Iroquois Class?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Well, HURON had been out of service for more than 15 years by the time the retirement of the class was announced. I don't think she was part of the equation anymore - so it's a one for one replacement of the frigates plus the three IRO's in service at the time the decision to build replacements was made.


----------



## Cloud Cover

More huffing and puffing over the lifetime cost of the program. Government and RCN need to stand firm. We either have a navy or we don’t. 


			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/navy-frigates-cost-1.5851912


----------



## CBH99

I think we, as a country, need to find a way to start holding the media a lot more accountable.

How can the mainstream media be allowed to CONSTANTLY mislead people by sharing half a story, or sensationalizing a story, and not have any sort of accountability once so ever?


It doesn't matter what ships we build, they will need crews.  Those crews need services such as food, etc.  The ships require fuel.  Those things are a constant no matter what platform we get.

Trying to stir up controversy where there isn't any.  0.002


----------



## FSTO

It 5.5 Billion per year, if you cost it out over 40 years.
How much of that money is returned to the crown in the form of income taxes, sales tax, new infrastructure? And we get a modern capable navy to contribute to the international construct and freedom of the seas to ensure your 90 inch 4K TV being built by slave labour gets to Best Buy in a reasonable time at a reasonable cost!


----------



## Cloud Cover

Well that can’t be much more of a cost than it is today. The author of that report factored in everything from winch grease to cruise missiles. I’m not picking on Brewster, he didn’t write the report he simply wrote up a report on it. The CBC editors simply torqued the story but the RCN saw this coming apparently last fall.
Where it will get interesting is costing a very strategically necessary AIP submarine program because it will cost as much and we need more ( 6 or 8) subs. That’s why I think we should be signing cash and carry turn key deals with existing Japan, or Australia or some Euro sub design/ producers for their next gen subs. They provide the sub, the sensors, the weapons and all of the training and the first 10 years of dock maintenance in Canada and all lifetime refits in their yards. Let’s just be quiet users/ operators and not pretend to be innovators In submarines because we simply are not.


----------



## dimsum

Cloud Cover said:


> Let’s just be quiet users/ operators and not pretend to be innovators In submarines because we simply are not.


B-but the Facebook comment crowd says that we should make everything!  Bring back the Arrow!


----------



## MilEME09

dimsum said:


> B-but the Facebook comment crowd says that we should make everything!  Bring back the Arrow!


Except we  cant build everything local, I also highly doubt anyone will buy naval vessels from us given the cost we pay for the NSS. When South Korea can build AORs for less then 600 million each vs our 1.2 billion each and climbing. It shows were arent competitive on the open market. As it stands the only customers for warships in Canadian yards will be canada, and we pay what ever Irving or Seaspan want because they know they just have to compete with each other, not international groups.


----------



## dimsum

MilEME09 said:


> Except we  cant build everything local


I know that, and you know that.  It's the misinformed/un-informed social media commenters who think that we can just start building warships like the corvettes in WWII.


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> Except we  cant build everything local, I also highly doubt anyone will buy naval vessels from us given the cost we pay for the NSS. *When South Korea can build AORs for less then 600 million each vs our 1.2 billion each and climbing. It shows were arent competitive on the open market*. As it stands the only customers for warships in Canadian yards will be canada, and we pay what ever Irving or Seaspan want because they know they just have to compete with each other, not international groups.


The savings buying offshore would be immense, and we could re-invest that potential expense back into viable, sustainable Canadian industry, or reduce the deficit. (yes I know, dreaming in technicolor.) 
The government (of all stripes) has no interest in being competitive, or altruistic. They all share one overriding goal, being re-elected. 170 seats is the only number they pay attention to, and anything that supports their efforts, including how your money is spent across all sectors, to get as close to or surpass that magic number is all that matters.
Canadian governments haven't had a strategic outlook since the late 70's. Rather, it has been a domestic exercise to disseminate favors/largesse to where they think it will bring them the largest return ITO votes/seats. Defence spending has been included in that calculus.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Weinie said:


> The savings buying offshore would be immense, and we could re-invest that potential expense back into viable, sustainable Canadian industry, or reduce the deficit. (yes I know, dreaming in technicolor.)
> The government (of all stripes) has no interest in being competitive, or altruistic. They all share one overriding goal, being re-elected. 170 seats is the only number they pay attention to, and anything that supports their efforts, including how your money is spent across all sectors, to get as close to or surpass that magic number is all that matters.
> Canadian governments haven't had a strategic outlook since the late 70's. Rather, it has been a domestic exercise to disseminate favors/largesse to where they think it will bring them the largest return ITO votes/seats. Defence spending has been included in that calculus.


Sigh...

I hear that arguement a lot, and having looked into it fairly intensly, have found it to be unfounded BS, once you consider the economic impact and look at what is actually included in any of these project costs. A big part of the cost is labour, and you can ballpark about 30% of that coming directly back to the government in taxes. So while an experienced yard is more efficient (ie uses less labour hours) at building something then a brand new yard, doesn't take much for that tax offset to even things out.

Sure, there is a learning curve that we're paying for, but there is a really good reason why pretty much the entire G20 has some kind of domestic shipbuilding policy for their Navy; it just makes sense to A) have that strategic capability and B) invest that money in your own economy. We knew all that stuff going into it, so it wasn't an uninformed decision.

If we did a straight commercial contract at an existing yard, there would be zero economic impact, and we'd have increased project management costs for dealing with an international yard. Also, we'd still have to pay for project staff, parts, infrastructure, training and all the other stuff that is included in the project outside the hull, so there would be no real change there.  And that approach would not be an apples to apples comparison to the NSS projects anyway, as the contract terms would be totally different.

In the last NSS report, the GDP impact was estimated at $4.1 billion for 2019 (they are based on calendar years, so the 2020 one should be out late spring). Plus this way the gear fitted on it will generally have a Canadian supply chain, which can be a big advantage during actual operation. Even if there were no IRBs or value proposition included, there would still be a big GDP offset by default because they are doing the build in Canada.

For something more complicated like the subs, or specialized like the high speed open ocean ferries, makes perfect sense to look overseas when no one in Canada has the facilities to do it.  That's why the 'Build in Canada' policy that has been around since the 60s allows for applications on a project by project basis to do it.

This is specifically a STRATEGIC project meant to create/sustain a combat and a non-combat shipbuilding yard. Sure, it's the distributed economic benefits is a big selling point and all a lot of politicians hear, but it was very deliberately framed and approved by the Canadian government with that in mind, even if that has been lost over time with senior staff turnover. 

So does it cost more to build them in Canada? Possibly, but it's impossible to put a number to it (we tried pretty hard), and it's easy to argue that it might cost less once you consider the direct/indirect benefits and spinoffs. That's not even looking at any in service savings/benefits from having a Canadian supply chain.

/endrant

Had this argument many times with bureaucrats from Finance and other departments, and none of them were able to provide actual facts or numbers to back up that it would be cheaper. If you want to get an idea of how hard it is, there was an audit by either the PBO or AG that effectively gave up when trying to find an apples to apples cost comparison on the AOPs.

We include a tonne of stuff in our project costs that no one else does, and have a tonne of extra contract clauses that are unique, so it's almost impossible to get a fair comparison with any publically available project information on any other ship on the planet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Also the only way for yards to stay viable and capable of doing repairs is to get contracts for new builds that allow them to re-capitalize to re-new their equipment to be able to keep up with new technologies. That being said, not all the vessels need to be built here, the subs certainly not and if we opted for a couple of Canberra class or Mistrals then it might make sense to have the majority of the work done in yards that have already built them and perhaps do finally fitting out over here.


----------



## Fabius

With regards to the ship building program being a strategic project, this seems to be something that most people miss, but I also think its something that we have not really defined.  By that I mean is it a strategic project to have Canada being capable of building our own warships or building a hull that we integrate US or European weapons and sensors onto. The two things are not the same and there is nothing wrong with either but we need to be honest with what we are trying to achieve in terms of strategic independence. 

Additionally while I agree this is a strategic project, its success while only be established *IF *the government begins designing the next ship class / flight what have you, 75%ish of the way through the CSC build program and that the next class's construction begins immediately after the last CSC hits the water.  

If strategic shipbuilding capability is left to whither as it was once the last Halifax Class was finished, then the extra money we have spent was not worth it.  That is something that we will have to wait and see where the future takes us but if we judge from history and comments surrounding the next submarine replacement timelines etc. I am not sure we are sitting at anything better than 50/50 that this program will actually result in an enduring strategic industrial capability for Canada and the RCN.  
Lets hope the odds are better than I think.


----------



## Weinie

Navy_Pete said:


> Sigh...
> 
> I hear that arguement a lot, and having looked into it fairly intensly, have found it to be unfounded BS, once you consider the economic impact and look at what is actually included in any of these project costs. A big part of the cost is labour, and you can ballpark about 30% of that coming directly back to the government in taxes. So while an experienced yard is more efficient (ie uses less labour hours) at building something then a brand new yard, doesn't take much for that tax offset to even things out.
> 
> Sure, there is a learning curve that we're paying for, but there is a really good reason why pretty much the entire G20 has some kind of domestic shipbuilding policy for their Navy; it just makes sense to A) have that strategic capability and B) invest that money in your own economy. We knew all that stuff going into it, so it wasn't an uninformed decision.
> 
> If we did a straight commercial contract at an existing yard, there would be zero economic impact, and we'd have increased project management costs for dealing with an international yard. Also, we'd still have to pay for project staff, parts, infrastructure, training and all the other stuff that is included in the project outside the hull, so there would be no real change there.  And that approach would not be an apples to apples comparison to the NSS projects anyway, as the contract terms would be totally different.
> 
> In the last NSS report, the GDP impact was estimated at $4.1 billion for 2019 (they are based on calendar years, so the 2020 one should be out late spring). Plus this way the gear fitted on it will generally have a Canadian supply chain, which can be a big advantage during actual operation. Even if there were no IRBs or value proposition included, there would still be a big GDP offset by default because they are doing the build in Canada.
> 
> For something more complicated like the subs, or specialized like the high speed open ocean ferries, makes perfect sense to look overseas when no one in Canada has the facilities to do it.  That's why the 'Build in Canada' policy that has been around since the 60s allows for applications on a project by project basis to do it.
> 
> This is specifically a STRATEGIC project meant to create/sustain a combat and a non-combat shipbuilding yard. Sure, it's the distributed economic benefits is a big selling point and all a lot of politicians hear, but it was very deliberately framed and approved by the Canadian government with that in mind, even if that has been lost over time with senior staff turnover.
> 
> So does it cost more to build them in Canada? Possibly, but it's impossible to put a number to it (we tried pretty hard), and it's easy to argue that it might cost less once you consider the direct/indirect benefits and spinoffs. That's not even looking at any in service savings/benefits from having a Canadian supply chain.
> 
> /endrant
> 
> Had this argument many times with bureaucrats from Finance and other departments, and none of them were able to provide actual facts or numbers to back up that it would be cheaper. If you want to get an idea of how hard it is, there was an audit by either the PBO or AG that effectively gave up when trying to find an apples to apples cost comparison on the AOPs.
> 
> We include a tonne of stuff in our project costs that no one else does, and have a tonne of extra contract clauses that are unique, so it's almost impossible to get a fair comparison with any publically available project information on any other ship on the planet.


Sigh, 

"I hear that argument a lot, and having looked into it fairly intensely, have found it to be unfounded BS, once you consider the economic impact and look at what is actually included in any of these project costs. *A big part of the cost is labour, and you can ballpark about 30% of that coming directly back to the government in taxes."   *Yes you can, in Canada.

"Sure, there is a learning curve that we're paying for, but there is a really good reason why pretty much the entire G20 has some kind of domestic shipbuilding policy for their Navy; it just makes sense to A) have that strategic capability and B) invest that money in your own economy. We knew all that stuff going into it, so it wasn't an uninformed decision." Most G20 nations do not buy their ships domestically, AFAIK, only the UK has a legislated buy in the UK mandate. US recently bought FREMM variant for latest frigates.

If we did a straight commercial contract at an existing yard, there would be zero economic impact, and we'd have increased project management costs for dealing with an international yard. Also, we'd still have to pay for project staff, parts, infrastructure, training and all the other stuff that is included in the project outside the hull, so there would be no real change there.  And that approach would not be an apples to apples comparison to the NSS projects anyway, as the contract terms would be totally different. So if a Korean shipyard built the ships at $600M,, at a cost savings of $600M, you are stating that $600M would be swallowed in sp. I call BS, or someone is being vastly overpaid.


In the last NSS report, the GDP impact was estimated at $4.1 billion for 2019 (they are based on calendar years, so the 2020 one should be out late spring). Plus this way the gear fitted on it will generally have a Canadian supply chain, which can be a big advantage during actual operation. Even if there were no IRBs or value proposition included, there would still be a big GDP offset by default because they are doing the build in Canada. "GDP impact" and value for dollar smart spending are two completely dichotomous ideals.

This is specifically a STRATEGIC project meant to create/sustain a combat and a non-combat shipbuilding yard. Sure, it's the distributed economic benefits is a big selling point and all a lot of politicians hear, but it was very deliberately framed and approved by the Canadian government with that in mind, even if that has been lost over time with senior staff turnover. *No, it is not a Goc Strategic project. There is no strategic capability derived here. Irving and Saint John Shipyard are a permanent fixture only because they have been supported for the last 40 years, without GoC support, the penny-pinchers at Irving would have shut them down a long time ago.  *


*Had this argument many times with bureaucrats from Finance and other departments, and none of them were able to provide actual facts or numbers to back up that it would be cheaper. If you want to get an idea of how hard it is, there was an audit by either the PBO or AG that effectively gave up when trying to find an apples to apples cost comparison on the AOPs.*

*Well Danish Rasmussen class cost considerably less, and is considerably more capable than AOPS. Apples to Audi maybe*


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Weine I have to challenge you on that, the AOPs is much bigger, twice the range, higher ice class, has a hanger. The only place it falls short in is armament.


----------



## Cloud Cover

I can’t wait for the RCN response on this 240 billion dollar cost. Hoping they will explain and set the record straight.

I do however agree with Weinie about the shipyard contractors. The Irving’s are so grossly enriched by government contracts that it is obscene. It is graft on a Putin scale or worse because these contracts are essentially an invitation to larceny.

And from what I understand from a few people, the big money on labour costs is not in the shipyard but instead it is in corporate head office.


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> Weine I have to challenge you on that, the AOPs is much bigger, twice the range, higher ice class, has a hanger. The only place it falls short in is armament.


Yup. Why does that cost more than twice as much?

NoCGV Svalbard - Wikipedia


----------



## Stoker

Cloud Cover said:


> I can’t wait for the RCN response on this 240 billion dollar cost. Hoping they will explain and set the record straight.
> 
> I do however agree with Weinie about the shipyard contractors. The Irving’s are so grossly enriched by government contracts that it is obscene. It is graft on a Putin scale or worse because these contracts are essentially an invitation to larceny.
> 
> And from what I understand from a few people, the big money on labour costs is not in the shipyard but instead it is in corporate head office.





Weinie said:


> Yup. Why does that cost more than twice as much?
> 
> NoCGV Svalbard - Wikipedia



I have some experience with both classes of ships having both operated with and toured them. 

Kund Rasmussan Class

-Less ice breaking capability as HDW
-One trick pony, only operates in the Arctic not capable of warm water deployments
-One shaft line verses the HDW's two
-Flight deck, no hanger
-Can only operate up to a 3 weeks at a time at sea and heavily dependent on shore support, HDW capable of operating with minimal support for up to 4 months away.

NoCGV Svalbard
-69M according to Wikipedia if you can believe that because that's the only place on the internet where its mentioned, there is a note saying that the price doesn't include a helo or a radar. If you are to believe the figure in todays dollars with exchange about 128M Cdn a ship. Again does that include two jetties,( one in Esquimalt, one in Halifax(, a naval refueling jetty in the Arctic, training the crews, Intellectual property rights, initial spares, maintenance for X years, and sales tax. like HDW?
-HDW has a higher ice rating than Svalbard
-Svalbard other than the hull is a pretty bare bones ship designed to carry out many of the duties the CCG and fisheries. HDW brings many other capabilities and is a nicer ship. 
-So yes the HDW is more expensive, but really its a very different ship internally.


----------



## Stoker

Cloud Cover said:


> I can’t wait for the RCN response on this 240 billion dollar cost. Hoping they will explain and set the record straight.
> 
> I do however agree with Weinie about the shipyard contractors. The Irving’s are so grossly enriched by government contracts that it is obscene. It is graft on a Putin scale or worse because these contracts are essentially an invitation to larceny.
> 
> And from what I understand from a few people, the big money on labour costs is not in the shipyard but instead it is in corporate head office.


Irving like any other shipyard was guaranteed a certain amount of profits. The money and where it goes is tracked by the government if I'm not mistaken. Its not like they're stealing it.


----------



## Weinie

Stoker said:


> *Irving like any other shipyard was guaranteed a certain amount of profits.* The money and where it goes is tracked by the government if I'm not mistaken. Its not like they're stealing it.


Don't know your source for this, but do you not see a problem here?


----------



## Underway

> Most G20 nations do not buy their ships domestically, AFAIK, only the UK has a legislated buy in the UK mandate. US recently bought FREMM variant for latest frigates.



Incorrect.  UK just did exactly what we did.  Bought a Danish design and are building it in their own yards.  US just bought a French design and are building it in their own yards.  We bought a UK design and are building in our own yards.  Australia same thing.  Of the G20 nations the ones that build most (if not all) of their ships domestically are Canada, China, US, UK, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Germany, UK, France, Turkey, Australia, South Korea, Italy, and India. 

The only countries that don't are Brazil (which builds some small ones), Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, and maybe South Africa (don't actually know on this one).   

European Union is considered a G20 nation as well which is odd.  Of the EU the Danes, Dutch, Polish, Romanians, Spanish, Greeks, Sweeds and Belgians build their own ships.

So by my calculation, that's at a minimum 3/4 of the G20 build their own warships. And if you count the EU and Brazil as partials then even more.

Why do they do this when almost all of them could outsource?  Votes and... Strategic Capability.  


> *No, it is not a Goc Strategic project. There is no strategic capability derived here. Irving and Saint John Shipyard are a permanent fixture only because they have been supported for the last 40 years, without GoC support, the penny-pinchers at Irving would have shut them down a long time ago.*



The strategic capability derived here is that we have the expertise to build our own ships.  In a conflict, we can replace and repair our losses.  We can keep fighting even if we lose ships.  Which to use your bold text *is a strategic capability. And a critical one at that!*

Without that capability, we would be in a come as you are situation until we learned how to build ships again.  We've all seen with COVID the issues of learning as you go and not having the correct infrastructure in place for production.  It's easier to ramp up than it is to start from scratch.

Having the technical expertise not just inherent within the shipyards but in the entire naval infrastructure with all the ancillary companies that support the shipyards (such as with equipment designed and made in Canada) means that any contractors we hire are from Canada, providing an increased availability rate for the ships. *This is a strategic capability*.  Increased availability means we can keep ships repaired and maintained, and then of course on the water doing what they are supposed to do.  

It's so important the government is willing to spend political capital to ensure it exists.  There are few votes to be gotten in a small regional area here.  As a matter of fact, there may be more votes to be lost (see Davie being frozen out). 



> *Well Danish Rasmussen class cost considerably less, and is considerably more capable than AOPS. Apples to Audi maybe*



I think other posts here have thoroughly debunked this statement already.


----------



## Weinie

Most G20 nations do not *buy* their ships domestically, AFAIK, only the UK has a legislated buy in the UK mandate. US recently bought FREMM variant for latest frigates.


Underway said:


> *Incorrect.* (You might want to re-read the key word in my post) *UK just did exactly what we did.  Bought a Danish design and are building it in their own yards.  US just bought a French design and are building it in their own yards.  We bought a UK design and are building in our own yards.  Australia same thing.  Of the G20 nations the ones that build most (if not all) of their ships domestically are Canada, China, **(steal IP, then build domestically, frowned upon in diplomatic circles, but very strategic*)* US, UK, Japan, Russia, South Korea, Germany, UK, France, Turkey, Australia, South Korea, Italy, and India.*
> 
> The only countries that don't are Brazil (which builds some small ones), Indonesia, Mexico, Argentina, and maybe South Africa (don't actually know on this one).
> 
> European Union is considered a G20 nation as well which is odd.  Of the EU the Danes, Dutch, Polish, Romanians, Spanish, Greeks, Sweeds and Belgians build their own ships.
> 
> So by my calculation, that's at a minimum 3/4 of the G20 build their own warships. And if you count the EU and Brazil as partials then even more.
> 
> Why do they do this when almost all of them could outsource?  Votes and... Strategic Capability.
> 
> 
> The strategic capability derived here is that we have the expertise to build our own ships.  In a conflict, we can replace and repair our losses. *(At the current projected rate of  delivery of 1.5 ships per year , how will this replace any predicted losses.....do you expect an adversary to wait while we build new ones?*) We can keep fighting even if we lose ships. *(Until we run out of ships.)* Which to use your bold text *is a strategic capability. And a critical one at that! (see my last comment)*
> 
> Without that capability, we would be in a come as you are situation until we learned how to build ships again.  (No, we buy offshore) We've all seen with COVID the issues of learning as you go and not having the correct infrastructure in place for production.  It's easier to ramp up than it is to start from scratch.
> 
> Having the technical expertise not just inherent within the shipyards but in the entire naval infrastructure with all the ancillary companies that support the shipyards (such as with equipment designed and made in Canada) means that any contractors we hire are from Canada, providing an increased availability rate for the ships. *This is a strategic capability*. *No, it is a make work project under the guise of a strategic capability.* Increased availability means we can keep ships repaired and maintained, and then of course on the water doing what they are supposed to do.
> 
> It's so important the government is willing to spend political capital to ensure it exists.  There are few votes to be gotten in a small regional area here.  As a matter of fact, there may be more votes to be lost (see Davie being frozen out). (Really? Did you see the last voter distribution from the 2019 election? Davie was never a player in the Quebec vote, the NDP suffered massive losses that allowed the BQ to become resurgent.  In Irvings' Atlantic Canada, where pork barreling has become the preferred lifestyle for most, (and I say this with both disgust and some degree of authority because I am from there), the Liberals scored big, allowing them to form a minority government.)
> 
> 
> 
> I think other posts here have thoroughly debunked this statement already. (Did we get twice the capability for more than twice the money? If not, money was poorly spent.)



Being strategic involves more than inward looking vote-chasing navel gazing.


----------



## Stoker

Weinie said:


> Don't know your source for this, but do you not see a problem here?


Well all the yards brought on to the NSS is not going to do it for free as they are profit oriented businesses. If anything the actions by the government to give more work and money to the yards due to delays ensure they will make a profit.


----------



## Uzlu

Weinie said:


> Most G20 nations do not *buy* their ships domestically, AFAIK, only the UK has a legislated buy in the UK mandate. US recently bought FREMM variant for latest frigates.


Which G20 nations do not buy their ships domestically?  Which G20 nations do not buy their frigates domestically?  Egypt and Morocco bought FREMM frigates.  Are you perhaps suggesting that the United States, like Egypt and Morocco, also bought FREMM frigates?  Or did the United States only pay for the right to use the FREMM hull and propulsion machinery and have American companies supply the weapons, sensors, electronics, computers, software, etc. and have the frigates—unlike Egypt and Morocco—built domestically in the United States instead of in France or Italy?


Weinie said:


> Being strategic involves more than inward looking vote-chasing navel gazing.


The Cambridge Dictionary defines strategic as _helping to achieve a plan, for example in business or politics_.  

“The National Shipbuilding Strategy is a long-term project to renew Canada's federal fleet of combat and non-combat vessels. We formed partnerships with 2 Canadian shipyards to deliver much-needed vessels to the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard. The strategy provides economic benefits to Canadians and rebuilds our country’s shipbuilding industry.”

If being strategic involves more than inward looking vote-chasing navel gazing, what, specifically, does it involve?


----------



## Weinie

Uzlu said:


> Which G20 nations do not buy their ships domestically?  Which G20 nations do not buy their frigates domestically?  Egypt and Morocco bought FREMM frigates.  Are you perhaps suggesting that the United States, like Egypt and Morocco, also bought FREMM frigates?  Or did the United States only pay for the right to use the FREMM hull and propulsion machinery and have American companies supply the weapons, sensors, electronics, computers, software, etc. and have the frigates—unlike Egypt and Morocco—built domestically in the United States instead of in France or Italy?
> 
> The Cambridge Dictionary defines strategic as _helping to achieve a plan, for example in business or politics_.
> 
> “The National Shipbuilding Strategy is a long-term project to renew Canada's federal fleet of combat and non-combat vessels. We formed partnerships with 2 Canadian shipyards to deliver much-needed vessels to the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard. The strategy provides economic benefits to Canadians and rebuilds our country’s shipbuilding industry.”
> 
> If being strategic involves more than inward looking vote-chasing navel gazing, what, specifically, does it involve?


Strategic thinking competencies​
_Systems perspective_, refers to being able to understand implications of strategic actions. "A strategic thinker has a mental model of the complete end-to-end system of value creation, his or her role within it, and an understanding of the competencies it contains."
_Intent focused_ which means more determined and less distractible than rivals in the marketplace.  "the focus that allows individuals within an organization to marshal and leverage their energy, to focus attention, to resist distraction, and to concentrate for as long as it takes to achieve a goal."
_Thinking in time_ means being able to hold past, present and future in mind at the same time to create better decision making and speed implementation. "Strategy is not driven by future intent alone. It is the gap between today’s reality and intent for the future that is critical." Scenario planning is a practical application for incorporating "thinking in time" into strategy making.
_Hypothesis driven_, ensuring that both creative and critical thinking are incorporated into strategy making. This competency explicitly incorporates the scientific method into strategic thinking.
_Intelligent opportunism_, which means being responsive to good opportunities. "The dilemma involved in using a well-articulated strategy to channel organisational efforts effectively and efficiently must always be balanced against the risks of losing sight of alternative strategies better suited to a changing environment."


----------



## Navy_Pete

So a few things, I said most of the G20 has a domestic shipbuilding industry; not sure why you are limiting that to just who 'buys' the design internally. For clarity, a lot of the G20 is currently licensing a design for frigate/destroyer projects, then generally has a designer working on it to customize it to their needs and do the system integration, but they are still doing the majority of the actual ship building activities in country. And in some cases, they are still doing a lot of the design for other ships in country (or in the case of Egypt, actually does the design and build for some small boats and ships in their own Navy yard). Subs are the exception, with very few countries actually building them, and most buying them from someone else.

Secondly, expecting the politicians at the front end to be doing strategic thinking is naive. But had the privilege of spending a while talking to the people responsible for the NSPS, and it was definitely done with the specific intent of having two competent shipyards able to supply domestic needs to have a long term capability of Canada being able to actually build it's own ships. It took about 10 years and JSS failed procurement before they got enough of the mandarins onside, but strategic planning within the government happens within organizations, not from the top down.

That's why there was insistence that the shipyards modernized bot the facilities as well as the design and build processes (ie Target State) in an effort to 'future proof' things so they would have comparable facilities and be doing the same kind of modular build and design processes that other leading yards are (with an assumption that the processes and whatnot are continued to be incrementally improved over time). Basically, NSS starts out as a big step change, which is why both yards had a few years of facility renos and adopted a lot of the 3D design, updated software, modular build and similar (over the old build from the keel up method, or build in a few mega blocks).

Future work wasn't part of it, but CCG is pretty rusted out, so lots of work there, and might make more sense to sell off the first flight of CSCs and build new then do a midlife (or maybe a different class that uses some kind of propulsion that doesn't run on diesel; who knows where we'll be in 2040?)

Wrt cost comparison, the link to the PBO one for AOPS is below. The hard part is that no one includes the same things in their cost, and it's pretty typical for other governments to only include the cost of the hull (for example, the USN projects typically don't include any combat gear as that's all GSM, so they are usually billions less). The huge numbers you see in the papers has the build costs, spares, design, infrastructure, training and a few other things, plus contingency planning all all sorts of other things that no one else includes in press releases.

We knew going into NSS that there would be a learning curve in the design/build, which we see when you compare the actual work hours between ships (see fig 4-2 in the PBO report for an example). Over the long term, will see the same thing for things like running trials, designing ships etc, but honestly we'll probably take about a decade of actual building and multiple ships delivered before you can really make a fair comparison, and if you really want to do that, you need to get the actual data from a comparable countries shipbuilding project (maybe RAN?) and also understand the contract clauses to match the context. For example, we may have a whack of overhead related to government reporting requirements that you wouldn't see elsewhere, and that should be teased out as something specific to GoC procurement (and not a shipyard efficiency issue).

http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/files/files/AOPS_EN.pdf


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> Irving like any other shipyard was guaranteed a certain amount of profits. The money and where it goes is tracked by the government if I'm not mistaken. Its not like they're stealing it.


Not really; both shipyards were guaranteed the scope of work in the combat/non-combat packages respectively. They were required to upgrade the shipyards on their own dime, so they wanted guarantees that if the GoC did something like cancel a ship project or cut down the number of ships, the work would either get replaced with something of equivalent value, or pay back a prorated portion of what they were out of pocket for the hundreds of millions in infrastructure upgrades. Because the NSS covered multiple projects, it's just a form of cancellation penalties as part of the agreement.

For profits, there was no guarantee. They built in whatever they thought was a reasonable profit in the initial bid during the competition. After that, there is a whole process for every new phase where they propose and we review. We bring in some outside consultants to review the level of effort to make sure that's reasonable. Typically we have profit margin caps (but not a floor). So if we both agree that something will take 20 hours at an agreed rate, and they can find some efficiencies and get it done in 16, then they can keep the extra. If it takes them 24 hours, then they eat the difference. Bit of a simplification, but that's generally how it works (in most contracts generally).

Not a fan of Irving in general, but honestly the shipbuilding division isn't anywhere near as bad as the refit side (totally different management and approach). A lot of the stupidity is on our side as well as a customer, so not really the fault of Irving or Seaspan if there are project delays or cost increases if we are late defining requirements, do last minute changes, and otherwise impact the schedule. For context, there are something like four or five different departments in the key group of NSS executives with multiple levels of decision via committees with no one single department responsible, so we do a lot of stuff to ourselves.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think for the NSPS to be successful in the long run is for for both the RCN and the CCG to not hold onto ships for as long, I suspect there are some good numbers out there as to when a ship reaches a point where the maintenance costs starts to outweigh the value. Having a replacement coming on line before it gets to that point, means we may be able to sell the ship to a friendly nation to recover some costs or mothball the ship as a spare in case of loss or parts needed. 
So perhaps the CSC spends 15 years active duty, 2 years hot layup with a team trying to sell it,  then mothball for 5 years. It's replacement is started at the 14 year mark coming online as it predecessor sits in hot layup in case of delays. Between the two fleets, that means both yards will be in almost continuous build mode, abet a a slow rate.


----------



## Navy_Pete

I think the hard part for us would be figuring out any IP/security transfer. Probably easier to another NATO country, but we'd have to get permission from the US state department for any ITAR item,  plus navigate the same for another other countries gear so would probably be a 5+year process to sell them off. Probably would make sense to strip a bunch of gear off but some stuff would be pretty hard to do.

Think after CSC probably would be a gap for combatants, but there is enough CCG stuff to keep all the yards busy for a while. Even though they aren't as complex, would keep the bulk of the workers employed. I'll be long retired by then though, so figure that's someone else's problem to figure out. Who knows what things will look like then?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Had the NSPS started 20 years ago, it would be paying off now, except we have to many ships currently that desperately need replacing all at once. We almost lost a buoy tender due to flooding caused by hull corrosion.


----------



## FJAG

I've been quietly following this thread for a while and, not being a sailor, have no particular dog in the hunt but make the following observations:


The price per ship seems a bit high but not so high that I'm offended by it. That's one of the downside of doing the build locally but at the same time it keeps the much of the money circulating in Canada;
I think having shipyards capable of building naval craft domestically is critical to Canada's defence capabilities as others have argued above. Wish it wasn't the Irvings but that also is the price of doing business in Canada because the options are limited;
The downstream $240 billion is also a bit of a misdirecting number (like it was/is for the F35). The amount might be true once you add in all the crew cost and other general operations and maintenance cost but that's not a great delta from what we would pay if we kept the same number of CPFs operating for the next 40 years (if that's even technically possible). Basically it's probably the largest part of the overall cost for the entire Navy. For me the issue is how much of that $240 billion is the year to year difference between the current Navy and the proposed Navy and why is there a difference, if any. Let's face it, $240 billion over 40 years is $5.1 billion per year averaged out (but I expect low running to very high in the final years) which is not an unreasonable cost for these ships. Now the subs on the other hand - someone is going to have to explain to me why we keep those tubs at all;
IMHO much of the operating cost is based on full-time crew and shore support salaries. How can we reduce those? I note that there is often a difference from frigate to frigate as to the manning required from a low as 120 to over 200. How much can the systems be tuned to be more automated and thus requiring less manning and therefore less expensive to operate (and yes, I do know that they operate 24/7 (I can still recite the watches and bells from my days at CFOCS Venture );
Does every ship need to be crewed by full-time crews or can we keep a few (let's say four) to be crewed by a hybrid full-time / part-time crew (Those would be needed only for short periods for training and therefore could be cycled through with the full-time crewed ones for maintenance. As far as I can see we have only one hard full-time commitment (Op Reassurance) and a number of more minor and discretionary ones that seem doable during training exercises or by other vessels than a fully-staffed CSC (such as fisheries, drugs, international exercises/visits, etc). Essentially, if we reduce the number of ships needed to be fully manned and deployed at any given time we reduce crew fatigue, improve cyclical maintenance and reduce large downstream operations costs.; and
If we're having problems manning the ships we have now, maybe we should give point 5 above some really, really serious thought
🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Some hard lessons have been learned about damage control, that's why they need a fair sized crew for when thing go wrong, like the Norwegians found out. Even BC Ferries runs a larger crew than their Washington State counterparts mainly to operate the life saving equipment and fire fighting.


----------



## Stoker

Navy_Pete said:


> Not really; both shipyards were guaranteed the scope of work in the combat/non-combat packages respectively. They were required to upgrade the shipyards on their own dime, so they wanted guarantees that if the GoC did something like cancel a ship project or cut down the number of ships, the work would either get replaced with something of equivalent value, or pay back a prorated portion of what they were out of pocket for the hundreds of millions in infrastructure upgrades. Because the NSS covered multiple projects, it's just a form of cancellation penalties as part of the agreement.
> 
> For profits, there was no guarantee. They built in whatever they thought was a reasonable profit in the initial bid during the competition. After that, there is a whole process for every new phase where they propose and we review. We bring in some outside consultants to review the level of effort to make sure that's reasonable. Typically we have profit margin caps (but not a floor). So if we both agree that something will take 20 hours at an agreed rate, and they can find some efficiencies and get it done in 16, then they can keep the extra. If it takes them 24 hours, then they eat the difference. Bit of a simplification, but that's generally how it works (in most contracts generally).
> 
> Not a fan of Irving in general, but honestly the shipbuilding division isn't anywhere near as bad as the refit side (totally different management and approach). A lot of the stupidity is on our side as well as a customer, so not really the fault of Irving or Seaspan if there are project delays or cost increases if we are late defining requirements, do last minute changes, and otherwise impact the schedule. For context, there are something like four or five different departments in the key group of NSS executives with multiple levels of decision via committees with no one single department responsible, so we do a lot of stuff to ourselves.


Thank you for the clarification, kind of sick of all the comments suggesting Irving is somehow driving truckloads of money out back at midnight for these builds.


----------



## FSTO

FJAG said:


> I've been quietly following this thread for a while and, not being a sailor, have no particular dog in the hunt but make the following observations:
> 
> 
> The price per ship seems a bit high but not so high that I'm offended by it. That's one of the downside of doing the build locally but at the same time it keeps the much of the money circulating in Canada;


The price is really not bad after you spread it out over the year. We should be easily able to calculate the yearly cost of running a Halifax Class Frigate and give the public a real sense of how much the Navy costs to run.


FJAG said:


> 2. I think having shipyards capable of building naval craft domestically is critical to Canada's defence capabilities as others have argued above. Wish it wasn't the Irvings but that also is the price of doing business in Canada because the options are limited;


The US is having the same issue with the lack of repair and shipbuilding yards which is impacting their ability to conduct proper PM on their ships .


FJAG said:


> 3. The downstream $240 billion is also a bit of a misdirecting number (like it was/is for the F35). The amount might be true once you add in all the crew cost and other general operations and maintenance cost but that's not a great delta from what we would pay if we kept the same number of CPFs operating for the next 40 years (if that's even technically possible). Basically it's probably the largest part of the overall cost for the entire Navy. For me the issue is how much of that $240 billion is the year to year difference between the current Navy and the proposed Navy and why is there a difference, if any. Let's face it, $240 billion over 40 years is $5.1 billion per year averaged out (but I expect low running to very high in the final years) which is not an unreasonable cost for these ships.


Agree


FJAG said:


> 4.  Now the subs on the other hand - someone is going to have to explain to me why we keep those tubs at all;


The submarines are a massive force multiplier, yes they have been a millstone but once we lose the capability we'll never get it back. We just need to be smarter when we get the replacements. 


FJAG said:


> 5. IMHO much of the operating cost is based on full-time crew and shore support salaries. How can we reduce those? I note that there is often a difference from frigate to frigate as to the manning required from a low as 120 to over 200. How much can the systems be tuned to be more automated and thus requiring less manning and therefore less expensive to operate (and yes, I do know that they operate 24/7 (I can still recite the watches and bells from my days at CFOCS Venture );


We've (and other Navies) have all tried to find the holy grail of Minimum Manned Ships. The latest case is the USN LCS fiasco. We've pretty much reached peak efficiency for a warship (merchant ships may be a different matter)  especially in regards to Damage Control that can happen at any time of peace as well as at war. Just ask any sailor from HMS Nottingham if they would have survived without the number of crew they had onboard. https://www.professionalmariner.com...y heavy-lift ship back to Britain for repairs.


FJAG said:


> 6. Does every ship need to be crewed by full-time crews or can we keep a few (let's say four) to be crewed by a hybrid full-time / part-time crew (Those would be needed only for short periods for training and therefore could be cycled through with the full-time crewed ones for maintenance. As far as I can see we have only one hard full-time commitment (Op Reassurance) and a number of more minor and discretionary ones that seem doable during training exercises or by other vessels than a fully-staffed CSC (such as fisheries, drugs, international exercises/visits, etc). Essentially, if we reduce the number of ships needed to be fully manned and deployed at any given time we reduce crew fatigue, improve cyclical maintenance and reduce large downstream operations costs.;


We already do this with ships in low-readiness and while in refit. There is no real savings there except maybe in fuel and food. Planned Maintenance (PM) still has to happen.  Also don't forget Artemis, Neon, Carribbe, Nanook, fish pats, sovpats, etc. 


FJAG said:


> 7. If we're having problems manning the ships we have now, maybe we should give point 5 above some really, really serious thought


There is some interesting reading in the RCN P&T SharePoint regarding manning, recruiting, retention and the abuse of TCATS. Maybe a form of National Service is in order, I found out New Years Eve that the Norwegians still have National Service for their military. One thing is that they have a pretty good culling system to get the deadwood out before they even get close to signing up.


FJAG said:


> 🍻


----------



## Good2Golf

FJAG and FSTO, I’m pretty much in your camp, re: what actually is reasonable and what the (PBO) numbers do, or likely do represent.  Canada typically cost in everything...everything...so it makes a good target for “oh my gosh, it’s so much more expensive doing it here than elsewhere” analyses.  I’ve been directly involved in programs where the PBO numbers for sure were notably higher than the reality that was borne out in program implementation, but the fact that Canada costs high, versus low, is actually reassuring to some degree.  People love to quote open-source costs to justify why Canada is so much more costly and for lesser value, but as several have noted, it’s often an apple to toasters comparison, unit prices being conveniently peeled out of greater programmatic costs amd them simply multiplied in a facile arithmetical manner. Life doesn’t work that way, certainly not in defence procurement unless you have the luxury of being able to negotiate a firm, fixed-price no additional costs contract.  Unicorns carrying gold-carrying leprechauns are more plentiful than such contracts as these. 

As well, one doesn’t have to be a fan of Maynard Keynes to appreciate the concept of Expenditure Multiplication, in short, money spent inside an economy will tend to recycle within that economy with a certain loss rate (Keynes used Marginal Propensity to Save, MPS and its inverse Marginal Propensity to Consume, MPC) to explain how an investment by a government into the GDP would have a notably larger effect on GDP than just a unitary augmentation. Depending on MOs (or MPC), the effect could result in many times more benefit to the country’s GDP than the initial/first-order investment.   Money spent offshore doesn’t even provide a first-order contribution to a nation’s own GDP.

All to say, this or 40-50B for F-35s for 25-30 years is money I’d be quite happy to have my taxes go towards.  In the same period as CSC has been costed, Canada will spend over $1,716B on direct payments to Canadians for EI, CPP and OAS and the like (based on 25-years of DESD expenditures extrapolated from the GoC’s 2020/2021 Main Estimates).  Heck, in the same period, we’ll have spent $198.5B on administering the Canadian Revenue Agency...more to bring in taxes than provide the core maritime capability of the nation’s defences.

So I’m happy to have our money stay in Canada and be spent in a manner that ensures the GDP value of recursive cash flow also remains primarily in Canada, and that compare to other Govermnent expenditures over the same period, is actually rather decent value IMO.

🪙🪙


regards
G2G


----------



## Dana381

FJAG said:


> Does every ship need to be crewed by full-time crews or can we keep a few (let's say four) to be crewed by a hybrid full-time / part-time crew (Those would be needed only for short periods for training and therefore could be cycled through with the full-time crewed ones for maintenance. As far as I can see we have only one hard full-time commitment (Op Reassurance) and a number of more minor and discretionary ones that seem doable during training exercises or by other vessels than a fully-staffed CSC (such as fisheries, drugs, international exercises/visits, etc). Essentially, if we reduce the number of ships needed to be fully manned and deployed at any given time we reduce crew fatigue, improve cyclical maintenance and reduce large downstream operations costs.; and
> If we're having problems manning the ships we have now, maybe we should give point 5 above some really, really serious thought
> 🍻



FJAG you talk often on here about part time staffing of many parts of the Canadian Forces. I do see your point on using part time positions to save money however I question the long term success of such a strategy.
In any business I have worked in or used the services of part time workers were less efficient and far less motivated to preserve the companies reputation. Part time workers typically have less benefits and feel less secure in their jobs which effects morale and productivity. Part time workers are also quicker to bash their employer even to customers across the counter.
I believe most everyone agrees that full time jobs are better for the economy as a whole. How can governments encourage industry to hire full time workers instead of part time workers when they don't even do it. My mother worked for 10 years at CRA before she got full time. Those 10 years were quite stressful hoping to get a new contract every 3-6 months. If her contracts were below a certain time span (I think 3 months) she didn't even get benefits. Naturally many contracts were issued for 1 day less than the threshold.
I was already out on my own at that time but I can imagine growing up in a house where you were never really sure if your parent would have a job in a couple months. CRA centers are placed in areas with low levels of quality employment to help local economies. Because of this along with the uncertainty of contract work many managers ended up with God complexes and treated subordinates badly. The CRA center had a reputation in the town of having extremely low morale. The phrase heard often was "You can make good money at the tax center if you can handle the bulls$%T".

The Canadian Forces have a huge reputation problem. The media has portrayed them as so under equipped and incompetent that many people won't even consider joining. If the government was to combat this reputation they could boost numbers easily but I don't believe they want to combat it as that will cost money they really don't want to spend. When I was a kid they invested in a series of commercials called vignettes to help raise awareness to various Canadian historical achievements. They could show off our military in a similar way. The footage released of CANSOFCOM was all over Youtube helped a lot but more is needed. The Canadian Forces could partner with Film companies to tell some of the many awesome stories of Canadian war heroes of recent past. Made up stories loosely based on truth can even help a lot. When Top Gun was released in 1986 there was a 500% increase in recruitment of people wanting to be naval aviators.


Good2Golf said:


> As well, one doesn’t have to be a fan of Maynard Keynes to appreciate the concept of Expenditure Multiplication, in short, money spent inside an economy will tend to recycle within that economy with a certain loss rate (Keynes used Marginal Propensity to Save, MPS and its inverse Marginal Propensity to Consume, MPC) to explain how an investment by a government into the GDP would have a notably larger effect on GDP than just a unitary augmentation. Depending on MOs (or MPC), the effect could result in many times more benefit to the country’s GDP than the initial/first-order investment.   Money spent offshore doesn’t even provide a first-order contribution to a nation’s own GDP.
> 
> All to say, this or 40-50B for F-35s for 25-30 years is money I’d be quite happy to have my taxes go towards.  In the same period as CSC has been costed, Canada will spend over $1,716B on direct payments to Canadians for EI, CPP and OAS and the like (based on 25-years of DESD expenditures extrapolated from the GoC’s 2020/2021 Main Estimates).  Heck, in the same period, we’ll have spent $198.5B on administering the Canadian Revenue Agency...more to bring in taxes than provide the core maritime capability of the nation’s defences.
> 
> So I’m happy to have our money stay in Canada and be spent in a manner that ensures the GDP value of recursive cash flow also remains primarily in Canada, and that compare to other Govermnent expenditures over the same period, is actually rather decent value IMO.
> 
> 🪙🪙
> 
> 
> regards
> G2G



G2G I agree completely, The media like to get "Experts" to say we could save so much money buying overseas when we buy at home. Then if we do buy overseas they complain of all the jobs we hurt by not buying at home. Any money we spend here circulates in the economy for a long time. Benefiting many people. Also a percentage comes right back in taxes.

Your comment about how much we spend operating Revenue Canada is on point. I said above that my mother works there but I still believe we have way too many tax laws. I would rather see the tax laws streamlined to be simpler to understand. This would allow CRA to shrink, hopefully they would improve the quality of the jobs across the board.
IMHO Tax deductions are the main cause of administration costs. Deductions only help people who make enough to pay taxes. We should work towards a system where the basic personal exemption is at a level where people can live and no other deductions are available. The tax rate could be lowered drastically as any money made above the BPE would be taxable. This would eliminate the problem of wealthy people paying less tax than poor people.
I realize that this will never happen as those that make the laws are wealthy people and they seem to be perfectly fine reaping government benefits paid for by the poor.

Cheers 🍻
Dana

Edit: I realized after I posted just how off-topic this is. Sorry for that


----------



## FJAG

Dana381 said:


> FJAG you talk often on here about part time staffing of many parts of the Canadian Forces. I do see your point on using part time positions to save money however I question the long term success of such a strategy.
> In any business I have worked in or used the services of part time workers were less efficient and far less motivated to preserve the companies reputation. Part time workers typically have less benefits and feel less secure in their jobs which effects morale and productivity. Part time workers are also quicker to bash their employer even to customers across the counter.
> I believe most everyone agrees that full time jobs are better for the economy as a whole. How can governments encourage industry to hire full time workers instead of part time workers when they don't even do it. My mother worked for 10 years at CRA before she got full time. Those 10 years were quite stressful hoping to get a new contract every 3-6 months. If her contracts were below a certain time span (I think 3 months) she didn't even get benefits. Naturally many contracts were issued for 1 day less than the threshold.
> I was already out on my own at that time but I can imagine growing up in a house where you were never really sure if your parent would have a job in a couple months. CRA centers are placed in areas with low levels of quality employment to help local economies. Because of this along with the uncertainty of contract work many managers ended up with God complexes and treated subordinates badly. The CRA center had a reputation in the town of having extremely low morale. The phrase heard often was "You can make good money at the tax center if you can handle the bulls$%T".
> 
> The Canadian Forces have a huge reputation problem. The media has portrayed them as so under equipped and incompetent that many people won't even consider joining. If the government was to combat this reputation they could boost numbers easily but I don't believe they want to combat it as that will cost money they really don't want to spend. When I was a kid they invested in a series of commercials called vignettes to help raise awareness to various Canadian historical achievements. They could show off our military in a similar way. The footage released of CANSOFCOM was all over Youtube helped a lot but more is needed. The Canadian Forces could partner with Film companies to tell some of the many awesome stories of Canadian war heroes of recent past. Made up stories loosely based on truth can even help a lot. When Top Gun was released in 1986 there was a 500% increase in recruitment of people wanting to be naval aviators.


You are right that I mention a need for a better "part-time" force frequently because I fervently believe that our current full-time concept is fiscally unsustainable. We spend over half of our budget on salaries and benefits and because of that are deficient in equipment and operations and maintenance. IMHO we will never ever have a government that increases defence spending significantly to cure these deficiencies and because of that we need to look at alternative systems.

Add to that the fact that what you have with the existing regular force in equipment and people is all that you will ever have. Our system is not built to "grow the force" in the event of an emergency. Sure you can do some augmentation via reservists but that's merely filling holes.

Long story short: we've lost the focus on having a force structure that is capable of engaging in major conflict with near peer adversaries (read Russia and China) which, again IMHO, completely ignores the threats identified within Strong, Secure, Engaged.

The only way that we will ever be able to "grow the force" rapidly in an emergency within the rough budget allocations Canada's military gets is if we convert a larger portion of the existing budget to equipping and training a properly structured reserve force. The current allocated numbers are adequate and we even have a number of very good people but the reserve force structure is rotten. Yes, that requires a reduction in full-time personnel and fortunately we do have a lot of slack for that in our heavily overstaffed administrative headquarters (but, paradoxically, not in the logistics or maintenance tail which is under resourced) if we were ever serious about streamlining it. Such a transformation is an extensive one which requires the rethinking on many topics from recruiting to terms of service to employer and family support to the training structure etc etc. 

The point is that transformation is absolutely essential. The math is simple. Either we raise the budget (which as I said won't happen beyond minor tweaking for inflation) or we continue in a death spiral as we try to preserve every full-time position regardless of how little it actually contributes to real defence outputs. We've been on this road now since 1970. As Einstein said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". The time has long passed since we should have tried a different solution.

🍻


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

Because words matter:

Most Countries do not buy their own ships domestically.  They do; however, build their own domestically.

The reason CSC, HDW, JSS, etc are so expensive is because we as a Nation let an entire industry systematically atrophy over generations.  

We also let our Defence Infrastructure degrade significantly over a long period of time.  

The consequences of this are that we now have to pay a lot more than we would have had we just funded our National Defence appropriately.  It's the classic Canadian mentality of save a few pennies today, spend a dollar tomorrow that has gotten us here.


----------



## Dana381

FJAG said:


> The point is that transformation is absolutely essential. The math is simple. Either we raise the budget (which as I said won't happen beyond minor tweaking for inflation) or we continue in a death spiral as we try to preserve every full-time position regardless of how little it actually contributes to real defence outputs. We've been on this road now since 1970. As Einstein said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result". The time has long passed since we should have tried a different solution.


That mentality is dangerous. We can't afford to replace the G-Wagons with proper vehicles so why don't we buy a bunch of CRV's and Rav4's to replace them. After all they are made in Canada have 4 wheel drive and can carry 4 people. What more do we need.
That sounds crazy but it is essentially what you are saying.

I never thought Canada would buy the C-17, Ch-47 again, M777 (which we were first to fire in anger), or brand new Leopards. When the need presented itself we bought them and there was little to know public backlash comparatively to peace time procurements.

I firmly believe the key to future sustainability of our defense forces lies in transformation. However I believe that transformation needs to come in public opinion. Unfortunately I think it will take something extremely drastic to sway that public opinion en masse. If the GOC was to actively try to raise the public perception of the armed forces the way they promote themselves we could begin that transformation.

I believe you when you say our command structure is flawed and it also needs transformation. I have no inside knowledge of this area but it does seem obvious there are issues. Someone put figures on here a little while ago comparing the sizes of our administration to other armies and it was eye opening. 

I'll put it another way, I once knew a man that refused to give to charities which raised money to buy the local hospital new equipment. His point was interesting. The provincial government has a obligation to provide medical care, he proposed that every dollar donated was a dollar the government would not have to spend. He even went as far as saying the government waited to see which equipment was purchased by the charity before making their annual budget.

If we don't change the mentality of the politicians/public perception of the military any savings brought on by using a part time force will just be less money the CAF receives each year.

Your quote from Einstein is accurate but remember he was a physicist and the laws of physics do not change. I don't believe it applies to social psychology. No one could have predicted that George Floyd's murder could have catalyzed change like it did. Why him? Why now? The minorities in the U.S. have been fighting for better rights for hundreds of years. If those people believed as you then no change would ever happen. I believe Henry Ford said it better “*Whether you think you can*, or *you think you can't* – *you*'*re right*,”
I believe Canadian public opinion can and will change I just hope it changes before Mandarin becomes the only official language in Canada.


----------



## FJAG

Dana381 said:


> That mentality is dangerous. We can't afford to replace the G-Wagons with proper vehicles so why don't we buy a bunch of CRV's and Rav4's to replace them. After all they are made in Canada have 4 wheel drive and can carry 4 people. What more do we need.
> That sounds crazy but it is essentially what you are saying.


It's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is study your defence needs and determine which require full-time forces in being (either for quick reaction or constant honing of skills) and which can be properly assigned to a properly structured part-time force that is capable of rapid (if not immediate) mobilization if and when required. You are equating a part-time force to an inadequate, shoddy force. That's essentially what the current defence management has done. It doesn't need to stay that way. 


Dana381 said:


> I never thought Canada would buy the C-17, Ch-47 again, M777 (which we were first to fire in anger), or brand new Leopards. When the need presented itself we bought them and there was little to know public backlash comparatively to peace time procurements.


With apologies to all who served there, the deployment to Afghanistan was a relatively leisurely affair and purchasing a handful of equipment took time regardless and was necessitated by taking what were predictable, and IMHO unnecessary, casualties. What's worth the initial divesting of the CH-47 and M109s and almost divesting of Leopards were conscious decisions of our military leadership based on costs and their prediction that we could do without these vital pieces of kit. 


Dana381 said:


> I firmly believe the key to future sustainability of our defense forces lies in transformation. However I believe that transformation needs to come in public opinion. Unfortunately I think it will take something extremely drastic to sway that public opinion en masse. If the GOC was to actively try to raise the public perception of the armed forces the way they promote themselves we could begin that transformation.


That will never happen. It needs to come from within. (Which, IMHO, won't happen either.


Dana381 said:


> I believe you when you say our command structure is flawed and it also needs transformation. I have no inside knowledge of this area but it does seem obvious there are issues. Someone put figures on here a little while ago comparing the sizes of our administration to other armies and it was eye opening.


And many of those comparables are, like us, hanging on to bloated Soviet era NATO style headquarters.


Dana381 said:


> If we don't change the mentality of the politicians/public perception of the military any savings brought on by using a part time force will just be less money the CAF receives each year.
> Your quote from Einstein is accurate but remember he was a physicist and the laws of physics do not change. I don't believe it applies to social psychology. No one could have predicted that George Floyd's murder could have catalyzed change like it did. Why him? Why now? The minorities in the U.S. have been fighting for better rights for hundreds of years. If those people believed as you then no change would ever happen. I believe Henry Ford said it better “*Whether you think you can*, or *you think you can't* – *you*'*re right*,”
> I believe Canadian public opinion can and will change I just hope it changes before Mandarin becomes the only official language in Canada.


And that too is the job of our senior military leadership. They won't do that because they continue to be entranced by full-time PYs rather than defence outputs.

🍻


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Most G20 nations do not *buy* their ships domestically, AFAIK, only the UK has a legislated buy in the UK mandate. US recently bought FREMM variant for latest frigates.
> 
> 
> Being strategic involves more than inward looking vote-chasing navel gazing.



We haven't bought a ship.  We bought a design which we are then modifying.  Most nations don't buy ships, they buy designs and build the ships themselves.   And you don't buy designs off countries normally, you buy them off companies (or in the case of nationalized shipyards like France you do actually buy them off the country), which have offices in many countries.

Buying a ship means you go to France, say hey that FREEM is nice can you build me one.  France does and they deliver it. They do the build irrespective of where it was designed.  What you are talking about is designing a ship.  Which is a far more complicated situation.

But I'll play.  US, UK, France, Germany, Franch, India, Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Romania all design and build their own ships.  From scratch.  All the time. Even China and India who started with Russian designs but have graduated to proper shipbuilding many years ago and have some interesting and in China's case effective domestic builds.  Still way more than 50% of the G20 in that list.

As for strategic capability, you can gripe all you want but having a domestic shipbuilding capability is a strategic industry.  Anything that lets you build warfighting assets is a strategic industry.   Again your definitions are off.  Strategic in a military/security sense which is not the same as the random thinking/business definitions. The proper definition is:

*Strategy*_, in warfare, the science or art of employing all the military,* economic*, political, and *other resources of a country* to achieve the objects of war._

Shipyards give us an industrial and economic resource in which we can use to achieve the objects of war.


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> We haven't bought a ship.  We bought a design which we are then modifying.  Most nations don't buy ships, they buy designs and build the ships themselves.   And you don't buy designs off countries normally, you buy them off companies (or in the case of nationalized shipyards like France you do actually buy them off the country), which have offices in many countries.
> 
> Buying a ship means you go to France, say hey that FREEM is nice can you build me one.  France does and they deliver it. They do the build irrespective of where it was designed.  What you are talking about is designing a ship.  Which is a far more complicated situation.
> 
> But I'll play.  US, UK, France, Germany, Franch, India, Russia, China, South Korea, Japan, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey, Romania all design and build their own ships.  From scratch.  All the time. Even China and India who started with Russian designs but have graduated to proper shipbuilding many years ago and have some interesting and in China's case effective domestic builds.  Still way more than 50% of the G20 in that list.
> 
> As for strategic capability, you can gripe all you want but having a domestic shipbuilding capability is a strategic industry.  Anything that lets you build warfighting assets is a strategic industry.   Again your definitions are off.  Strategic in a military/security sense which is not the same as the random thinking/business definitions. The proper definition is:
> 
> *Strategy*_, in warfare, the science or art of employing all the military,* economic*, political, and *other resources of a country* to achieve the objects of war._
> 
> Shipyards give us an industrial and economic resource in which we can use to achieve the objects of war.


I'll play parse the words with you.

capability
[ˌkāpəˈbilədē]

NOUN
(capability of doing/to do something)

the power or ability to do something.


(capabilities)
the extent of someone's or something's ability.
"the job is beyond my capabilities"
synonyms:
capabilities · capacity
a facility on a computer for performing a specified task.
"a graphics capability"
synonyms:
functioning · working · operation · running · behavior · capabilities · capacity · power · potential
forces or resources giving a country or state the ability to undertake a particular kind of military action.

By your definition, we lost any strategic domestic shipyard capability we had when the last Halifax class frigate was delivered, and it has not been replicated, as of yet. 

The purchase of the subs from the UK gave us a strategic capability. The purchase of the F-35, if we so choose, will give us a strategic capability. Were we to purchase FREMMS or Arleigh Burkes instead of building in Halifax, we would add strategic capability. None of those require any domestic industry infrastructure, hence, my argument that a domestic shipbuilding industry is not a de facto requirement to have strategic capability, and should not be labelled such..



You are conflating military strategy with strategic capability. The power to project capability is simply that, it can be added to by a domestic supplier, but is not reliant on it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Weinie said:


> You are conflating military strategy with strategic capability. The power to project capability is simply that, it can be added to by a domestic supplier, but is not reliant on it.


I don't think they are mutually exclusive concepts; the various weapon systems give us strategic military capabilities, things like shipbuilding have been defined as a strategic industrial capabilities (see the 2011 Jenkins report).  Canada has an official policy that shipbuilding is an important domestic industrial capability that we want to sustain, and the whole thing is a deliberate long term program to revitalize it. There are a number of other KICs, but none are getting the same kind of investment.

It's overseen at the Cabinet office level with a 25-30 year lifespan; not sure how that doesn't parse as a strategic level program. Literally can't get any higher level of Government scrutiny, and I'm not aware of another project of similar scope, complexity or timeline in the entire GoC.


----------



## Weinie

Navy_Pete said:


> I don't think they are mutually exclusive concepts; the various weapon systems give us strategic military capabilities, things like shipbuilding have been defined as a strategic industrial capabilities (see the 2011 Jenkins report).  Canada has an official policy that shipbuilding is an important domestic industrial capability that we want to sustain, and the whole thing is a deliberate long term program to revitalize it. There are a number of other KICs, but none are getting the same kind of investment.
> 
> It's overseen at the Cabinet office level with a 25-30 year lifespan; not sure how that doesn't parse as a strategic level program. Literally can't get any higher level of Government scrutiny, and I'm not aware of another project of similar scope, complexity or timeline in the entire GoC.


If buying a sub offshore gives us strat capability, then it does not matter how many Canadian shipyards, how many bureaucrats, how many politicians, over how many years you throw in the pot. A capability simply is, or is not.


----------



## FJAG

Weinie said:


> If buying a sub offshore gives us strat capability, then it does not matter how many Canadian shipyards, how many bureaucrats, how many politicians, over how many years you throw in the pot. A capability simply is, or is not.


That's a bit apples and oranges. One is the capability to project military power by virtue of having a given ship in service. The other is the capability to design, build, and maintain ships within your national borders. Both are capabilities. Both are the end products of an overarching national strategy.

As an aside my earlier comment about subs is not so much that I'm against subs (although as a non sailor I don't quite see what they do for us, per se). What I am against is the current subs which to my way of thinking are delivering very little capability because of their very extensive, unplanned down time. Every once in a while you have to recognize that you've bought the Navy equivalent of an AMC Gremlin and rethink your new car plans.

As a further aside my earlier comment about keeping some ships "in reserve" with the Reserves is simply to say that if the $240 billion 40 year lifecycle costs are too much for the government to bear mentally then my option is to buy all the ships for their relatively reasonable per ship cost and save on the ongoing downstream operations and maintenance and personnel costs which, calculated over 40 years would produce a rather much greater cost reduction. Not only do you get more ships and help out local industry but you would be able to spin up a larger more capable Navy in an emergency. It's an optics thing AND a capability thing.

🍻


----------



## Weinie

FJAG said:


> That's a bit apples and oranges. *One is the capability to project military power by virtue of having a given ship in service. The other is the capability to design, build, and maintain ships within your national borders.* Both are capabilities. *Both may be the underpinnings are the end products of an overarching national strategy.*
> 
> As an aside my earlier comment about subs is not so much that I'm against subs (although as a non sailor I don't quite see what they do for us, per se). What I am against is the current subs which to my way of thinking are delivering very little capability because of their very extensive, unplanned down time. Every once in a while you have to recognize that you've bought the Navy equivalent of an AMC Gremlin and rethink your new car plans.
> 
> As a further aside my earlier comment about keeping some ships "in reserve" with the Reserves is simply to say that if the $240 billion 40 year lifecycle costs are too much for the government to bear mentally then my option is to buy all the ships for their relatively reasonable per ship cost and save on the ongoing downstream operations and maintenance and personnel costs which, calculated over 40 years would produce a rather much greater cost reduction. Not only do you get more ships and help out local industry but you would be able to spin up a larger more capable Navy in an emergency. It's an optics thing AND a capability thing.
> 
> 🍻


The former is a capability. The latter enables that capability. Apples and oranges is correct. The apple (strat capability from a sub or ship) does not exclusively rely on the domestic orange to become an apple. And Canadian national strategy is (hopefully) predicated on capability


----------



## Colin Parkinson

While a shipyard worker can learn the skills to work on other ships by building subs for us, they likley never get a chance to build subs again. But if they learn to build a ship, they get to repeat that skill many times over and if NSPS works as intended, for the rest of their career. The same goes for the engineers, architects and the secondary industrial support sector. So it makes sense to build the majority of ships here, but to contract out the sub replacement to someone already making subs and preferable making subs for an ally.


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> While a shipyard worker can learn the skills to work on other ships by building subs for us, they likley never get a chance to build subs again. But if they learn to build a ship, they get to repeat that skill many times over and if NSPS works as intended, for the rest of their career. The same goes for the engineers, architects and the secondary industrial support sector. So it makes sense to build the majority of ships here, but to contract out the sub replacement to someone already making subs and preferable making subs for an ally.


ENABLER. Any worker, in any country, can learn to build a ship.  Your point is?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The point is that the skills/knowledge they learn building a ship persists and that is the point of the NSPS. Where do you think the knowledge to repair and maintain the ships comes from, not to mention the equipment to do so? In your model we would also have to contract out ship repair.


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> The point is that the skills/knowledge they learn building a ship persists and that is the point of the NSPS. Where do you think the knowledge to repair and maintain the ships comes from, not to mention the equipment to do so? In your model we would also have to contract out ship repair.


I don't give a fat rats butt where repair comes from, and you are dissembling from my point. A strat capability is a capability, not a logistics trail, or a support mechanism, nor all the foofaraa that comes with it. Does Canada have a strat capability or not? How we maintain it is important, but secondary.


----------



## CBH99

Dana381 said:


> That mentality is dangerous. We can't afford to replace the G-Wagons with proper vehicles so why don't we buy a bunch of CRV's and Rav4's to replace them. After all they are made in Canada have 4 wheel drive and can carry 4 people. What more do we need.
> That sounds crazy but it is essentially what you are saying.
> 
> I never thought Canada would buy the C-17, Ch-47 again, M777 (which we were first to fire in anger), or brand new Leopards. When the need presented itself we bought them and there was little to know public backlash comparatively to peace time procurements.
> 
> I firmly believe the key to future sustainability of our defense forces lies in transformation. However I believe that transformation needs to come in public opinion. Unfortunately I think it will take something extremely drastic to sway that public opinion en masse. If the GOC was to actively try to raise the public perception of the armed forces the way they promote themselves we could begin that transformation.
> 
> I believe you when you say our command structure is flawed and it also needs transformation. I have no inside knowledge of this area but it does seem obvious there are issues. Someone put figures on here a little while ago comparing the sizes of our administration to other armies and it was eye opening.
> 
> I'll put it another way, I once knew a man that refused to give to charities which raised money to buy the local hospital new equipment. His point was interesting. The provincial government has a obligation to provide medical care, he proposed that every dollar donated was a dollar the government would not have to spend. He even went as far as saying the government waited to see which equipment was purchased by the charity before making their annual budget.
> 
> If we don't change the mentality of the politicians/public perception of the military any savings brought on by using a part time force will just be less money the CAF receives each year.
> 
> Your quote from Einstein is accurate but remember he was a physicist and the laws of physics do not change. I don't believe it applies to social psychology. No one could have predicted that George Floyd's murder could have catalyzed change like it did. Why him? Why now? The minorities in the U.S. have been fighting for better rights for hundreds of years. If those people believed as you then no change would ever happen. I believe Henry Ford said it better “*Whether you think you can*, or *you think you can't* – *you*'*re right*,”
> I believe Canadian public opinion can and will change I just hope it changes before Mandarin becomes the only official language in Canada.


Forgive me, as I'm taking your post here and kind of running on a different track with it.  (I agree with your post, btw)

When it comes to the Canadian public & defence matters, we need to remember that:

-  The general public thinks about what they are told to think about, and they care about what they think they should.  (As this last year of Covid news has bluntly demonstrated.)  They will forget and move on to something else the very moment the media tells them to do so.

-  Most Canadians want a strong & capable military.  For whatever reason, our mainstream media only seems to give airtime to the hippies & social justice warriors.  I think most Canadians would be perfectly fine with us buying new kit, and would probably support it if it was reasonable.

-  One thing we (DND and GoC) should perhaps look at is the way we sell the public on the projects.  We are, as far as I know, one of the only countries that includes 10yr or 20yr service & support contracts with the 'price' of the project.

Without understanding our contracts are usually broken down into a) the purchase of the equipment, and b) a lengthy support contract for that equipment... the projects stand out as really expensive.

I think the public would be a lot more receptive to some of the projects if we just published the cost of acquiring the equipment.  (C-17, Chinook, C-295 SAR birds, etc.)  

The fact that this equipment needs to be supported once in service is a given - any country that has any military equipment at all spends money maintaining it.



As I mentioned upthread, in regards to the CSC, the media is creating a problem out of nothing.  It doesn't matter which ship we end up with, the costs once in service will be pretty close. Ships need crews, crews need food.  Crews need paychecks.  Ships need fuel, etc.

We don't say "This 2020 Hyundai Elantra is $140,000" (Lifetime maintenance, gas, insurance, etc etc.)   Anybody who buys a car knows they need to support the car with those things.  



Bah.  The solutions always seem to simple


----------



## Fabius

I do not agree with the assertion that any single platform is a strategic capability. I think that overstates the importance of any single platform or platform type (aka submarine, carrier, bomber).  Those platforms all offer potentially significant tactical and operational level capabilities that can integrated into a strategic capability but in and of themselves, I would argue they don't.

Countries can possess extensive tactical and operational military capabilities even to the point of being regional powers but very few countries actually possess true strategic capability. This is where I think most smaller countries find themselves and most of what we can argue are middle power country's also generally fit.

True Strategic capability means being able to indigenously develop and produce *ALL *elements of the weapons systems you are fielding. This means steel production, ship design, weapons design, sensor design, ship manufacture, weapons manufacture, senor manufacture, systems integration etc. and all in sufficient quantities and with the ability to ramp up production as needed to replace battle losses and to support high munition expenditure rates.  Make no doubt this is a vast endeavor and only a free countries attempt to do it all, the US, France, China, Russia, the UK strive to achieve it with mixed successes.  Other countries like Israel, Turkey, Japan, South Korea also strive for slightly less ambitious strategic capabilities. 

Most NATO countries and even Canada and Australia, depend significantly upon the above friendly countries strategic capabilities to design, develop and produce the senor and weapons suites that make our stuff lethal.  Lets face it our SM2s, AMRAAMs, TOW missiles etc are not designed or built in Canada. Same is true of most of our sensor systems. These strategic capabilities are expensive which is why we largely abandoned our own indigenous weapons programs in the 1950s, since then we have either bought largely US systems and integrated them onto our platforms or joined consortiums to develop stuff jointly ( some to great success the the ESSAM and others to a yet to be seen conclusion (JSF/F35 program). 

The key point though is that without all the industrial capabilities needed to actually put a fleet to sea and arm it with munitions and fuel etc. and support it to the conclusion of hostilities in your favor, all you have is a very very powerful operational level capability that will require strategic support from someone else. Take the US airlift of munitions and associated items to Israel in 1973 and more recently to Saudi Arabia for their war in Yemen, the NATO operations over Libya in 2011 which needed significant US aerial tanker assets, or the support rendered by the US Navy via their ocean going tugs to HMCS Protecteur in 2014, all examples of operational capabilities that are not resident in most nations militaries and industries but which are needed to actually truly be capable of strategic military operations in my opinion.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Weinie said:


> I don't give a fat rats butt where repair comes from, and you are dissembling from my point. A strat capability is a capability, not a logistics trail, or a support mechanism, nor all the foofaraa that comes with it. Does Canada have a strat capability or not? How we maintain it is important, but secondary.


You most certainly will care if you don't have the capability to repair the ships that we have and you lose much of your political leverage, if you think support for the military is bad now, wait till Defense just becomes a 1 way money drain. Without the logistical support you have no real capability, much less a strategic one. Right now I feel that our only "Strategic Capability" is our subs, thanks to their ability to create area denial and require significant resources to counter them. The Frigates are important as escort vessels, but if we get the CSC as envisioned, then I think we really do have a Strategic Capability. In which case NSPS becomes an important part of keeping that capability at sea and funded.


----------



## FJAG

CBH99 said:


> ...
> 
> Without understanding our contracts are usually broken down into a) the purchase of the equipment, and b) a lengthy support contract for that equipment... the projects stand out as really expensive.
> 
> I think the public would be a lot more receptive to some of the projects if we just published the cost of acquiring the equipment.  (C-17, Chinook, C-295 SAR birds, etc.)
> 
> The fact that this equipment needs to be supported once in service is a given - any country that has any military equipment at all spends money maintaining it.
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned upthread, in regards to the CSC, the media is creating a problem out of nothing.  It doesn't matter which ship we end up with, the costs once in service will be pretty close. Ships need crews, crews need food.  Crews need paychecks.  Ships need fuel, etc.
> 
> We don't say "This 2020 Hyundai Elantra is $140,000" (Lifetime maintenance, gas, insurance, etc etc.)   Anybody who buys a car knows they need to support the car with those things.
> 
> 
> 
> Bah.  The solutions always seem to simple


Just for the fun of it, I'll introduce you to two documents that show you why bureaucracies ensure that life isn't simple. (Be prepared to be massively bored)

The first is a report from Defence Development and Research Canada called Development of Cost Breakdown Structure for Defence Acquisition Projects which discusses the basic Canadian concept to costing military acquisition programs.

The second, MUCH LENGTHIER one comes from NATO's Research and Technology Organization called Methods and Models for Life Cycle Costing which discusses varying methodologies used throughout NATO. I find it quite interesting that at pages xix to xxi, Canada is listed as neither a participant nor an observer to the study.

Personally, as a member of the public, all that I want to see coming out of a program like this is:

how much more on an annual basis will this project end up costing us than the program it augments or replaces; and
how much additional defence capability, if any, will this program produce over what we have at present.
🍻


----------



## dapaterson

Different users need different cost information; there is no one size fits all.  If you are to have intelligent discussions, you need to know what is and is not included, together with the rationale for those inclusions and exclusions.

The simplest example is the Gillette model: lose money on the razor, make it back on the blades.  Some suppliers will do that, offering attractively low acquisition costs but massively inflated lifecycle operating costs to acquire their bespoke parts / consumables / software.  Some will transfer cost to DND/CAF - for example, if the mark II Whatchamacallit will take five aviators to operate it, where the mark I I only took one, but only provides 2x the capability, the institutional cost over the lifecycle will have grown.

While simple has a certain appeal, detailed information and analysis is also needed to make intelligent decisions.


----------



## FJAG

dapaterson said:


> Different users need different cost information; there is no one size fits all.  If you are to have intelligent discussions, you need to know what is and is not included, together with the rationale for those inclusions and exclusions.
> 
> The simplest example is the Gillette model: lose money on the razor, make it back on the blades.  Some suppliers will do that, offering attractively low acquisition costs but massively inflated lifecycle operating costs to acquire their bespoke parts / consumables / software.  Some will transfer cost to DND/CAF - for example, if the mark II Whatchamacallit will take five aviators to operate it, where the mark I I only took one, but only provides 2x the capability, the institutional cost over the lifecycle will have grown.
> 
> While simple has a certain appeal, detailed information and analysis is also needed to make intelligent decisions.


You're exactly right. Internal users and decision makers need to know all the aspects and, for the most part, will understand the significance of the various numbers. The issue here though is what numbers does the press report these days -- basically the most horrendous number possible which in this case, like the F-35 is the absolute total lifetime cost of the system and without any context at all.

In the case of the F-35, I'm qite sure that the Liberals of the day understood the real numbers but exploited the acquisition cost v total life cycle cost issue as a political ploy to undermine the Harper government's credibility. I'm not sure why the CBC is focusing on this issue with the CSC project although I note it tends to focus more on the Navy and bureaucracy rather than the government hand that feeds the CBC.

IMHO, a good reporter would present a broader, more balanced picture of the costs and let the public make up it's own mind. But that's asking a bit much, isn't it?

🍻


----------



## MarkOttawa

A relevant, fairly short, "Briefing Note" by Dave Perry of the CGAI at the Naval Association of Canada--gets into the weeds:



> NAVAL PROCUREMENT





> https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/BN8-naval-procurement.pdf



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:


> Different users need different cost information; there is no one size fits all.  If you are to have intelligent discussions, you need to know what is and is not included, together with the rationale for those inclusions and exclusions.
> 
> The simplest example is the Gillette model: lose money on the razor, make it back on the blades.  Some suppliers will do that, offering attractively low acquisition costs but massively inflated lifecycle operating costs to acquire their bespoke parts / consumables / software.  Some will transfer cost to DND/CAF - for example, if the mark II Whatchamacallit will take five aviators to operate it, where the mark I I only took one, but only provides 2x the capability, the institutional cost over the lifecycle will have grown.
> 
> While simple has a certain appeal, detailed information and analysis is also needed to make intelligent decisions.


I totally agree with you.

The point I was trying to make (albeit a bit off topic, I apolgize) is that one of the things we could examine to help minimize bad press & have the average Canadian support our capital purchases is to just present them with the cost of acquisition.  Not the cost of acquiring the platform/capability, and also including what it will cost to support that platform for the next 20yrs.

It makes it seem like our equipment acquisition programs are substantially more expensive than they really are (Acquisition only).  Regardless of what class of ship we get for the CSC, or fighter replaces the Hornet - these things require crews, fuel, maintenance, etc.  That's a given.


The decision makers will need to have a pretty good understanding of what the maintenance/support costs will be, absolutely.  But the average member of the public doesn't understand how our contracts work, and therefore is left with the impression we are paying "X amount" for something and not understanding what that entails.

I think most Canadians would actually be supportive of our acquisitions, given that they are reasonable.  It's the absurd price tag, mixed with the media only giving airtime to people who literally don't know WTF they are talking about, that steers public opinion the way it does.

During the Afghan war years, we were able to acquire M777's, C-17's, a new fleet of C-130J's, new Chinooks, a variety of armoured vehicles, etc etc and the public was extremely supportive because they were reasonable, required, and understood.



_It was a bit of a thread hijack, I do apologize.  I read something upthread that made me think of that aspect of getting the public more onside.  Again, apologies for the derailment!_


----------



## dapaterson

Part of the goal of a degreed officer corps is to provide CAF officers with a broad-based liberal arts education, including effective communications skills.  Communications skills must not be the sole province on the PA folks; the finance folks should be able to explain "This is the incremental cost, this is the acquisition cost, this is the full up cost" and not say "Read the tables."  Project staff should be able to articulate (within the bounds of national security and commercial confidences) the capability being acquired and how it differs from whatever is (or is not) in service, and not say "It's in the deck somewhere."

If I tell you something and you don't understand, it's quite presumptuous for me to assume that you are the problem.  Especially if it recurs again and again - maybe, just maybe, the problem is me and my failed communications, and not you at all.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> Part of the goal of a degreed officer corps is to provide CAF officers with a broad-based liberal arts education, including effective communications skills.  Communications skills must not be the sole province on the PA folks; the finance folks should be able to explain "This is the incremental cost, this is the acquisition cost, this is the full up cost" and not say "Read the tables."  Project staff should be able to articulate (within the bounds of national security and commercial confidences) the capability being acquired and how it differs from whatever is (or is not) in service, and not say "It's in the deck somewhere."
> 
> If I tell you something and you don't understand, it's quite presumptuous for me to assume that you are the problem.  Especially if it recurs again and again - maybe, just maybe, the problem is me and my failed communications, and not you at all.



Comms for any of these projects go through PA (and not even necessarily DND's PAs). So usually the person that understands it passes it on to another person that kind of understands it that passes it on to someone that doesn't understand it (with a bunch of vetting in between) before if actually gets to the media.

In some very rare cases people that understand it get to talk directly to the media, and provide something like a clear cost breakdown of the project, and even the same reporter never uses it again or asks relevant questions. For example, there is an interview in the Ottawa Citizen's Defence watch section with Mr. Pat Finn, then ADM(Mat), retired RAdm, who actually worked on NSPS as a Commodore, and a lengthy discussion was broken down to a breakout of the project costs (date 27 April 2018; link not included due to site rules) . In other cases, detailed briefings were provided to multiple news outlets by people that understood things, and it was never reported on because it was too boring.

It can be really frustrating when you write something up for the PAs, they 'improve the wording', frig it all up, and then it gets translated into something totally inaccurate by the uninformed reporter that has no idea what you are talking about anyway in the papers.

As an aside, usually it's engineers on this project without a broad-based liberal arts education, so sometimes best there is a people-engineer interface. Usually it's the ones that have people skills that get promoted to a position where they would talk to reporters though, but there are definitely some lower down who are very good at their jobs, understand the issue inside and out, but should probably never talk to reporters.


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:


> -  One thing we (DND and GoC) should perhaps look at is the way we sell the public on the projects.  We are, as far as I know, one of the only countries that includes 10yr or 20yr service & support contracts with the 'price' of the project.



Sometimes it's the same contract so you can compare the through life costs; this makes a lot of sense when a higher up front purchase cost may give you better availability/lower maintenance costs. Because it's the same RFP, the total contract value is public, but we can't actually break out the procurement cost of the equipment because any level of detail other then the overall contract value is usually considered commercially sensitive.

Otherwise if you look there have been multiple announcements limited to actual costs of just the ship, building the jetties etc that we can do when they are stand alone contracts. Also, the AOPs/JSS in service support contract (aka AJISS) is a standalone, separate project, so isn't normally included by DND in any AOPs or JSS project value discussions.

The big ticket announcements that keep coming out are because different organizations are combining the procurement, maintenance, crew costs, fuel and everything else to get a true lifetime cost (which is huge) and forcing DND to respond. The CAF has that Cost Factors Manual (or used to) that was updated annually and gave the cost to operate the various vehicles, planes and ships (per sea day, flight hour, whatever), but estimating the cost of things like fuel in 40 years has so much uncertainty it's a waste of time. Disposal etc are all important things to think about, but costing them is a total SWAG, and usually are just an order of magnitude guess, not something you can consider during build.


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:


> As an aside, usually it's engineers on this project without a broad-based liberal arts education, so sometimes best there is a people-engineer interface.



Interface... barrier... po-tay-to... po-tah-to...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You can train your PA and find the best communicator in your engineering group to explain to the media, but you have no control over the reporter (who has a Liberal Art Degree) or the editor. Both of whom don't have a clue about what your talking about. Part of the problem with the media losing so much revenue is that all reporters and editors must be multi-tasked, so even if they do want to learn more, they never have the time. Even back in the days of better funded media, I found that media reporting of stories I was involved in, were averaging  around 40% error rate. My sister was a labour judge, she found an even higher error rate to the point where she could barely recognize a case she has heard from the article in the paper. 
I really like the idea of just acquisition costs being announced. In backgrounder material you can outline cost differentials and methods of accounting, so you can't be accused of hiding stuff. Big business spends a lot of money preparing media releases to spoon feed the MSM in a baby food version that is easily digestible and printable.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> Interface... barrier... po-tay-to... po-tah-to...


lol, yeah. Personally I think a better approach would be letting the SMEs participate (maybe with some prior PA coaching?) in a real Q&A session, but not aware of that ever happening. Which is kind of weird, when you get embedded reporters in units that are free to talk with pretty much anyone during exercises or operations, or do things like ships open to visitors where really junior people can talk directly to anyone, and usually all there is some reminders what stuff is off limits, be polite and that's about it. We end up dealing with a lot of flak from uninformed idiots anyway, so why not try and be proactive. Maybe at least then you would be getting flak from informed idiots.

Kind of weird being trusted to handle real emergencies on billion dollar plus ships or other scenarios where actual lives are at risk but not to talk with a reporter. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## MarkOttawa

The simple fact is that the major Canadian media are not interested in reporting facts in an objective fashion to inform public debate about defence matters; rather they essentially look for angles that can be spun to suggest scandal/malfeasance/incompetence/whatever might smell in order to raise public and political controversy and, they hope reader interest (for the general public almost always could care less about whatever the issue is). Military/naval/air force realities are irrelevant to a story line. It's a disgrace and has been so for years--since Somalia? But the Canadian public get the media they deserve.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## CBH99

Again, I totally agree with you.  100%.  We are definitely on the same page.


MarkOttawa said:


> The simple fact is that the major Canadian media are not interested in reporting facts in an objective fashion to inform public debate about defence matters; rather they essentially look for angles that can be spun to suggest scandal/malfeasance/incompetence/whatever might smell in order to raise public and political controversy and, they hope reader interest (for the general public almost always could care less about whatever the issue is). Military/naval/air force realities are irrelevant to a story line. It's a disgrace and has been so for years--since Somalia? But the Canadian public get the media they deserve.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


Very much agreed!

What comes first though, the chicken or the egg?

Uninformed general public due to piss poor reporting on almost any topic of relevance from the MSM?  Or a MSM that can get away with spouting misleading narratives because the public is uninformed?  


(I know this doesn't contribute to the chat at all - and maybe we should let this thread get back to the CSC, and we can carry on this chat in another thread?  But we live in an age where information is LITERALLY at most people's fingertips.  We all have these devices in our pockets which allows each of us, in a matter of seconds, to look up almost any piece of information known to mankind, or connect with anybody on planet Earth almost instantly.  It's actually pretty crazy when you stop and think about it.  

You said it well, the public gets the media they deserve.  Anybody who has any interest could sit down and do some digging for all of 5 minutes, and take it upon themselves to be informed.)  #wishful thinking


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> lol, yeah. Personally I think a better approach would be letting the SMEs participate (maybe with some prior PA coaching?) in a real Q&A session, but not aware of that ever happening. Which is kind of weird, when you get embedded reporters in units that are free to talk with pretty much anyone during exercises or operations, or do things like ships open to visitors where really junior people can talk directly to anyone, and usually all there is some reminders what stuff is off limits, be polite and that's about it. We end up dealing with a lot of flak from uninformed idiots anyway, so why not try and be proactive. Maybe at least then you would be getting flak from informed idiots.
> 
> Kind of weird being trusted to handle real emergencies on billion dollar plus ships or other scenarios where actual lives are at risk but not to talk with a reporter. 🤷‍♂️


Not sure about current policy, but Project Directors and Project Managers on major capital projects (MCPs) if not already qualified and current, were given the Designated Spokesperson course, and often were (are?) approached by the usual crowd of defence writers (the Murray Brewsters, Lee Berthiaumes and others of Canadian media) to confirm background and latest status of various projects.  Responsibility to provide media with connectivity to such projects was not just lobbed over to PA.

regards
G2G


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Navy_Pete said:


> lol, yeah. Personally I think a better approach would be letting the SMEs participate (maybe with some prior PA coaching?) in a real Q&A session, but not aware of that ever happening. Which is kind of weird, when you get embedded reporters in units that are free to talk with pretty much anyone during exercises or operations, or do things like ships open to visitors where really junior people can talk directly to anyone, and usually all there is some reminders what stuff is off limits, be polite and that's about it. We end up dealing with a lot of flak from uninformed idiots anyway, so why not try and be proactive. Maybe at least then you would be getting flak from informed idiots.
> 
> Kind of weird being trusted to handle real emergencies on billion dollar plus ships or other scenarios where actual lives are at risk but not to talk with a reporter. 🤷‍♂️


Up until the CPC got in, it was common to have reporters and MP`s call our office directly to ask questions, generally one of us more experienced officers took the call. The restrictions continued under the Liberals. We wasted a lot of our time and theirs after the restrictions came in.
I used to speak to Nathen Cullen (NDP) frequently as his riding was in the area I was responsible for. It`s not that hard to stay out of trouble, just never say or imply stuff you don`t want to see in the paper the next day. With the MP`s/MLA and their office, mostly it`s to give them background and file status of the issue peculating in their backyard. My regional office actually had a good media relations team and we would help them with file information. I had to do a lot of Public open houses on big projects and take questions from stakeholders, public and media all the time. The key is if confronted by the media is to listen, think and then respond in a polite professional manner keeping in mind everything you say may be printed and likely printed incorrectly.


----------



## Dana381

CBH99 said:


> Forgive me, as I'm taking your post here and kind of running on a different track with it.  (I agree with your post, btw)
> 
> When it comes to the Canadian public & defence matters, we need to remember that:
> 
> -  The general public thinks about what they are told to think about, and they care about what they think they should.  (As this last year of Covid news has bluntly demonstrated.)  They will forget and move on to something else the very moment the media tells them to do so.
> 
> -  Most Canadians want a strong & capable military.  For whatever reason, our mainstream media only seems to give airtime to the hippies & social justice warriors.  I think most Canadians would be perfectly fine with us buying new kit, and would probably support it if it was reasonable.
> 
> -  One thing we (DND and GoC) should perhaps look at is the way we sell the public on the projects.  We are, as far as I know, one of the only countries that includes 10yr or 20yr service & support contracts with the 'price' of the project.
> 
> Without understanding our contracts are usually broken down into a) the purchase of the equipment, and b) a lengthy support contract for that equipment... the projects stand out as really expensive.
> 
> I think the public would be a lot more receptive to some of the projects if we just published the cost of acquiring the equipment.  (C-17, Chinook, C-295 SAR birds, etc.)
> 
> The fact that this equipment needs to be supported once in service is a given - any country that has any military equipment at all spends money maintaining it.
> 
> 
> 
> As I mentioned upthread, in regards to the CSC, the media is creating a problem out of nothing.  It doesn't matter which ship we end up with, the costs once in service will be pretty close. Ships need crews, crews need food.  Crews need paychecks.  Ships need fuel, etc.
> 
> We don't say "This 2020 Hyundai Elantra is $140,000" (Lifetime maintenance, gas, insurance, etc etc.)   Anybody who buys a car knows they need to support the car with those things.
> 
> 
> 
> Bah.  The solutions always seem to simple



Sorry to take so long to notice your reply, I don't think my notifications are working properly.

I don't think your on a different track, I think you just said what I was saying only better. I am a mechanic not a wordsmith after all. Public perception needs to change first I believe. 

The Media cries scandal every time the military spends money unless they know it is popular. Many of the intermediate posts talk about this in detail. I don't recall much media attention to the FWSAR contract because saving lives is cool. The air force could have spent whatever they wanted with little media fanfare because SAR is a warm fuzzy feeling generator when they succeed and a tragedy when they don't. So attacking new SAR equipment is seldom popular. If the warfighting abilities of the Canadian forces were cool they would not be able to attack it like this.

I believe your second point 100%. When it comes to weapons systems or or anything that doesn't directly save lives I believe most Canadians want our military to be top class. I just see the media grab something from each contract and find someone that will say it's a bad deal and try to run it into the ground. The sea-king replacement contract was a prime example. the EH-101 was acceptable as a SAR bird but too expensive for regular naval duties. 🤷‍♂️

Your third point is on point in my opinion. I believe that is one way to improve public perception of our military. The contracts as they are announced now seem incredibly absurd. $4 billion dollars for 4 C-17's for example. It would sound much better If the contracts were announced as two separate contracts, say 2 billion for four planes and 2 billion for 20 years of maintenance and spare parts (I don't know the actual breakdown and its not important to my point). I think the public would be much more understanding. The car companies use that system all the time, They advertise $99 weekly for a compact car. The car that you can buy for $99 likely has never been sold because it is an ultra base model with no desired features and absolutely no extras. Also no dealers keep it in stock because they know that you will pay more if you don't have to wait for it. 

I do believe that is only one way to improve public perception though. I believe people everywhere are proud of their countries military successes, even Canadians. I have personally seen this when telling stories to non military lovers. If the military spent time and/or money trying to improve public perception via advertising, film and TV show rights, and actively engaging with the public (ex: flyover of sporting events) they could turn perception around. I believe most Canadians know extremely little about our military however they think military stuff is cool. I know many of these people watch shows about the U.S. military and think "that's so cool!" but these people take little to no effort to get to know their own military. I also think the GOC doesn't want to improve public perception because then the public will demand we equip our military properly. The GOC has shown repeatedly that it is content to do the least it has to even arguing how the 2% NATO spending commitment is calculated. That reminded me of my teenager taking out one garbage can because I didn't tell him to take out all the cans.


----------



## MarkOttawa

By Dana381:



> I don't recall much media attention to the FWSAR contract because saving lives is cool. The air force could have spent whatever they wanted with little media fanfare because SAR is a warm fuzzy feeling generator when they succeed and a tragedy when they don't. So attacking new SAR equipment is seldom popular.


 
In fact media generated  lots of new SAR aircraft controversy on basis RCAF was trying to rig the bidding (accurately I believe) for C-27--better transport in secondary role--vs C295. All that delayed final competition and selection for a long time--whole process lasted from 2004 to 2016 ( https://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/rescue-required-canadas-searchandrescue-aircraft-program-03350/ ). 

That said your point about pointy-stuff having a general media disadvantage is I think valid.  See also this 2016 post on the Coast Guard getting quite a few new helos, effectively sole-sourced (horrors!) from Bell Quebec, that was barely covered ( https://mark3ds.wordpress.com/2016/...5-canadian-coast-guard-light-helos-delivered/ ).

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just to followup on previous debate regarding if CAMM in isolation being sufficient in the role of CIWS (versus being supplemented by 35mm, 40mm, 57mm air burst gun systems), see new article on swarming air launched drones.   

Clarification request if not OPSEC: If you wanted to, is the space forward of the VLS suitable to add a through deck solution (such as transferring the Halifax class 57mm)?  Or is there below deck engineering which would mean you'd have to go with a lighter surface mount solution like 35mm or 40mm?  









						The Age Of Swarming Air-Launched Munitions Has Officially Begun With Air Force Test
					

The Air Force has begun test-launching networked glide bombs that work together to sort, target, and destroy targets cooperatively on their own.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## Cloud Cover

You may have  seen this, but last week navy Lookout had a good article about the 30mm: https://www.navylookout.com/the-all-rounder-the-30mm-automated-small-calibre-gun-in-focus/

It appears the RN is not currently taking up the Martlett missile fit-out as this does away with the manned directors unit, which has too much value to lose.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Nice little system how does it compare to the RWS on the AOP's?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

@Cloud Cover

It's funny I read that exact article....what I found interesting was not in the main body of the article, but in the comments as one of the posters ("Dogs Nads" ) made the following statement, which as not corrected by anyone else, I assume is accurate.

In response to question: "Do these guns provide air burst capability?", they replied:

"No. Point detonation only. It’s not worth doing air-burst from anything under 35mm in practice (and even then its marginal). Basically the shell size below 35mm doesn’t have enough space for the fusing, sufficient explosive and shell casing to have decent fragmentation.

Realistically you need 40mm + to make it worthwhile."


----------



## Cloud Cover

Hence the 40mm grenade launcher...


----------



## AirDet

So what are other NATO navies doing to combat these SWARM threats? Can we employ these solutions without having a major affect on the project Critical Path or costing?

I know there was talk of the RN putting some sort of DE weapon on the hgr. Has the technology matured enough for this to even be practical? I assume the advantage would be not having to reload. 

It's too bad I won't get to sail on these Gucci new boats.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

AirDet said:


> So what are other NATO navies doing to combat these SWARM threats? Can we employ these solutions without having a major affect on the project Critical Path or costing?
> 
> I know there was talk of the RN putting some sort of DE weapon on the hgr. Has the technology matured enough for this to even be practical? I assume the advantage would be not having to reload.
> 
> It's too bad I won't get to sail on these Gucci new boats.



I read two articles recently on European updates. 

The French appear to be purchasing a new 40mm CTA CIWS for fairly immediate installation and Germany just approved a new laser-based CIWS research project.


----------



## Underway

AirDet said:


> So what are other NATO navies doing to combat these SWARM threats? Can we employ these solutions without having a major affect on the project Critical Path or costing?
> 
> I know there was talk of the RN putting some sort of DE weapon on the hgr. Has the technology matured enough for this to even be practical? I assume the advantage would be not having to reload.
> 
> It's too bad I won't get to sail on these Gucci new boats.


EW is important to combat this threat.  The same methods to distract, seduce and confuse missiles work.  In some ways, a powerful ECM Jammer can really mess up these UAS as their network is what makes them dangerous.  Once you remove that they are heavily degraded. 

But no one talks about EW, it can be difficult to understand without the proper science background and even harder to talk about without violating OPSEC.  And it's not nearly as sexy as shooting missiles.

Every major warship of the NATO countries has some form of EW, some take it very seriously and invest in high capacity.


----------



## Halifax Tar

National Defence says $60B warship project delayed until 2030s









						National Defence says $60B warship project delayed until 2030s  | Globalnews.ca
					

The delay means Canada will need to spend more on its 12 aging Halifax-class frigates to keep them floating longer, and is sure to set off a fresh wave of debate.




					globalnews.ca
				




Who didnt this see coming ?​


----------



## MarkOttawa

Remember that in 2012 Irving was awarded mandate under NSS for large combat ships including CSC (In 2013 CSC construction was "not expected to begin before 2020"!  P. 6 PDF http://navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/NSPS-Update.pdf); Type 26 design was selected in Feb. 2019 ( https://jdirving.com/Government-of-Canada-selects-design-for-Canadian-Surface-Combatants.aspx ). So minimum 12 years from then to first delivery? An absurd way of  shipbuilding. And poor Halifax frigates. 

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The UK and Australia will have theirs in the water for quite some time before ours even gets launched


----------



## YZT580

It reads as though the Made in Canada mods are what is causing the grief and not Irving itself.  I haven't read or seen any seriously bad reports on what they have produced so far so I am more inclined to think that the problem lies with the multitude of changes


----------



## Underway

YZT580 said:


> It reads as though the Made in Canada mods are what is causing the grief and not Irving itself.  I haven't read or seen any seriously bad reports on what they have produced so far so I am more inclined to think that the problem lies with the multitude of changes





Colin Parkinson said:


> The UK and Australia will have theirs in the water for quite some time before ours even gets launched



What seems to be missing in this article but was written into the CTV one on the same topic was that the UK and Australia are expecting their first build to take 7.5 years as well.  The UK experience is informing our timelines.


----------



## FM07

I read the Global Article which states 

"All eyes are currently on the upcoming report from the parliamentary budget officer, which is to be released later this month and provide an updated cost for the Type-26 along with estimates for purchasing two other warships."

What are these 'two other warships' they speak of?


----------



## AlexanderM

I'm wondering if the FREMM might be one??


----------



## YZT580

Perhaps the two supply ships?


----------



## Uzlu

FM07 said:


> I read the Global Article which states
> 
> "All eyes are currently on the upcoming report from the parliamentary budget officer, which is to be released later this month and provide an updated cost for the Type-26 along with estimates for purchasing two other warships."
> 
> What are these 'two other warships' they speak of?


FREMM and the Type 31 frigate.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Oh dear, maybe only 10 CSCs?:



> Navy needs to prepare for tough talks over warship delays, cost increases: Norman​
> Retired vice-admiral Mark Norman is warning the Royal Canadian Navy to start preparing for some hard discussions as delays and escalating costs continue to buffet the country's $60-billion plan to build new warships over the coming decades.
> 
> The Department of National Defence revealed this week that the first of 15 new warships being built to replace the Navy's 12 frigates and three already-retired destroyers will be delivered in 2030 or 2031, years later than planned.
> 
> News of the schedule slip comes ahead of a highly anticipated update from the parliamentary budget officer on the cost of the overall project, though defence officials have maintained the $60-billion budget set in 2017 remains sufficient.
> 
> While the department's assertions are encouraging, Norman told The Canadian Press on Tuesday [Feb. 2] that there is a direct correlation between delays and cost increases when it comes to military procurement projects.
> 
> And while Norman hopes it doesn't reach that point, the former navy commander and vice-chief of the defence staff suggests officials should nonetheless start getting ready for pressure to scale back the number or quality of new ships.
> 
> "These are all conversations that I think legitimately, at some point, are going to have to happen," Norman said. "To pretend that they're not going to happen is naive. This is all about tradeoffs at the end of the day."
> 
> For his part, _Norman is firmly in the camp that if the conversation comes down to significant cuts to the new warships' capabilities or building fewer vessels to save billions of dollars, quality should trump quantity_ [emphasis added].
> 
> "There's only so much blood you can get from that rock or you end up producing something which isn't really a frontline warship anymore," he said. "And ultimately, that's what this is all about."
> 
> The new warships to be built in Halifax are based on the British-made Type-26 and are to be the backbone of the navy for decades. The project, which originally had a budget of $26 billion, is the largest military procurement in Canadian history.
> 
> The Type-26 will replace the navy's existing fleet of 12 Halifax-class frigates as well as its three Iroquois-class destroyers, which were retired several years ago. Those two classes had different roles and abilities, which the Type-26 will be expected to adopt.
> 
> The decision to combine the two classes into one is part of why the current project is so complicated, said Norman. It is also why there is only so much flexibility when it comes to the systems and capabilities that are to be built into the Type-26.
> 
> The federal Liberal government has committed to building 15 new warships as part of its defence policy, which was unveiled in June 2017 and increased the project's budget from $26 billion to $60 billion.
> 
> The ships are being ordered in batches and defence officials say they are still working on the exact numbers. Such an approach gives the government flexibility to cut back on the numbers later if it wants.
> 
> All eyes are currently on the upcoming report from the parliamentary budget officer, which is to be released later this month and provide an updated cost for the Type-26 along with estimates for purchasing two other warships.
> 
> The report could kickstart fresh debate around the Type-26 and Ottawa's decision to build the ships in Canada, particularly given a French-Italian consortium's assertion that it could build a new fleet faster and cheaper in Europe.
> 
> _Norman, who is on record saying the navy needs at least 10 new warships but he hopes it gets all 15_ [emphasis added], said restarting the process or "throwing the whole thing out, the baby with the bathwater, is a very bad idea."
> 
> At the same time, he warned that Canadians need to be careful when comparing the costs of different ships and proposals. To that end, he lamented that the government and military were not more forthcoming with information about the project.
> 
> This week's revelation about the delay in delivery of the first Type-26 was the first real update from the Defence Department and government on the warship project in many months...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy needs to prepare for tough talks over warship delays, cost increases: Norman
> 
> 
> Retired vice-admiral Mark Norman is warning the Royal Canadian Navy to start preparing for some hard discussions as delays and escalating costs continue to buffet the country's $60-billion plan to build new warships over the coming decades.
> 
> 
> 
> www.ctvnews.ca



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## MilEME09

So is Irving going to cry for more money because these delays have created a work gap?


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:


> So is Irving going to cry for more money because these delays have created a work gap?


What work gap?


----------



## MilEME09

Uzlu said:


> What work gap?





			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/irving-shipbuilding-work-gap-ship-contracts-layoffs-1.3965113
		


Same story all over again potentially


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/irving-shipbuilding-work-gap-ship-contracts-layoffs-1.3965113
> 
> 
> 
> Same story all over again potentially


That article was posted on 3 February 2017.  Since then, a sixth _Harry DeWolf_ has been ordered, and two additional modified _Harry DeWolf_s are planned.


----------



## MilEME09

Uzlu said:


> That article was posted on 3 February 2017.  Since then, a sixth _Harry DeWolf_ has been ordered, and two additional modified _Harry DeWolf_s are planned.


Thats what I am saying, Irving cried layoffs due to delays in the CSC program, government ordered more AOPS to keep the yard going. Now more delays mean the CSC won't hit water till the 2030s, while the last AOPS will be done by the mid 2020s. So is Irving going to cry layoffs again?


----------



## Weinie

MilEME09 said:


> So is Irving going to cry for more money because these delays have created a work gap "insert reason here."


FTFY. And Yes.


----------



## Stoker

Uzlu said:


> FREMM and the Type 31 frigate.


Makes no difference we are too far into the design process to start over, it still will cost billions from the delay and it still has to be built in Canada. If it came down to it build a lesser number of type 26's than settling for the FREMM or type 31.


----------



## MilEME09

Stoker said:


> Makes no difference we are too far into the design process to start over, it still will cost billions from the delay and it still has to be built in Canada. If it came down to it build a lesser number of type 26's than settling for the FREMM or type 31.


Unless we compromised and say dropped the CSC to 10 ships, and purchased a number of FREMMs off shore, they can be the official replacement for the Iroquois class, cite urgent national security requirements for a sole source off shore purchase.


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:


> Unless we compromised and say dropped the CSC to 10 ships, and purchased a number of FREMMs off shore, they can be the official replacement for the Iroquois class, cite urgent national security requirements for a sole source off shore purchase.


Managing multiple classes of ships has a big in-service cost increase for maintenance and training. I don't think we can afford/crew two classes of warships effectively, let alone have enough people to stand up a project for that. That's a massive contract and those take a lot of work.

It's a complex procurement for a complex ship on it's own, with a whole bunch of departmental fingers in the pie. If we aren't going to change any of that or look at the bureaucratic hydra that is DPS, starting additional projects isn't going to do anything.


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:


> Thats what I am saying, Irving cried layoffs due to delays in the CSC program, government ordered more AOPS to keep the yard going. Now more delays mean the CSC won't hit water till the 2030s, while the last AOPS will be done by the mid 2020s. So is Irving going to cry layoffs again?


The first surface combatant is projected for completion in around 2030 or 2031.  It will take about 7.5 years to build.  That might mean first steel is cut in about 2023.  So where is the work gap?  If the government of Canada does something idiotic—it has been known to happen every now and then—and cancels the entire Canadian Surface Combatant program, then I believe Irving is going to cry layoffs again.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Stoker said:


> Makes no difference we are too far into the design process to start over, it still will cost billions from the delay and it still has to be built in Canada. If it came down to it build a lesser number of type 26's than settling for the FREMM or type 31.



Its never too far in to cancel a contract!  Sea Kings anyone ?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Here's my 2 cents as an ill-informed civilian - the CSC goes through with 15 ships but the work is split between Irving and Davie in a 2/3, 1/3 ratio with Davie starting work (say in 2024) on the first 5 prior to Irving starting the next 10. Davie has the physical capacity to work on these ships, while Irving has zero physical capacity to work on the CSC and the existing AOPS (both RCN and CCG) ships that they need to start/complete. 

There really is no other way, unless the Fed's accept that we'll have less than 12 ships of the line in the water in the 2030's into the 2040's as the Halfiax's are retired one by one due to age/structural concerns in the next 13-17yrs.  That will result in Canada being unable to fulfill its stated NATO responsibilities, along with expected NA security requirements/commitments to the Americans. They are getting long in the tooth now. Reducing the number of CSC from 15 to 12 doesn't do anything to move forward the start date of the first ship.  The only way to address that is to either move the construction to a second site or choose another ship (design) and have the construction be done somewhere.  Having the Type 26 built in the UK or Australia is not an option. 

Talk of accepting the FREMM or the Type 31 as the preferred ship again doesn't address the start line being so far away due to Irving's limited physical capacity.  Building the first few ships of the FREMM in France/Italy was taken off the table years earlier and unless the Fed's due a 180% turn on this, its not going to happen.

Davie has the capacity to build more ships that Irving and Seaspan put together, its a fact not a statement.  We are attempting, pitifully, to rebuild the entire RCN and CCG at the sametime and yet we have made little effort today to address the constraints facing the 2 shipyards contracted to build over 30 ships over the upcoming years. Davie was not a viable factor 5+yrs ago but today it is and it must be brought into the fold and allocated ships (preferably some of the CSC) to be built if we are going to have any chance in the next 10-20yrs to address the challenges facing the RCN in the future.

Go ahead now, pick this all apart and say that I have no clue what I'm talking about - but hear me now, if the Canadian Armed Forces and its suppliers (the Irvings, Davie's, etc of the world) don't get their shit together very soon, people like me - who love, respect, value and see the need for a strong, viable Canadian Armed Forces are going to turn their backs and say, to hell with them let's pay the Americans 50-60% of the annual military budget for our 'protection' and be done with it.


----------



## Dale Denton

I agree with Pivo.
This project comes at a bad time, and is too important to federal political strategy to fail, and should have been broken down into 2 projects. Bad time as we have another huge fighter project to buy at the same time, plus with COVID.... I think i've said this before, but cancel 3 CSCs (the last 3 to be built) and create a new AAW project that would follow on from CSC. 

This would reduce the expenses of having a jack-of-all-trades CSC with 12 direct Halifax Class replacements specializing in ASW. 

The 4 Iroquois Class (new) would be AAWs with BMD. Yes, this is costly in the long-run, but as Canadians we do this with everything else (ie infrastructure, literally anything expensive). This would cut the cost of the CSC (saving it) but without the loss to RCN. When selecting the proven, in-service in NATO AAW ship, you'd probably get a new Type 26 variant anyways due to it already being Canadianized. At the very least, it reduces the sticker shock of this project and kicks the can down the road for the next gov't to deal with in 5/10 yrs (something we are world-class at doing).


----------



## YZT580

The cost of the Type 26's is written off over the next 40 years so why on earth is anyone fretting about cutting a couple off the end of the production run.  The figures also include the costs of operating the fleet, depreciation, maintenance, salaries, munitions, oil and paper clips.  The minimum fleet size has been determined as 15.  Cutting that by even one hull will mean increased costs on the other 14 so other than crew salaries and a few extra gallons of paint I doubt that much savings will be realised.  If this programme is continued, sometime around 2035 we will start the process of designing and building the replacement vessels so that the 16th vessel in succession will replace number 1.  Its a good concept so lets not muck it up by fretting about the big number which really isn't so big when divided by 30.


----------



## Good2Golf

YZT580 said:


> The cost of the Type 26's is written off over the next 40 years so why on earth is anyone fretting about cutting a couple off the end of the production run.  The figures also include the costs of operating the fleet, depreciation, maintenance, salaries, munitions, oil and paper clips.  The minimum fleet size has been determined as 15.  Cutting that by even one hull will mean increased costs on the other 14 so other than crew salaries and a few extra gallons of paint I doubt that much savings will be realised.  If this programme is continued, sometime around 2035 we will start the process of designing and building the replacement vessels so that the 16th vessel in succession will replace number 1.  Its a good concept so lets not muck it up by fretting about the big number which really isn't so big when divided by 30.


QFTT

CH-147F procurement cut fleet size from 16 to 15.  Anyone want to take a guess at how much the ISS budget was reduced by? (Hint: Chretien used the same amount when describing how many EH-101s Canada would buy)

The funds were already identified and included within the Defence Investment Plan in Canada’s fiscal framework.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Czech_pivo said:


> Here's my 2 cents as an ill-informed civilian - the CSC goes through with 15 ships but the work is split between Irving and Davie in a 2/3, 1/3 ratio with Davie starting work (say in 2024) on the first 5 prior to Irving starting the next 10. Davie has the physical capacity to work on these ships, while Irving has zero physical capacity to work on the CSC and the existing AOPS (both RCN and CCG) ships that they need to start/complete.
> 
> There really is no other way, unless the Fed's accept that we'll have less than 12 ships of the line in the water in the 2030's into the 2040's as the Halfiax's are retired one by one due to age/structural concerns in the next 13-17yrs.  That will result in Canada being unable to fulfill its stated NATO responsibilities, along with expected NA security requirements/commitments to the Americans. They are getting long in the tooth now. Reducing the number of CSC from 15 to 12 doesn't do anything to move forward the start date of the first ship.  The only way to address that is to either move the construction to a second site or choose another ship (design) and have the construction be done somewhere.  Having the Type 26 built in the UK or Australia is not an option.
> 
> Talk of accepting the FREMM or the Type 31 as the preferred ship again doesn't address the start line being so far away due to Irving's limited physical capacity.  Building the first few ships of the FREMM in France/Italy was taken off the table years earlier and unless the Fed's due a 180% turn on this, its not going to happen.
> 
> Davie has the capacity to build more ships that Irving and Seaspan put together, its a fact not a statement.  We are attempting, pitifully, to rebuild the entire RCN and CCG at the sametime and yet we have made little effort today to address the constraints facing the 2 shipyards contracted to build over 30 ships over the upcoming years. Davie was not a viable factor 5+yrs ago but today it is and it must be brought into the fold and allocated ships (preferably some of the CSC) to be built if we are going to have any chance in the next 10-20yrs to address the challenges facing the RCN in the future.
> 
> Go ahead now, pick this all apart and say that I have no clue what I'm talking about - but hear me now, if the Canadian Armed Forces and its suppliers (the Irvings, Davie's, etc of the world) don't get their shit together very soon, people like me - who love, respect, value and see the need for a strong, viable Canadian Armed Forces are going to turn their backs and say, to hell with them let's pay the Americans 50-60% of the annual military budget for our 'protection' and be done with it.


Sure, all we would have to do would be to secure all the IP and security requirements (which includes a bunch of ITAR and NATO security clearances) for a second yard and company, get Irving to agree to a massive contract change, get Davie to upgrade their facility to support the combat ship build requirements, redo all the production engineering and stand up a second QAR cell (all while translating everything). All while Davie still has yet to actually build a ship from scratch for Canada.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:


> Here's my 2 cents as an ill-informed civilian - the CSC goes through with 15 ships but the work is split between Irving and Davie in a 2/3, 1/3 ratio with Davie starting work (say in 2024) on the first 5 prior to Irving starting the next 10. Davie has the physical capacity to work on these ships, while Irving has zero physical capacity to work on the CSC and the existing AOPS (both RCN and CCG) ships that they need to start/complete.
> 
> There really is no other way, unless the Fed's accept that we'll have less than 12 ships of the line in the water in the 2030's into the 2040's as the Halfiax's are retired one by one due to age/structural concerns in the next 13-17yrs.  That will result in Canada being unable to fulfill its stated NATO responsibilities, along with expected NA security requirements/commitments to the Americans. They are getting long in the tooth now. Reducing the number of CSC from 15 to 12 doesn't do anything to move forward the start date of the first ship.  The only way to address that is to either move the construction to a second site or choose another ship (design) and have the construction be done somewhere.  Having the Type 26 built in the UK or Australia is not an option.
> 
> Talk of accepting the FREMM or the Type 31 as the preferred ship again doesn't address the start line being so far away due to Irving's limited physical capacity.  Building the first few ships of the FREMM in France/Italy was taken off the table years earlier and unless the Fed's due a 180% turn on this, its not going to happen.
> 
> Davie has the capacity to build more ships that Irving and Seaspan put together, its a fact not a statement.  We are attempting, pitifully, to rebuild the entire RCN and CCG at the sametime and yet we have made little effort today to address the constraints facing the 2 shipyards contracted to build over 30 ships over the upcoming years. Davie was not a viable factor 5+yrs ago but today it is and it must be brought into the fold and allocated ships (preferably some of the CSC) to be built if we are going to have any chance in the next 10-20yrs to address the challenges facing the RCN in the future.
> 
> Go ahead now, pick this all apart and say that I have no clue what I'm talking about - but hear me now, if the Canadian Armed Forces and its suppliers (the Irvings, Davie's, etc of the world) don't get their shit together very soon, people like me - who love, respect, value and see the need for a strong, viable Canadian Armed Forces are going to turn their backs and say, to hell with them let's pay the Americans 50-60% of the annual military budget for our 'protection' and be done with it.


and then we are faced with over capacity once the CSC is finished, the other option is that Davie gets contracted to build certain blocks of the ships and then they are moved to Irving. I have no love for Irving, but switching horses or asking Davie to rejig completely is going to cause major delays yet again. Having them do specific blocks, helps remove a political issue and allows Irving to focus on the major blocks. Expect Irving to fight even that tooth and nail.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Navy_Pete said:


> Sure, all we would have to do would be to secure all the IP and security requirements (which includes a bunch of ITAR and NATO security clearances) for a second yard and company, get Irving to agree to a massive contract change, get Davie to upgrade their facility to support the combat ship build requirements, redo all the production engineering and stand up a second QAR cell (all while translating everything). All while Davie still has yet to actually build a ship from scratch for Canada.


None of that seems to be very difficult to be honest - translating into French - don't use that as a reason not to use Davie, this country and its Armed Forces, are a bi-lingual country.  As for the security clearances, I've got no clue on the process or the procedures to do this - but if its already been done for Irving, then a process has already been identified, defined and implemented, so its merely a question of taking what's already been done and applying it to Davie and its employees - nothing needs to be rewritten or redefined, the heavy lifting has been done. 
Concerning Irving, as someone else has stated earlier, you tell them its a matter of National Security, that these ships MUST be commissioned by date X and that's it - if they can't make date X, then we use a second shipyard. 
As for the last statement, does that really matter?  Davie hasn't even been awarded a contract yet to build from the keel up a single ship yet. Irving hadn't built a military ship in over 20+yrs but here they are, building, slowly, the AOPS.  
So what's the alternative - seriously? The RCN doesn't get a CSC in the water for another what, 10-12yrs? Irving hasn't cut steel on the 5th AOPS yet, the 4th one had its keel laid in May of 2019. When you do think they will be in a position to cut steel on the first CSC when they still have 4(!) more AOPS to begin work on, let alone deliver to the RCN and CCG.
Given the existing timelines on the first 4 AOPS, it doesn't look like any synergy has been gained in reducing timelines.  Using these timelines, they'll cut steel on the 5th AOPS in the next 2-4 months (April-June 2021), then the next one 18-22 months after that, so let's say Oct 2022 - Feb 2023. That will be the 6th and final AOPS for the Navy. The 2 AOPS for the CCG won't start until what, June 2024 and then Nov 2025 for the final one. So the first CSC will start somewhere in 2026 and be delivered in 2031-32 to the RCN? 
HMCS Halifax was commissioned on 1992, that would make her basically 39yrs old when she's paid off.....unreal. HMCS Huron has scrapped well before that timeline and the others lasted only a few years longer. With so many of the Halifax class commissioned in a much tighter timeline - all 12 commissioned within 4yrs - how the hell do we expect to launch 15 CSC 1 per year or 1 per every 2yrs when the Halifax's will be a minimum of 39yrs old when you launch (at the current timelines) the first CSC and have 15 to launch? Why does no one address the fact - the fact - that the RCN will shrink in the size and capability during this current approach, the Halifax's will NEVER make it until the 12th CSC is built, let alone the 15th.
In order to maintain, just maintain, 12 ships of the line, a second facility will need to be included in this process. Why does no one talk about this?  Under the above timelines, the RCN will commission the 4th CSC right around the time they pay off the last of the Halifax's - unless we will be be sailing 'ships of the line' over the 50yrs mark - may God protect those serving on them in the North Atlantic during the winter months.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:


> Its never too far in to cancel a contract!  Sea Kings anyone ?


That's true it can be, will it be who knows? I think it would a mistake and not get us ships any faster.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> None of that seems to be very difficult to be honest - translating into French - don't use that as a reason not to use Davie, this country and its Armed Forces, are a bi-lingual country.  As for the security clearances, I've got no clue on the process or the procedures to do this - but if its already been done for Irving, then a process has already been identified, defined and implemented, so its merely a question of taking what's already been done and applying it to Davie and its employees - nothing needs to be rewritten or redefined, the heavy lifting has been done.
> Concerning Irving, as someone else has stated earlier, you tell them its a matter of National Security, that these ships MUST be commissioned by date X and that's it - if they can't make date X, then we use a second shipyard.
> As for the last statement, does that really matter?  Davie hasn't even been awarded a contract yet to build from the keel up a single ship yet. Irving hadn't built a military ship in over 20+yrs but here they are, building, slowly, the AOPS.
> So what's the alternative - seriously? The RCN doesn't get a CSC in the water for another what, 10-12yrs? Irving hasn't cut steel on the 5th AOPS yet, the 4th one had its keel laid in May of 2019. When you do think they will be in a position to cut steel on the first CSC when they still have 4(!) more AOPS to begin work on, let alone deliver to the RCN and CCG.
> Given the existing timelines on the first 4 AOPS, it doesn't look like any synergy has been gained in reducing timelines.  Using these timelines, they'll cut steel on the 5th AOPS in the next 2-4 months (April-June 2021), then the next one 18-22 months after that, so let's say Oct 2022 - Feb 2023. That will be the 6th and final AOPS for the Navy. The 2 AOPS for the CCG won't start until what, June 2024 and then Nov 2025 for the final one. So the first CSC will start somewhere in 2026 and be delivered in 2031-32 to the RCN?
> HMCS Halifax was commissioned on 1992, that would make her basically 39yrs old when she's paid off.....unreal. HMCS Huron has scrapped well before that timeline and the others lasted only a few years longer. With so many of the Halifax class commissioned in a much tighter timeline - all 12 commissioned within 4yrs - how the hell do we expect to launch 15 CSC 1 per year or 1 per every 2yrs when the Halifax's will be a minimum of 39yrs old when you launch (at the current timelines) the first CSC and have 15 to launch? Why does no one address the fact - the fact - that the RCN will shrink in the size and capability during this current approach, the Halifax's will NEVER make it until the 12th CSC is built, let alone the 15th.
> In order to maintain, just maintain, 12 ships of the line, a second facility will need to be included in this process. Why does no one talk about this?  Under the above timelines, the RCN will commission the 4th CSC right around the time they pay off the last of the Halifax's - unless we will be be sailing 'ships of the line' over the 50yrs mark - may God protect those serving on them in the North Atlantic during the winter months.


You are over simplifying what it would take to to switch yards to build a warship. Steel can be cut for the CSC years before its even built just like the UK has done. More than likely 12 ships won't be maintained, I expect some of the worse condition hulls to be paid off and used for parts to support the others in the fleet. The RCN has already acknowledged that the Halifax Class will be maintained longer than expected due to the delays. We won't be sailing the Halifax class over 50 years and stop being melodramatic, we won't be putting our sailors at risk. Davie will be too busy with the CCG guard ships to be in a position to build anything although I expect any day some publicity from Davie stating they they want to help or some sort of unsolicited offer that they're famous for.


----------



## YZT580

And there are lots of small yards excluding Davies that could sub-contract modules just as Seaspan has demonstrated with Heddle.  The difficulty is not with Irving cutting steel, the problem seems to lie in the Canadianized design plus complicating factors (unspecified) that have caused both the Brits and Aussies to go with the longer time line.  From the info available, Irving will start cutting steel on schedule it is the completion date that is being pushed back.  Please correct me if I am wrong


----------



## Navy_Pete

For context to meet the NSS shipyard standards Davie would need about a year or more to do yard infrastructure upgrades, plus multiple ships built to get up to speed on the processes. Both Seaspan and Irving hired experienced experts from a variety of international shipyard to build up that internal capability and are still improving, so it's not trivial.

You are also massively underestimating the security issue and a lot of the other contractual implications though; those kind of things take years to sort out., and we would also be in breach of the original RFP contract to take CSC anywhere other than Irving, so good luck with that.

We're about 4 years of actual buildng into a 20-30 year plan, maybe we should hold the line a bit before panicking? Also all the shipyard support in the world won't speed up our internal f*&kery, so I don't think we should assume that the delays are all Irving.

Sure this can be frustrating from the outside, and not any better on the inside, but there are so many moving pieces involved here really can't judge what is going on from a few headlines (particularly when the journalists really don't have a clue to start with).


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Hoping I can ask a question....

How much of the main hull of the original Type 26 did Canada vary versus the British (and Australian version)?

The key thought being that if they had kept a common hull and propulsion from the original Type 26, Canada and Australia could have piggy backed on top of the British Virtual Prototyping. And where satisfied with that Virtual Prototyping you could conceivably lay keels and start construction of the hull sections while finalizing the final details on the nation-specific superstructures.  

Anyone know?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

They don't build so much from the keel up, but in blocks and it's the piping, conduits, bulkheads, stiffeners and hatches that have to be in specific places. You can start on some pieces using the knowledge gained by the Brits and you can beat discussion are underway to determine what they can start on and others they have to wait as designs and decisions on equipment come in.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Czech_pivo said:


> Any sense on when we'll hear about any updates on the next phase of the CSC programme.  Things have been very quiet as of late, no news for months now.





Underway said:


> They are still nailing down the design approvals and specifications (definition phase). If it isn't completed already, it will be soon.  As soon as that's done I expect there will be a wave of public affairs and Lockheed/BAE released information on the ship and its specifications.



I asked the above question in Feb 2020 and Underway provided information on my question.  So, 12 months later, what has been achieved?

EDIT: This is the latest info posted on the Gov't of Canada website on the status of the project - last updated 2(!)yrs ago - "*February 8, 2019*: Design and design team for Canada’s future surface combatant have been determined and the contracts for this work awarded. The design phase has now started"


----------



## Navy_Pete

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> Hoping I can ask a question....
> 
> How much of the main hull of the original Type 26 did Canada vary versus the British (and Australian version)?
> 
> The key thought being that if they had kept a common hull and propulsion from the original Type 26, Canada and Australia could have piggy backed on top of the British Virtual Prototyping. And where satisfied with that Virtual Prototyping you could conceivably lay keels and start construction of the hull sections while finalizing the final details on the nation-specific superstructures.
> 
> Anyone know?


Not sure on the answer, but probably going to change pretty much nothing about the external bits, with some possible changes around specific pieces of equipment if they select something different.

They probably still have to do a lot of production design regardless; the whole point of modular building is that you fire tune everything for max efficiency of your facility and processes, which is something you do once you set up the detailed design. I'm sure once they get AOPs winding up they can look at starting to build modules at risk if the full design isn't done (like they already did with JSS), but that's still a useful test build to be able to the database on things like the metal defomartion during assembly with the thinner plate.


----------



## childs56

I think PIVO brings forward some really excellent points. Waiting until the 2030's to start replacing the Halifax class ships is to long. We should be getting hulls in the water within 3-4 years max. There are way to many contractual agreements that are one sided to make this anything more then a dismal failure.  Davie ship yards produced a modified Tanker ship to full fil our needs in excellent time. They could have supplied us with another shortly after. But due to politics nothing else they were stood down.  Canada is lacking in the ship building combat ship design ability as they were back in the 1990s when the Halifax class was built. At the time they were looking for ways to keep that from happening again. Well here we are and we are dealing with the same issues.   

As for not being able to run two different ship classes I say that's just hog wash. Old school mentality of if its not my idea I don't like it.  I think between the new Patrol ships, and the new frigates we could split the frigates into two groups, ASW and Surface warfare. Or a mix between the two. We could add a few hulls. That way they could cycle hulls and keep the maintenance  cycle better. 

Staffing would not be such a issue if they actually recruited properly. You might even want to run 2 ships each coast as Reserve ships and hire more reservists to staff them.  Of course someone is going to say that's impossible, they don't have the skills or the ability to do that. They do and they can if they are giving the tasking to do it. 

One can hide behind security requirements all they want. But Davie ship yards does/did maintenance on the CPFs they also built one or two of them if memory is correct, they also built the Tribal class along with doing the modernization of those ships. They have a history of building Navy ships as much as Irving does, their hardships are partly to blame on the government because of the lack of overall program structuring of maintaining  a modern fleet and being forward thinkers.  

 But the liberal government is experts at making  deal that is so costly that it can not go through with out a lot of rework. To only pay more in cancelation costs then the actual project would have been. 

We have the means and the ability's to get hulls into the water in the next 3-4 years maybe sooner if we worked on it bit more effectively. All the smes on here can chime in and say you don't know what your talking about. Probably the same ones who said griffons couldn't and would not fly or be deployed to Afghanistan. 
Canadian Industry can literally  move a mountain in a day if it needs to be done. They just need the requirement to do it.  Heck Alberta could build a fleet of ships and a canal before this project will get off the ground,.


----------



## YZT580

childs56 said:


> I think PIVO brings forward some really excellent points. Waiting until the 2030's to start replacing the Halifax class ships is to long. We should be getting hulls in the water within 3-4 years max. There are way to many contractual agreements that are one sided to make this anything more then a dismal failure.  Davie ship yards produced a modified Tanker ship to full fil our needs in excellent time. They could have supplied us with another shortly after. But due to politics nothing else they were stood down.  Canada is lacking in the ship building combat ship design ability as they were back in the 1990s when the Halifax class was built. At the time they were looking for ways to keep that from happening again. Well here we are and we are dealing with the same issues.
> 
> As for not being able to run two different ship classes I say that's just hog wash. Old school mentality of if its not my idea I don't like it.  I think between the new Patrol ships, and the new frigates we could split the frigates into two groups, ASW and Surface warfare. Or a mix between the two. We could add a few hulls. That way they could cycle hulls and keep the maintenance  cycle better.
> 
> Staffing would not be such a issue if they actually recruited properly. You might even want to run 2 ships each coast as Reserve ships and hire more reservists to staff them.  Of course someone is going to say that's impossible, they don't have the skills or the ability to do that. They do and they can if they are giving the tasking to do it.
> 
> One can hide behind security requirements all they want. But Davie ship yards does/did maintenance on the CPFs they also built one or two of them if memory is correct, they also built the Tribal class along with doing the modernization of those ships. They have a history of building Navy ships as much as Irving does, their hardships are partly to blame on the government because of the lack of overall program structuring of maintaining  a modern fleet and being forward thinkers.
> 
> But the liberal government is experts at making  deal that is so costly that it can not go through with out a lot of rework. To only pay more in cancelation costs then the actual project would have been.
> 
> We have the means and the ability's to get hulls into the water in the next 3-4 years maybe sooner if we worked on it bit more effectively. All the smes on here can chime in and say you don't know what your talking about. Probably the same ones who said griffons couldn't and would not fly or be deployed to Afghanistan.
> Canadian Industry can literally  move a mountain in a day if it needs to be done. They just need the requirement to do it.  Heck Alberta could build a fleet of ships and a canal before this project will get off the ground,.


The only way to get a combat vessel built and accepted in the next 3 to 4 years would be to commission a shipyard that has just completed one to build another one that was identical right down to the last cable run and pipe fitting.  Any change would mean re-design and would add months to the completion date and it would be a ten year old design that has not been updated at all.  The problem is not Irving and God knows I am no fan of theirs, it is a department and a ministry and a government that has done no, nada, zilch in the way of planning since the Halifax's came down the ways.  The new frigates should have been on the drawing boards at that time and kept updated so that when it was time to let the contract the government could have said here is what you are bidding on.  So we are what, 20 years behind where we should be.  We are now playing catch-up and hopefully Trudeau et al won't screw it up by trying to change it in midstream because in the early 30's we will finally start to gain a decent navy once again.

That doesn't mean that we can't speed things along a little bit by, for example, encouraging Irving to farm out significant sub-assemblies so that their floor space is only occupied by the final assembly work but that is working within the system.


----------



## childs56

Its funny because a company such as Irving, Davie or even Seaspan should have been keeping up on designs and such of a surface warfare ship. Especially Irving as they are the "preferred" builder/ advisor on major surface ships for the Canadian Government. Its not like bam we got this info yesterday.  I think it is feasible to put a ship in the water in 3-4 years. We have to be realistic and build a ship off the self for right now, then modify as we go. Taking a ship design, then hacking it to pieces, adding here and there, then changing the overall ship hull design would be harder then just building a ship from scratch.


----------



## Uzlu

childs56 said:


> Its funny because a company such as Irving, Davie or even Seaspan should have been keeping up on designs and such of a surface warfare ship.


It is the Canadian governments that are to blame.  They should have ordered one destroyer or frigate to be built in Canada about every twelve to eighteen months starting with the_ Iroquois_-class destroyers.


childs56 said:


> I think it is feasible to put a ship in the water in 3-4 years.


How?  Please be as specific as possible.


childs56 said:


> We have to be realistic and build a ship off the self for right now, then modify as we go.


The Canadian navy has never settled for off-the-shelf surface warships such as frigates or destroyers.  You might not believe it, but the Canadian navy has VERY high standards for surface warships like destroyers and frigates.  Asking the Royal Canadian Navy to settle for off-the-shelf frigates is like asking Canadian politicians to be competent.  And which yard is going to build off the shelf right now? Which design are you proposing? 


childs56 said:


> Taking a ship design, then hacking it to pieces, adding here and there, then changing the overall ship hull design would be harder then just building a ship from scratch.


I think the surface combatants will probably use the same hull and propulsion machinery as the Type 26 frigates.  But it appears that the rest of the design will probably be very different to the Type 26; this, therefore, will require many years for the detailed design.  I have read that construction will start in 2024.


----------



## Stoker

childs56 said:


> Its funny because a company such as Irving, Davie or even Seaspan should have been keeping up on designs and such of a surface warfare ship. Especially Irving as they are the "preferred" builder/ advisor on major surface ships for the Canadian Government. Its not like bam we got this info yesterday.  I think it is feasible to put a ship in the water in 3-4 years. We have to be realistic and build a ship off the self for right now, then modify as we go. Taking a ship design, then hacking it to pieces, adding here and there, then changing the overall ship hull design would be harder then just building a ship from scratch.


The reason why we took a existing design and "hacked it to pieces" because it didn't meet our requirements. If we built off the shelf we would be still doing the same thing as off the shelf designs are often built expressly for the country who designed it unless it was an export model usually for countries with no shipbuilding capability. 
All three shipyards can build ships, building a high density warship that is so complex as the CSC is beyond the capability of all three yards unless upgrades are made to the yards, and skills expanded. There simply is no shipyard in Canada that can produce a ship even with an existing design in three to four years.


----------



## Stoker

childs56 said:


> I think PIVO brings forward some really excellent points. Waiting until the 2030's to start replacing the Halifax class ships is to long. We should be getting hulls in the water within 3-4 years max. There are way to many contractual agreements that are one sided to make this anything more then a dismal failure.  Davie ship yards produced a modified Tanker ship to full fil our needs in excellent time. They could have supplied us with another shortly after. But due to politics nothing else they were stood down.  Canada is lacking in the ship building combat ship design ability as they were back in the 1990s when the Halifax class was built. At the time they were looking for ways to keep that from happening again. Well here we are and we are dealing with the same issues.


We are took far along in the process to cancel the CSC in my opinion and there are no other options either domestically or foreign to get ships in three to four years. Davie converted a existing hull with a major piece of it being built foreign to be so quick, warships and an actual build a totally different animal. You are correct, we were lacking in building combat ships thus the whole idea of the NSS to develop that domestic capability and maintain it.


childs56 said:


> As for not being able to run two different ship classes I say that's just hog wash. Old school mentality of if its not my idea I don't like it.  I think between the new Patrol ships, and the new frigates we could split the frigates into two groups, ASW and Surface warfare. Or a mix between the two. We could add a few hulls. That way they could cycle hulls and keep the maintenance  cycle better.


Originally there was supposed to be three AAW variants of the type 26 to replace the 280's, it was decided to make all CSC equal and more importantly capable. Building a type 26 and some other class would be more expensive and that's a fact. 


childs56 said:


> Staffing would not be such a issue if they actually recruited properly. You might even want to run 2 ships each coast as Reserve ships and hire more reservists to staff them.  Of course someone is going to say that's impossible, they don't have the skills or the ability to do that. They do and they can if they are giving the tasking to do it.


Agree recruitment should improve, what is your solution because the RCN would love to here from you. Your right I will say that that making a few ships to be crewed by reservists is impossible as the reserves had to stop crewing the Kingston Class because of numbers  and their skill set and mandate will not allow manning large warships period.


childs56 said:


> One can hide behind security requirements all they want. But Davie ship yards does/did maintenance on the CPFs they also built one or two of them if memory is correct, they also built the Tribal class along with doing the modernization of those ships. They have a history of building Navy ships as much as Irving does, their hardships are partly to blame on the government because of the lack of overall program structuring of maintaining  a modern fleet and being forward thinkers.


Nobody is hiding behind anything, its simply the way it is. Yes Davie is doing CPF maintenance on ships that have been stripped of pretty much everything that's confidential. The crew members that now have to travel back and forth Halifax and Quebec exposing themselves to Covid  say hello. All this history that you mention and Davie loves to brag about is not relevant as those workers and that company is long retired and gone. Irving on the other hand did do the midlife extension of the Halifax Class.


childs56 said:


> But the liberal government is experts at making  deal that is so costly that it can not go through with out a lot of rework. To only pay more in cancelation costs then the actual project would have been.
> 
> We have the means and the ability's to get hulls into the water in the next 3-4 years maybe sooner if we worked on it bit more effectively. All the smes on here can chime in and say you don't know what your talking about. Probably the same ones who said griffons couldn't and would not fly or be deployed to Afghanistan.
> Canadian Industry can literally  move a mountain in a day if it needs to be done. They just need the requirement to do it.  Heck Alberta could build a fleet of ships and a canal before this project will get off the ground,.


Again no we cannot get hulls in the water in three to four years and I would love to hear you solution on that.


----------



## YZT580

The lead time on ordering certain bits and pieces is measured in years not months and some of those bits and pieces have to go into some of the first modules.  The steel required for the hull is not your standard Stelco product but requires specific specifications and is made to order: an order that can't be filled by simply picking up the phone and then driving down to the smelter and backing up to the loading dock to pick up your order.  So your start of construction from the day you sign off on the plans and place the order is again measured in months and years.  These are all items that having a programme like the NSS allow you to have on continuous order for delivery according to a specific timetable.


----------



## Swampbuggy

I think if anything were to change overall, it would likely be the number of CSC that get built, rather than how soon we get them. I can see a scenario where it goes from 15 to 10-12 and then decide the KINGSTON replacement be an enhanced OPV/corvette that makes up a little ground on the missing high end units. Something like a Batch 2 River, for example, but maybe using stuff of the CPF's as they get paid off (57, SMART-S etc). But, since the CSC plan is so far along, nothing new can be started, planned and built faster than it. 

My 2 cents...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Batch 2 River Class OPV are nice ships, but your pushing into the territory of the AOP`s , not the CSC. The Kingston's fulfill roles that neither the AOPs or the CSC/Halifax can do properly like mine hunting. The only option would be to lease already built ships that close to the CSC/Halifax to bridge the gap (Can you say Aussie Hornets) 
It's very likely now that the AOP's will take the place of the Halifax's on many duties to reduce wear and tear on them and preserve them for their primary roles. So in hindsight, yes they should have beefed up the armament/combat systems a bit more. Another way Canada can maintain combat power in the meantime is to order some P8's to supplement the Auroras and order new subs from current production lines that have some VLS capability.


----------



## CBH99

childs56 said:


> Its funny because a company such as Irving, Davie or even Seaspan should have been keeping up on designs and such of a surface warfare ship. Especially Irving as they are the "preferred" builder/ advisor on major surface ships for the Canadian Government. Its not like bam we got this info yesterday.  I think it is feasible to put a ship in the water in 3-4 years. We have to be realistic and build a ship off the self for right now, then modify as we go. Taking a ship design, then hacking it to pieces, adding here and there, then changing the overall ship hull design would be harder then just building a ship from scratch.


On the surface, I think most people would agree with you.  If you take a ship that is already designed, and start building the modules tomorrow - there is no reason a ship couldn't be built in 3 or 4 years time.  That timeframe allows for long lead items to be procured such as special building materials, and high end systems to be delivered.

HOWEVER... as others point out, it currently just isn't feasible with any of the yards - for a variety of the reasons stated above.


One thing we need to remember, which someone else pointed out also - is that we are only 3 or 4 years into a 30yr plan.  The NSS isn't just about replacing the federal government's ships, it's about rebuilding an industry & in theory, maintaining that industry into the future.  (Which should have been the case since the beginning, but I digress...)

Something else we need to remember is that we don't know what the political / military landscape will look like when the CSC project is rolling along halfway or near the end of the build cycle.  What does the situation with China look like?  What current conflicts are happening?  Is our economy doing okay, or do we continue to squander every opportunity & therefore don't have much money due to us rejecting job-creating projects?




It is waaayyyyyyy too early to say whether ship numbers will be cut or not.  Let's not panic.  Let's keep plugging away on the Coast Guard ships, the AOPS, and by the time it is time to build the CSC, the design changes will be complete, and it'll plug along too.


----------



## YZT580

One last thing: there is no reason why when work starts on ship number 10 for instance that the order is changed at that time to 12 hulls so that number 13 is the start of the replacement.  The beauty of having one yard doing the work is there should be flexibility in the final product as long as one ship is completed every 12 months or so.  No penalties because there is no cessation of work.  Ordering 4 at a time would permit planning to start work on Type 26 mark 2 as ship 13.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

When Seaspan had an accident with the OFSV's that damaged the rudder, they grabbed the rudder from hull #2 and replaced it, this kept sea trial delays to a minimum and likley they were able to build another rudder for hull #2 with little or no delay to the modules. Hopefully they build and store (properly) a couple of extra rudders, shafts and props for the CSC's.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> The Batch 2 River Class OPV are nice ships, but your pushing into the territory of the AOP`s , not the CSC. The Kingston's fulfill roles that neither the AOPs or the CSC/Halifax can do properly like mine hunting. The only option would be to lease already built ships that close to the CSC/Halifax to bridge the gap (Can you say Aussie Hornets)
> It's very likely now that the AOP's will take the place of the Halifax's on many duties to reduce wear and tear on them and preserve them for their primary roles. So in hindsight, yes they should have beefed up the armament/combat systems a bit more. Another way Canada can maintain combat power in the meantime is to order some P8's to supplement the Auroras and order new subs from current production lines that have some VLS capability.


I agree, but now that mine hunting is being done by unmanned systems, it could be incorporated onto any given platform you choose. 

The issue with using the AOPS in the way that you mentioned, I believe, is with the number of ships that will comprise the class. With only 6 hulls, doing OPV stuff, OP CARIBBE, Africa missions and arctic patrols, they are likely to be very busy already. Start throwing in frigate style duties, they're gonna be getting close to rode hard and put away wet themselves. But, if the inclination was there, when the time came to replace the MCDV, the Navy could go looking for a class in between the AOPS and the frigate. Better armed than the former, but less expensive to operate given less displacement, hull form etc . Also cheaper to operate than a frigate, but more effective in a conflict than the AOPS. 

I suggested the RIVER, but it doesn't have to be that exactly. Something that could make 22kts or so, has a helo pad and comes in around 2000 tonnes would be what I had in mind. Maybe a BECKETT??


----------



## FJAG

Stoker said:


> Agree recruitment should improve, what is your solution because the RCN would love to here from you. Your right I will say that that making a few ships to be crewed by reservists is impossible as the reserves had to stop crewing the Kingston Class because of numbers  and their skill set and mandate will not allow manning large warships period.


And yet we continue to use the same reserve system that has failed us for over half a century.

With 5,000 naval reservists authorized -- assuming a rate of 50% trained to at least DP1 standards -- we ought to be able to crew 10 CSCs or 50 MCDVs with reservists in an emergency. But of course we can't.

They say that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." When will we learn to restructure the system from the ground up and create a viable force that will properly leverage the reserve force to crew selected ships maintained in reserve status for use in an emergency. I'm not saying that we build extra ships for a reserve force, just that we designate a portion of the fleet for reserve status thus reducing wear and tear on individual ships and reducing the anticipated life cycle costs (much of which is made up of personnel costs).

🍻


----------



## dapaterson

Two in eight Canadians are French-Canadian.  One in eight Regular Force sea trades (those managed by the RCN) are French-Canadian.

Enlarge the fleet school establishment in Quebec City to provide more pers support, and move VDQ and MON, and Monton and Shawinigan to be home ported in Quebec City (although most support such as FMF and ammo would remain n Nova Scotia).  Suddenly, French-Canadian sailors and their families can live in their mother tongue.

There.  Just found about a 12% increase to the RCN Reg F hard sea trades (over the next 10 years or so).  Next problem?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

FJAG said:


> And yet we continue to use the same reserve system that has failed us for over half a century.
> 
> With 5,000 naval reservists authorized -- assuming a rate of 50% trained to at least DP1 standards -- we ought to be able to crew 10 CSCs or 50 MCDVs with reservists in an emergency. But of course we can't.
> 
> 🍻



Unfortunately, FJAG, navies are not armies: It is not a pyramid of personnel with a large number of basic trained personnel at the bottom led by a few highly trained senior personnel. DP1 trained personnel makes less than 10% of ship's crew, while technicians that require lot of training compose the core of the crew. It takes seven to ten years to train a maritime engineer to act as the EOOW (Engineering  officer of the watch - basically the person in charge of a steaming watch - who oversees engineers with a specific function who required 3 to 5 years to get there themselves) And that's in the Reg force. Part time, how much time do you think it takes to qualify a reservist?

That's just engineers, but it's the same for most trades, save perhaps (only perhaps) the boatswains. If I have the naval reserve officers available for four good three and a half month summers in a row, they can probably manage, just, to qualify as bridge watch keepers on the frigates, but I would have to have them available for the same amount of time to qualify them for a D level position after that, and even more for the next step (divisional officer position and then coursing leading to a LCDR position other than XO). Basically, it would take a reservist three times the number of years of a  regular force officer to qualify for any similar position, and that is if and only if they are available three to four months a year for military training. 



dapaterson said:


> Two in eight Canadians are French-Canadian.  One in eight Regular Force sea trades (those managed by the RCN) are French-Canadian.
> 
> Enlarge the fleet school establishment in Quebec City to provide more pers support, and move VDQ and MON, and Monton and Shawinigan to be home ported in Quebec City (although most support such as FMF and ammo would remain n Nova Scotia).  Suddenly, French-Canadian sailors and their families can live in their mother tongue.
> 
> There.  Just found about a 12% increase to the RCN Reg F hard sea trades (over the next 10 years or so).  Next problem?



Absolutely agree Dapaterson. Not only that, I personally believe that only when a small group of ships, designated franco units are posted in Quebec will they actually truly be able to operate as franco units. I have been onboard the designated "franco" navy ship and they are simply units of mostly francophones members talking in french amongst themselves but operating by speaking english words to one another, as they do not know proper French naval vocabulary - they never heard it or had it used around them.

Besides, Quebec city already has a perfect place to put such facility: Davie's yard is only using a third, at most, of it's berthing facilities and yard buildings. It's a deal just waiting to be made.


----------



## FJAG

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Unfortunately, FJAG, navies are not armies: It is not a pyramid of personnel with a large number of basic trained personnel at the bottom led by a few highly trained senior personnel. DP1 trained personnel makes less than 10% of ship's crew, while technicians that require lot of training compose the core of the crew. It takes seven to ten years to train a maritime engineer to act as the EOOW (Engineering  officer of the watch - basically the person in charge of a steaming watch - who oversees engineers with a specific function who required 3 to 5 years to get there themselves) And that's in the Reg force. Part time, how much time do you think it takes to qualify a reservist?
> 
> That's just engineers, but it's the same for most trades, save perhaps (only perhaps) the boatswains. If I have the naval reserve officers available for four good three and a half month summers in a row, they can probably manage, just, to qualify as bridge watch keepers on the frigates, but I would have to have them available for the same amount of time to qualify them for a D level position after that, and even more for the next step (divisional officer position and then coursing leading to a LCDR position other than XO). Basically, it would take a reservist three times the number of years of a  regular force officer to qualify for any similar position, and that is if and only if they are available three to four months a year for military training.


Fully understood which is why I said at least 50% at DP1. It's different but not much so in the Army. A little under one half of an artillery regiment of 552 is Cpl/Pte positions and well over half of those would be DP2 so maybe around 20% or less would be just DP 1 qualified. A frigate has an establishment of 216 of which 72 are classed as Cpl/Pte although I have no idea what the breakdown between Cpl and Pte is in that category. (Both, incidentally have an additional  60 and 72 straight Cpl positions respectively)

I do not doubt that there are many technical positions in the Navy but don't undervalue the complexity of the skills needed in the Army either. Running a LAV or tank turret or a counter mortar radar or the electronic systems on an M777 or its fire direction systems or an Air Support Coordination Cell takes a bit of talent as well. The Army tends to do a fairly decent job of reducing such tasks to drills which once practiced sufficiently become second nature - but not all. And let's not forget that it takes some real skills to lead men into hostile fire - and a battalion needs a lot of those guys. Sailors tend to go where the ship goes.

I expect that a reservist winning a slot as a commander of a vessel is probably beyond most of them (although I did know a one with ticket for an MCDV and he was a busy lawyer in civvy life). It's the same for a full-sized, fully equipped artillery regiment (while there are a lot of COs and bty/Coy/Sqn commanders of reserve battalions and regiments, I would think that the vast majority of those would not cut it in the transformed Army that I see either)

I wouldn't expect a full reserve crew for a ship anymore than I see a full reserve infantry battalion or artillery or armoured regiment either. I'm more of a 10/90 guy for the Army or maybe 20/80 guy for a ship.

I know that this is a hobby horse of mine, but I just can't see Canada's military ever being effective until we start cutting full-time manpower so that the very heavy annual personnel costs can be converted to capital procurement and O&M funds. To me there is very little difference in manning ships full-time with reservists the way that the Navy tried to do 15-20 years ago with MCDVs. The cost difference as between a full-time reservist and a full-time regular force member is negligible and just a phony baloney way of circumventing PY limitations. True recurring savings are achieved if both some ships and fully trained reservists are left "in reserve" for major emergencies such as war and only as many ships and crews as needed are staffed full-time for such missions need to be undertaken on a full-time basis. Rotating ships through full use and reserve/maintenance cycles would also save on wear and tear on the hulls and systems not to mention operating costs. 

If Naval reservists could be concentrated where the ships can be tied up: the two coasts, Quebec and maybe some form of craft (maybe MCDVs or even one frigate on the Great Lakes) routine weekend and summer training/maintenance could be undertaken on those "reserve" ships rather than in stone frigates. I know that the US Navy does not do this (although both the US Army has roughly one half of its people and equipment [including aviation) in the ARNG and USAR and the USAF has a substantial amount its people and equipment in USAF reserve and Air NG units)

The problem that our Navy (and Air Force and Army) is going to have to come to grips with sooner than later is that the exorbitant costs of full-time personnel (especially all those in Ottawa) will so undermine the capital acquisition and O&M costs that the capability gap will continue to drop to the point where the whole force becomes incapable of anything but the mildest of conflicts. That's good being wasted.

I truly like what I see in the CSC as a system (the MCDV on the other hand I see as the equivalent of the C3 howitzer - a nice training aid but not a combat vessel. I personally think we need some light combat vessels or at least weaponize the MCDV) What scares me is that when the public (i.e. politicians) looks at the CSC life cycle costs of $219 billion, folks are going to choke. (are already choking). Personally I see the 15 ships as a bare minimum that the country would need for a war. I wonder what the lif-cycle costs would be if seven of those ships were designated for the reserves to be manned at 1/6th the personnel costs over a period of 30 years (together with reduced maintenance costs due to lower sea time per hull. It might be a significantly lower and more palatable number for everyone and still ensure Irving et al keep getting all the requisite Fed funds to build hulls with a purpose.

Honestly OGBD, I think you can do a lot with reservists if one designs the terms of service and training system properly and use them as "break-the glass reserves" and not as people you can yank around whenever the mood strikes the headquarters or when they show up for training whenever they feel like it. With today's system there's no way in hell one can do this.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The MCDV is the vessel that ensures your CSC can leave and enter the harbour safely. Not a sexy role but important. A country could mine our harbours by proxy and it would bring marine trade to a screeching halt till each harbour is deemed cleared. 

I was speaking to the HMCS Discovery recruiting officer recently, interest is definitely increasing due to the economic situation. that being said, prior to Covid, every commercial marine company was screaming for ticketed personal as was the Coast Guard and Transport Canada. 

Looking at HMCS Discovery, situated in one of the most important harbours in Canada, which has no real armed response vessel. I can't think of a port this size anywhere else in the world that has no ability to respond with a military  unit. Give them the mission and a fast armed harbour patrol vessel and you see interest climb.


----------



## FJAG

Colin Parkinson said:


> The MCDV is the vessel that ensures your CSC can leave and enter the harbour safely. Not a sexy role but important. A country could mine our harbours by proxy and it would bring marine trade to a screeching halt till each harbour is deemed cleared.
> 
> I was speaking to the HMCS Discovery recruiting officer recently, interest is definitely increasing due to the economic situation. that being said, prior to Covid, every commercial marine company was screaming for ticketed personal as was the Coast Guard and Transport Canada.
> 
> Looking at HMCS Discovery, situated in one of the most important harbours in Canada, which has no real armed response vessel. I can't think of a port this size anywhere else in the world that has no ability to respond with a military  unit. Give them the mission and a fast armed harbour patrol vessel and you see interest climb.


True to the first. Although if Wikipedia is to be believed we only have a total of two deep mechanical mine sweeping system and one remote mine hunting and disposal system amongst the fleet. Hopefully that's incorrect. On top of that the 40 mm Bofors they came with have been removed.  That somewhat limits their utility. (Not to mention they're a tad slow)

🍻


----------



## Pelorus

While mine clearance is certainly not a bad tool for a navy to have, for the personnel and funding challenges the RCN is facing in the 2020s it's really an superfluous capability for us IMO.

The likelihood of an adversary attempting to mine Halifax or Esquimalt harbours during a modern conflict is incredibly remote. The closest thing you could _possibly_ see would be the approaches to the Strait of Juan de Fuca to interfere with USN submarine operations. This would inconvenience the RCN, but even that is a super distant possibility. The distances involved, the better employment of adversarial submarines with mine-laying capability, and the strengths of modern ASW are all major strikes against this possibility.

The size, endurance and self-defence limitations of the MCDVs more or less preclude them from expeditionary mine clearance ops during wartime, which is where you are most likely to find a requirement for mine clearance in North America.

I don't have any great heartache with the existence of the MCDVs, they serve their purpose as a low-cost way to achieve RCN/GoC domestic and international objectives (e.g. fish pats, Op Caribbe, Tradewinds, etc.), and the capability probably made sense at the time the contract was signed. Short of some revolutionary new direction in warfare that completely changes the maritime battlespace (mass networked transoceanic mine-laying AUVs or something), I cannot see a world where the MCDVs are eventually replaced with another equivalent vessel with mine clearance as its primary design purpose.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

You could have a cargo ship lay mines in the harbour that are activation delayed for months and likley will not be noticed in time. You don't need subs.


----------



## Stoker

FJAG said:


> True to the first. Although if Wikipedia is to be believed we only have a total of two deep mechanical mine sweeping system and one remote mine hunting and disposal system amongst the fleet. Hopefully that's incorrect. On top of that the 40 mm Bofors they came with have been removed.  That somewhat limits their utility. (Not to mention they're a tad slow)
> 
> 🍻


No we divested the mechanical sweep systems some years ago. We operate route survey packages and mine hunting AUV's on both coasts. now. The 40mm was removed because it wasn't supported anymore and we just didn't have a use for it.


----------



## JMCanada

Swampbuggy said:


> I agree, but now that mine hunting is being done by unmanned systems, it could be incorporated onto any given platform you choose.
> 
> The issue with using the AOPS in the way that you mentioned, I believe, is with the number of ships that will comprise the class. With only 6 hulls, doing OPV stuff, OP CARIBBE, Africa missions and arctic patrols, they are likely to be very busy already. (...) when the time came to replace the MCDV, the Navy could go looking for a class in between the AOPS and the frigate. Better armed than the former, but less expensive to operate given less displacement, hull form etc . Also cheaper to operate than a frigate, but more effective in a conflict than the AOPS.
> 
> I suggested the RIVER, but it doesn't have to be that exactly.  (...)



Basically that's the idea behind Type 31 frigate for the Royal Navy. A cheap platform, both to build and operate, with space for unmanned vehicles ( either air, surface or underwater) and future upgrades. It fills the gap between OPVs and Type 26 (city class), lower the crew requirements down to 100-120 and is properly suited for low-intensity scenarios such as antipiracy or antidrug missions.

I'm pretty sure that at some point Canadian government (not this one but in a future) will follow the british path. It could be that they cancel a few of the last CSCs to order instead a number of (maybe 6?) light/medium frigates. Either at Irving or at Davie.

Some arguments or considerations on this are:

don't put all your eggs on the same basket
lower the construction and operation costs
need to increase the numbers of fleet combatants
need to timely replace the Halifax frigates

On the other hand, building the same ship model for years does not fully match the purpose of NSS. It would keep a lot of  jobs (welders, plumbers, purchasing, project management, etc.) but would lose many of those jobs related to design, development, detailed engineering and the like, linked to the first stages of the project, including the know-how for testing and commissioning the first units. 

The CSCs will be impressive in their capabilities, and at this moment, with so much work done, I don't see a good option moving to FREMM as an alternative: canadianizing it would deliver some ship similar to the CSC with further delays and no significant cost reduction.

I maybe naive, but my proposal would be something like...

build a first batch/flight of 3-4 CSCs.
build a second batch of another 3-4 CSCs including upgrades and lessons learnt.
build a third batch of 3-4 AAW CSCs, including ABM capability and increased number of VLS cells. Total number of CSCs: 9 to 12.

In parallel to steps 2-3, a light/medium frigate programe should be started in order to start building the first one while the last CSC is still in progress in the dockyard. But the order might be also swaped and these frigates be delivered in between delivery of the CSCs (like the Royal Navy is doing). It will depend on when the Can. Gov. takes (if it does) the decission.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

There might be another way of making all 15 CSCs palatable.

Canada also has to commit to updating NORAD very shortly. That won’t be cheap, either.

What if we were to pledge a certain amount of CSCs always on station off the coast of North America, dedicated to the NORAD missi9n? With a SPY-7 radar and depending on how you load out the VLS with SM2/3/6 missiles, you have a pretty credible domain awareness tool that can also deal with nearly any air breathing or missile threat from sea level to low earth orbit.

If we were also to commit to buy the land-based version of SPY-7 to recapitalize the NWS, we would have 20-40 sets of that radar in Canada. With that kind of volume, think of the parts/training synergy. We could also tell LockMart that part of the deal is that we assemble and overhaul those radars in Canada. Jobs. Jobs! jobs!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Oh Vey, the RCN version of the weather ships, the CCG had a hard time crewing them due to the boredom of cruising Ocean Station Papa. The land base would be more doable.


----------



## YZT580

off the coast of Labrador in January for a two week patrol.  Do you really hate the navy that much.  A fixed base in Goose with the same weapons system loadout is more palatable and easier to maintain.  Clearing ice off a radar mast at 10 below in a force 5 gale isn't my idea of fun


----------



## SeaKingTacco

YZT580 said:


> off the coast of Labrador in January for a two week patrol.  Do you really hate the navy that much.  A fixed base in Goose with the same weapons system loadout is more palatable and easier to maintain.  Clearing ice off a radar mast at 10 below in a force 5 gale isn't my idea of fun


You don’t have to manually clear ice from a SPY-7. No moving parts. Just heat it.


----------



## YZT580

sorry, just trying to paint a grim picture.


----------



## childs56

The Reserve recruiting issue is one that can be fixed pretty easily. Stop treating them like cannon fodder and give them something to be proud of. Give them a couple surface ships and tell them to crew them. Once they crew them give them a missions. Don's take it away from them and downgrade them to smaller ship.

As for ship building, give South Korea a call, get  a contract under license to build one of their current designs and get the parts ordered and start building. Get rid of our procurement process. 
Since 2008 we have been  working on a ship replacement and we still do not know what we are fully building. Costs have ballooned to the point of absurdity, people are justifying this by saying we are building a industry. Yet those industry's have not done much to help themselves other then to our pocketbooks through the political system.  
Fix the procurement issue and we can have ships being built. 
Using Davies ship yards as an example, they took a container ship and modified it to work for our replenishment needs in short time. 
Do the same with a current model war ship design. Buy the ship add our comms, weapons etc  and build the darn thing. I know its not that simple. But so far we are over a billion dollars into a program and still do not have a finalized build program.

Or just build new Halifax class ships I am sure the plans are sitting around full of dust. As for ordering certain critical parts. Find out what is available and make the order. 
If the East coast cant build it, and the west coast cant build it. Then set up shop in Fort MacMurray and move the components overland to the river down south and out to the ocean to Vancouver and final assembly. barge the component down the river. Sounds far fetched but feasible.


----------



## Stoker

childs56 said:


> The Reserve recruiting issue is one that can be fixed pretty easily. Stop treating them like cannon fodder and give them something to be proud of. Give them a couple surface ships and tell them to crew them. Once they crew them give them a missions. Don's take it away from them and downgrade them to smaller ship.


Cannon Fodder what are you talking about? They were given ships and missions however to the point of burnout and it wasn't sustainable.


childs56 said:


> As for ship building, give South Korea a call, get  a contract under license to build one of their current designs and get the parts ordered and start building. Get rid of our procurement process.


South Korea is great for for tankers, not so much for warships. Its not as easy as you say it is.


childs56 said:


> Since 2008 we have been  working on a ship replacement and we still do not know what we are fully building. Costs have ballooned to the point of absurdity, people are justifying this by saying we are building a industry. Yet those industry's have not done much to help themselves other then to our pocketbooks through the political system.


Sure we do, the design will soon be finalized. Costs have went up because of the delays and the way the ships have been costed out. Yes we are building an industry and more importantly a strategic capability. When you say industry, you mean the dockyard workers, supply chain, services, manufactures etc and the tax gone back into the government coffers?


childs56 said:


> Fix the procurement issue and we can have ships being built.


Yes I agree procurement needs to be improved.


childs56 said:


> Using Davies ship yards as an example, they took a container ship and modified it to work for our replenishment needs in short time.


They did and a major part of it was build overseas


childs56 said:


> Do the same with a current model war ship design. Buy the ship add our comms, weapons etc  and build the darn thing. I know its not that simple. But so far we are over a billion dollars into a program and still do not have a finalized build program.


Your right its not that simple. We want warships but we want warships that meet our requirements, not someone elses.


childs56 said:


> Or just build new Halifax class ships I am sure the plans are sitting around full of dust. As for ordering certain critical parts. Find out what is available and make the order.


Outdated design


childs56 said:


> If the East coast cant build it, and the west coast cant build it. Then set up shop in Fort MacMurray and move the components overland to the river down south and out to the ocean to Vancouver and final assembly. barge the component down the river. Sounds far fetched but feasible.


Your right it is farfetched and would cause costs to increase even more.


----------



## Gorgo

childs56 said:


> Or just build new Halifax class ships I am sure the plans are sitting around full of dust. As for ordering certain critical parts. Find out what is available and make the order.
> If the East coast cant build it, and the west coast cant build it. Then set up shop in Fort MacMurray and move the components overland to the river down south and out to the ocean to Vancouver and final assembly. barge the component down the river. Sounds far fetched but feasible.



There's also the Port Weller Dry Dock in Saint Catharines that's available.


----------



## NavyShooter

The problem with diversifying the fleet platforms and adding a mix of T26 and T31 is the training system costs.  The idea of a 'cheaper' platform is nice, but there's a whole set of second and third order costs associated.  

Training is a part.

Logistics is another - spare parts for the T31 will be (obviously) different from the T26.


----------



## MilEME09

NavyShooter said:


> The problem with diversifying the fleet platforms and adding a mix of T26 and T31 is the training system costs.  The idea of a 'cheaper' platform is nice, but there's a whole set of second and third order costs associated.
> 
> Training is a part.
> 
> Logistics is another - spare parts for the T31 will be (obviously) different from the T26.


People tend to forget logistics, our supply system has been publicly called a colossal mess in recent reports, adding additional supply chains won't help. Our system of supporting our operations needs to be rebuilt, our fleet needs rebuilding, frankly at this point what isn't broken?


----------



## Navy_Pete

MilEME09 said:


> People tend to forget logistics, our supply system has been publicly called a colossal mess in recent reports, adding additional supply chains won't help. Our system of supporting our operations needs to be rebuilt, our fleet needs rebuilding, frankly at this point what isn't broken?


Our ability to add working groups, oversight and invite additional 'key stakeholders' to stick their finger in the defense procurement pie is second to none.

The whole Defence Procurement Strategy is world beating in terms of adding overhead, delays and reporting requirements. Hurray for us?


----------



## JMCanada

NavyShooter said:


> The problem with diversifying the fleet platforms and adding a mix of T26 and T31 is the training system costs.  The idea of a 'cheaper' platform is nice, but there's a whole set of second and third order costs associated.
> 
> Training is a part.
> 
> Logistics is another - spare parts for the T31 will be (obviously) different from the T26.



You are certainly right, however training costs may be offset by far by the reduced costs due to reduced crewing requirements.

Looking to other navies around, most have (or point towards) two or three surface combatants:  UK (3), France (3), Italy (3), Denmark (2), Holland (2), Spain (2), Australia (2),...  Should not be a big issue for the RCN to deal with two classes of combatants (3 if we include the AOPS).

Edited: as pointed out by MilEME09 & Navy_Pete, if there is a failed defense procurement system, then that's the problem to solve, not the number of ship classes.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just going out on a limb here....but is one of the contributing factors to the glacial pace of our procurement that there are too many people.at NDHQ (and the other associated government bureaucracies) that need to stretch out projects to keep themselves busy enough to justify their salaries?  Do things effeciently and effectively and their reward is being identified as redundant and becoming subject to reassignment, with the all the disruption to families that then occurs?

Side question: Are staff at NDHQ and the associated procurement bureaucracies part of the big union that I've been told makes all things in Ottawa so difficult?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> Just going out on a limb here....but is one of the contributing factors to the glacial pace of our procurement that there are too many people.at NDHQ (and the other associated government bureaucracies) that need to stretch out projects to keep themselves busy enough to justify their salaries?  Do things effeciently and effectively and their reward is being identified as redundant and becoming subject to reassignment, with the all the disruption to families that then occurs?
> 
> Side question: Are staff at NDHQ and the associated procurement bureaucracies part of the big union that I've been told makes all things in Ottawa so difficult?


Nope; the project teams in NDHQ is pretty lean. There may be a few that just feed the bureaucracy beast, but that's a necessary evil.

There is a duplication of effort in having multiple departments involved at the executive level(ie PSPC, DND, ISED etc) but everytime there is a news story, it creates churn to feed things up to Ministers. Everytime you get Finance, TBS etc taking potshots at you it creates more churn. And once in a while PCO or someone else chimes in.

Generally speaking DND is the one driving the schedule pretty hard, but with that many DGs, ADMs and Ministers involved, with no one boss, things can stall when you are trying to get things done.

If you are curious here is a brief description of the DPS, but it leaves out a lot of the 'interested parties' that are also involved.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/app-acq/amd-dp/samd-dps/index-eng.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson

In regards to the other departments, there are layers and layers of people who see their only job as "feeding the beast" which is Ministers/Cabinet/Parliament. Often request, approvals, briefing notes slow to a snails pace as each layer tries to pee a bit on each document to justify their existence.


----------



## YZT580

There is no fear in OW of losing one's position.  It is really, really hard to be fired from a bureaucratic sinecure.  The fear is of making a wrong decision and having it show on one's record.  That stops advancement.  Make the wrong choice, apply for another position and the discussion over the table will be all about the screw-up and a thanks but no thanks response.  So decisions are made by committee only and then it is only after several studies, discussions and with expert advice in writing to support the choice.  Eventually, if you are lucky, and if their isn't a change in minister or government, a competition will be let out.  And if your project is really lucky you will be able to sign a contract without appeal and things will progress.


----------



## Good2Golf

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> Just going out on a limb here....but is one of the contributing factors to the glacial pace of our procurement that there are too many people.at NDHQ (and the other associated government bureaucracies) that need to stretch out projects to keep themselves busy enough to justify their salaries?  Do things effeciently and effectively and their reward is being identified as redundant and becoming subject to reassignment, with the all the disruption to families that then occurs?
> 
> Side question: Are staff at NDHQ and the associated procurement bureaucracies part of the big union that I've been told makes all things in Ottawa so difficult?


That is reading significantly more into procurement difficulties than exists, particularly a desire by project staff to not progress substantively less they be cast aside and have to fend for their families elsewhere. The biggest issue IMO is the process.  Throughout the government (not just DND), true stewardship and appropriate resource governance is lacking, in their place is process that senior mandarins and politicians alike pat themselves on the back for implementing, believing that they are treating ‘with great care and accountability’ that which is the taxpayers’ treasure...DPS ‘briefs well’ in the Four Corners, but doesn’t materially improve expenditure effectiveness and efficiency.  Everyone has experienced things differently (an ongoing theme, and certainly one popular with today’s federal government), but I have seen deliberate throttling of effort and resource, controlled by the GoC’s central agencies, that place actual establishment of (Defence and I have to assume similarly other Departments) capability pretty far down the list of things to achieve with taxpayer monies.  Processes and briefing decks and meetings in the whole and minutes from such said meetings can’t ever replace progress supported by leaders who hold themselves accountable first and foremost, as opposed to bureaucrats working the system as the have been inculcated to do, where process is not analogous to progress.  While they have their issues and inefficiencies, the Departments get on with things as best as they are allowed to by the system that takes its orders quite often from those around those elected to do so.  ‘Yes, Minister’ wasn’t just a reality show about British government, but was/is still pretty applicable to how many first world countries’ governments work.


----------



## childs56

Stoker said:


> Cannon Fodder what are you talking about? They were given ships and missions however to the point of burnout and it wasn't sustainable.


The Regular Force is burned out also. Op tempos need to be sustainable. with your man power. You increase man power by offering more then a dribble of the process. Hey Reserves were going to give you these small ships,  were going to give you a mission of Coastal security,/ mine clearance. Only provide you with one or two mine systems between twelve ships Then we are going to mount a 40mm on the front and have you sail over to Africa and provide support to a coastal mission over there. But the cool jobs were going to keep for the Full time sailors. 


Stoker said:


> South Korea is great for for tankers, not so much for warships. Its not as easy as you say it is.


Thats laughable, I assume Korea's build of _HDD-10000 Aegis Destroyer,HDD-5000 Stealth Destroyer,  HDS-1800AIP Submarine,HDF-4000 Multi-Purpose Frigate,HDF-3000 Multi-Purpose Frigate,HDF-2500 Multi-Purpose Frigate,HDL-7000 Landing Ship, Tank,HDM-4000 Mine Laying Ship,HDT-5500 Training Vessel,HDA-23000 Logistics Support Vessel,HDA-23000 Logistics Support Vessel and they are working on a light carrier. _




Stoker said:


> Sure we do, the design will soon be finalized. Costs have went up because of the delays and the way the ships have been costed out. Yes we are building an industry and more importantly a strategic capability. When you say industry, you mean the dockyard workers, supply chain, services, manufactures etc and the tax gone back into the government coffers?


We already have a ship building industry. They failed to provide a level of service to provide up to date service. 


Stoker said:


> Yes I agree procurement needs to be improved.
> 
> They did and a major part of it was build overseas
> 
> Your right its not that simple. We want warships but we want warships that meet our requirements, not someone elses.


By the time they modify the type 26 to fit Canadian requirements, they minds well of built a ship from the keel up. It pretty much will be a whole different design. 


Stoker said:


> Outdated design
> 
> Your right it is farfetched and would cause costs to increase even more.


----------



## YZT580

Correction:  we HAD a ship-building industry that for 30 years we failed to utilize, in fact, the yard closed when the last ship was launched because there was no NSS.  Whatever you may think of the additional costs and delays and frustrations, we desperately need the jobs here.


----------



## Uzlu

If it is better to order frigates from foreign countries than to build them in Canada, which countries do this?  Which countries had an ability to build their own frigates, decided it was better to have them built in foreign countries, and no longer builds their own frigates?  I do not know of even one country that gave up their ability to build their own frigates in order to have them built by foreign countries.  Spend tens of billions of dollars to support a foreign country’s shipbuilding industry instead of Canada’s shipbuilding industry?  Good luck with that one.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Uzlu said:


> If it is better to order frigates from foreign countries than to build them in Canada, which countries do this?  Which countries had an ability to build their own frigates, decided it was better to have them built in foreign countries, and no longer builds their own frigates?  I do not know of even one country that gave up their ability to build their own frigates in order to have them built by foreign countries.  Spend tens of billions of dollars to support a foreign country’s shipbuilding industry instead of Canada’s shipbuilding industry?  Good luck with that one.


As an aside, EVERY SINGLE TIME this comes up within government, it actively slows down the current process as we engage in yet another round of navel gazing (har har punny) and put off decisions while we 'gather data'. Usually results in a number of third party studies, internal work and the conclusion that there are a lot of tangible benefits to building ships in Canada. The only people that benefit are the consultants, and honestly even they get tired of rehashing the same thing to prove repeatedly why pretty much every G20 country builds their own warships.

There is a really good reason we've had a 'Build in Canada' policy since the 60s, and it allows for exceptions where it doesn't make sense, but no one was able to make that case for the 280s, MCDVs, ORCAS, CPFs etc, and it still doesn't make sense for CSC. You would think after 60 years of a proven approach that people would stop fighting it so hard, but when we look at this every time we build something, and still come to the same conclusion every time, maybe we have a clue what we're talking about?

Honestly have thought about getting into politics and taking a run at being an MP just to call out the various factions within the GoC that keep throwing up barriers based on BS assumptions and a total lack of understanding of shipbuilding who know better than DND, CCG and numerous international third parties.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Because it's really all about themselves and feeling important and having power. The end result is meaningless to them as they will not be around and no one they know will serve on them.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Yeah, it was really frustrating. Not really sure of a fix; I think a standalone defence procurement ministry would at least have a single boss and executive chain, but it really takes someone with enough clout to stand up to the various mandarins at TBS and FIN and the like that enjoy cutting your knees out when they have no skin in the game for the program output.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can't say that a "Bastille day" for TBS didn't cross my mind on occasion, along with some French Revolutionary justice.


----------



## CBH99

Quick question.  And I apologize if it’s been asked upthread.  Hoping someone here in the know can help answer this.  

What Canadian “modifications” are going into our CSC, compared to the British version and the Australian version?  And why does it require a redesign that seems to be a pretty heavy undertaking?

I’m not asking in a critical way.  Genuinely curious.  

One of the reasons I thought we were only looking at ships in service with another country was specifically so we could get a design & start building when their slot came up.  (I understand that they will be ready to build when their slot comes up after the AOPS)

But what is it about “our” version of the Type 26 that requires all this design work?   Or is this normal, and the Aussies had to do something similar?


----------



## Weinie

CBH99 said:


> Quick question.  And I apologize if it’s been asked upthread.  Hoping someone here in the know can help answer this.
> 
> What Canadian “modifications” are going into our CSC, compared to the British version and the Australian version?  And why does it require a redesign that seems to be a pretty heavy undertaking?
> 
> I’m not asking in a critical way.  Genuinely curious.
> 
> One of the reasons I thought we were only looking at ships in service with another country was specifically so we could get a design & start building when their slot came up.  (I understand that they will be ready to build when their slot comes up after the AOPS)
> 
> But what is it about “our” version of the Type 26 that requires all this design work?   Or is this normal, and the Aussies had to do something similar?


Although many folks on here will likely chime in, the main differences I can see (and that will be domestically contracted/procured) are radars, armaments, propulsion system, comms systems, multi-mission bays, as well as (of course) the helo that will fly off them, which may increase costs. As well, ASW and AAW versions require different configs. Once all of those have been determined, it may change size/tonnage, which can increase/decrease cost.

The link below gives a fairly thorough breakdown of each countries requirements/aspirations. Bear in mind that some info is dated.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_26_frigate


----------



## CBH99

I've realized as the threads for CSC and AOPS have progressed how little I know about shipbuilding, as I've never really been exposed to the industry, and my only exposure to ship is "Oooohhhh, coooool" as I see one when travelling.

Here I thought we could just pick what radar we wanted, weapons capabilities, etc - plug it all into a central 'combat management system', and boom.  Canadianized.  

If only things were that simple...


----------



## dapaterson

Systems integration with RCAF ASW assets will be a significant cost.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Some are simple things; for example the UK uses 220 V 50 Hz for domestic power, so we may have to change over our power outlets for the normal plugs (assuming that's what they went with, but think that's typical for European designs) so we can just plug in things like laptops, vacuums, whatever.

Also, if we have any domestic regulations for environmental considerations or similar that may need to tweak some things. Not aware of anything, but that's the kind of thing they are looking out for.

Overall it will probably look basically the same, with maybe minor differences visible on the mast for different equipment selection, but you still need to make sure all the fiddly bits can fit in the box, and route the cabling, open the cabinets, and everything else that comes with that.

And for Colin, totally sympathize with wanting to storm the TBS. I was joking with my wife that we should make tshirts for the four bureaucratic horseman of the apocalypse for Public service week; there was some debate but we landed on TBS, PSPC, FIN and INAC (or whatever they are called) as the candidates.


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:


> Systems integration with RCAF ASW assets will be a significant cost.


But that's what I'm curious about.  It doesn't matter what radar each country picks, it will need cabling and connecting.  Same with weapon systems, etc etc.

I guess maybe a different way to ask this is... are we spending more time & money 'designing' our version of the Type 26 compared to Australia or the UK?  

Are we doing anything substantially different with ours, that would cause us to spend more time & money to 'design' our unique version?  

Or is the design work we are doing similar to what Australia and the UK have had to do, albeit with the systems we chose?


----------



## Weinie

CBH99 said:


> But that's what I'm curious about. * It doesn't matter what radar each country picks,* it will need cabling and connecting.  Same with weapon systems, etc etc.
> 
> I guess maybe a different way to ask this is... are we spending more time & money 'designing' our version of the Type 26 compared to Australia or the UK?
> 
> Are we doing anything substantially different with ours, that would cause us to spend more time & money to 'design' our unique version?
> 
> Or is the design work we are doing similar to what Australia and the UK have had to do, albeit with the systems we chose?


Actually, it does, because each radar has a different weight/height which then messes with the load distribution below it, and hence config. Same with weapons systems.

Think of a canoe, and how you optimally load it. You can compensate, but only so much before you either get wet, or can't carry all the shyte you need to get to your campsite.


----------



## dapaterson

The easy part of integration is hardware.  The hard part is software.  "Standards compliant" is  always subject to interpretations of the standard by each vendor that are almost but not quite the same, merging and fusing the data.


----------



## Fabius

Out of pure curiosity what makes it more important or critical to build our own warships or at least large aspects of a warship than let’s say fighter aircraft, transport aircraft, main battle tanks or artillery? 
If there are strategic military reasons they would apply across all systems would it not? 
If it’s about jobs and dollars then is it driven more by political imperatives than strategic imperatives? 
Do the answers matter? 
Canada has really only deliberately, consistently and effectively maintained a completely indigenous small arms manufacturing capacity. Everything else has eroded significantly or disappeared and that has been accepted. Why not warship construction? 
I think the answers to those questions is why skepticism about the ship building programs comes up consistently.


----------



## Weinie

Fabius said:


> Out of pure curiosity what makes it more important or critical to build our own warships or at least large aspects of a warship than let’s say fighter aircraft, transport aircraft, main battle tanks or artillery?
> If there are strategic military reasons they would apply across all systems would it not?
> If it’s about jobs and dollars then is it driven more by political imperatives than strategic imperatives?
> Do the answers matter?
> Canada has really only deliberately, consistently and effectively maintained a completely indigenous small arms manufacturing capacity. Everything else has eroded significantly or disappeared and that has been accepted. Why not warship construction?
> *I think the answers to those questions is why skepticism about the ship building programs comes up consistently.*


I think the dollars involved, and the internecine squabbling that goes in within GoC departments over the allocation of the federal budget, is likely the foundation of the contrived/controlled skepticism.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> Yeah, it was really frustrating. Not really sure of a fix; I think a standalone defence procurement ministry would at least have a single boss and executive chain, but it really takes someone with enough clout to stand up to the various mandarins at TBS and FIN and the like that enjoy cutting your knees out when they have no skin in the game for the program output.


That’s assuming TBS and FIN aren’t acting on orders from PMO.....sorry....I meant...PCO...


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> That’s assuming TBS and FIN aren’t acting on orders from PMO.....sorry....I meant...PCO...


If we could build green energy powered frigates, with non-collateral damage missiles, that ate carbon as they sailed, and cleaned the ocean, shared across all three major shipyards (and eight or more other current GoC initiatives) we would have the largest Navy in the world.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> If we could build green energy powered frigates, with non-collateral damage missiles, that ate carbon as they sailed, and cleaned the ocean, shared across all three major shipyards (and eight or more other current GoC initiatives) we would have the largest Navy in the world.


You forgot made GBA+ friendly steel...


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> You forgot made GBA+ friendly steel...


That may or may not have been included in the other 8 initiatives


----------



## Uzlu

Fabius said:


> Out of pure curiosity what makes it more important or critical to build our own warships or at least large aspects of a warship than let’s say fighter aircraft, transport aircraft, main battle tanks or artillery?
> If there are strategic military reasons they would apply across all systems would it not?
> If it’s about jobs and dollars then is it driven more by political imperatives than strategic imperatives?
> Do the answers matter?
> Canada has really only deliberately, consistently and effectively maintained a completely indigenous small arms manufacturing capacity. Everything else has eroded significantly or disappeared and that has been accepted. Why not warship construction?
> I think the answers to those questions is why skepticism about the ship building programs comes up consistently.


Forbes: Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies

It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it is Canada. Take the savings and pay ex-shipyard workers Employment Insurance for 10 years. 

This would, of course, close every shipyard capable of building large ships in Canada – all three of them. Why did nobody think of it before?

Well, they have, and for decades the idea has been rejected by every type of government. Because it is not just the shipyards that would lose business, but hundreds of small, medium and large businesses across the country. Businesses that not only provide such things as steel and copper, but that produce products ranging from anchors to the integration of combat systems. Does anyone remember the hundreds of businesses that suffered when the Avro Arrow was cancelled in 1959?

But the most important loss would be the loss of intellectual property (IP) that would go along with such an idea.

Intellectual property belongs to those who design the millions of things that go into a modern warship. This IP would belong to those offshore companies who designed the ship and it systems. We have already seen an inkling of this problem with the current attempt to buy offshore designs for the Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). Several countries and their shipyards have balked at the requirement for Canada to have access to the IP of their proposed designs.

But why is this IP important? It is primarily because it limits the amount of maintenance and modification that Canada can carry out. Without the IP, you cannot fix anything, you cannot modify anything and you cannot sell your technology to other countries. It would mean that we would have to send the ships back to their parent shipyards for dockings and other essential work. It would mean that maintenance of any ship systems, from main engines to combat systems, could only be done by the holders of the IP.  It would mean little or no work for Canadian workers on any of these systems.

But surely we could buy the IP from the selling shipyard? Well, that would also mean buying it from every IP holder who has equipment on the ship. And it would cost us billions, many of those billions we might also have to put toward payment of ex-employees. This is a sellers’ market and Canada would have very little leverage to acquire IP for minimal cost.

To those who argue the point: It is just not that simple to buy all our warships offshore.

_Gordon Forbes, LCDR (ret’d), has been involved in the naval procurement business for the most part of 38 years, both in the Navy and in the defence industry. He lives in Orléans._









						Forbes: Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies
					

It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it…




					ottawacitizen.com
				



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London.

“Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said.

“The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven’t given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added.









						An ocean apart: Few naval vendors manage to pierce US and European protectionism
					

When it comes to shipbuilding, the two trans-Atlantic allies mostly keep to themselves.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Navy_Pete

Fabius said:


> Out of pure curiosity what makes it more important or critical to build our own warships or at least large aspects of a warship than let’s say fighter aircraft, transport aircraft, main battle tanks or artillery?
> If there are strategic military reasons they would apply across all systems would it not?
> If it’s about jobs and dollars then is it driven more by political imperatives than strategic imperatives?
> Do the answers matter?
> Canada has really only deliberately, consistently and effectively maintained a completely indigenous small arms manufacturing capacity. Everything else has eroded significantly or disappeared and that has been accepted. Why not warship construction?
> I think the answers to those questions is why skepticism about the ship building programs comes up consistently.


Probably has to do with the level of manufacturing involved with each unit, and that there isn't an OEM. Nothing about building a ship is rocket surgery or proprietary, and there isn't any particular super specialty equipment that is required, but you can keep a couple thousand people working for a few years on every single ship, and the same skill set can transfer over to building non-military ships.

Not to say that it's easy, or doesn't require skills to do well, but every country on water already has shipyards of some sort, so it's probably a natural one to keep in house as it's not really a new capability. Big things like aircraft carriers or landing ships would be more specialized, and subs are a totally different beast, but when you look at the portion of any shipbuilding expense that goes towards labour, and than do some back of the napkin kinds of calculations, it's hard to argue against economic benefits of doing it in your own country. We already had the shipyard facilities, they were just modernized. The hardest part has been building the experience back up after not doing it so long. But if any of the waterfront shipyards had been sold for condos or whatever, it would probably be gone forever.

We do build LAVs here though, and the GoC has been supporting Bombardier, the automakers and other industries for generations, so why should we push shipbuilding offshore if we can do it here?


----------



## MilEME09

Navy_Pete said:


> We do build LAVs here though, and the GoC has been supporting Bombardier, the automakers and other industries for generations, so why should we push shipbuilding offshore if we can do it here?


The key will be to sustain the industry long term which is a goal of the NSPS, while this first round of ships may be expensive, in theory as our industry gets more experienced, we can upgrade ships yards, build things faster, etc...


----------



## Fabius

It’s interesting to think about. I suspect the sheer dollar value and the lack of an actual OEM to a degree,  answer the desire to build in Canada best. 
In my opinion while all the other reasons are totally valid they apply equally to other Defense programs that we are perfectly content to buy offshore.

IP not a unique concern solely for ships.

Strategic manufacturing capability and broad economic impacts across sectors . 100% valid, but why did we let it lapse (twice I believe) if this is a true strategic concern vs political votes/ bureaucratic infighting issue and will this time be different? I hope so but as others have said we are 4 yrs into a 30 yr program.


Edited to add: I think it is a strategic concern or at least should be although I am not convinced that the Canadian Government and all political parties understand what that means and are willing to act accordingly.  AKA not allowing another 15-20 year gap.


----------



## childs56

Uzlu said:


> Forbes: Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies
> 
> It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it is Canada. Take the savings and pay ex-shipyard workers Employment Insurance for 10 years.





Uzlu said:


> This would, of course, close every shipyard capable of building large ships in Canada – all three of them. Why did nobody think of it before?


Its funny how those ship yards have been open for business for all these years. They open, they close its cyclic.  As for going to foreign warship dealer, that's exactly what we have done. Except we are modifying the heck out of a current hull and adding so much stuff we minds well start from scratch and build a truly made and designed in Canada approach, kind of like we did with the Halifax class ships. 


Uzlu said:


> Well, they have, and for decades the idea has been rejected by every type of government. Because it is not just the shipyards that would lose business, but hundreds of small, medium and large businesses across the country. Businesses that not only provide such things as steel and copper, but that produce products ranging from anchors to the integration of combat systems. Does anyone remember the hundreds of businesses that suffered when the Avro Arrow was cancelled in 1959?
> 
> But the most important loss would be the loss of intellectual property (IP) that would go along with such an idea.


The only way to have IP is to design and build from the bottom up. Which we are not doing, again we are taking a current design, modifying it and trying to make it work.   
Maybe we need to build a new Halifax class ship, modify it to fit what equipment we need and build it , sail it and be the envy of the worlds Navies with a high tech piece of equipment.  Or we take a current foreign design, hack and slash it, then hope it works.  We have had 20plus years to design and build a made in Canada ship again. We failed. With Forbes talking1 about IP loss, we already loss. 


Uzlu said:


> Intellectual property belongs to those who design the millions of things that go into a modern warship. This IP would belong to those offshore companies who designed the ship and it systems. We have already seen an inkling of this problem with the current attempt to buy offshore designs for the Navy’s Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC). Several countries and their shipyards have balked at the requirement for Canada to have access to the IP of their proposed designs.
> 
> But why is this IP important? It is primarily because it limits the amount of maintenance and modification that Canada can carry out. Without the IP, you cannot fix anything, you cannot modify anything and you cannot sell your technology to other countries. It would mean that we would have to send the ships back to their parent shipyards for dockings and other essential work. It would mean that maintenance of any ship systems, from main engines to combat systems, could only be done by the holders of the IP.  It would mean little or no work for Canadian workers on any of these systems.
> 
> But surely we could buy the IP from the selling shipyard? Well, that would also mean buying it from every IP holder who has equipment on the ship. And it would cost us billions, many of those billions we might also have to put toward payment of ex-employees. This is a sellers’ market and Canada would have very little leverage to acquire IP for minimal cost.
> 
> To those who argue the point: It is just not that simple to buy all our warships offshore.
> 
> _Gordon Forbes, LCDR (ret’d), has been involved in the naval procurement business for the most part of 38 years, both in the Navy and in the defence industry. He lives in Orléans._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Forbes: Here's why we can't buy our warships from foreign companies
> 
> 
> It is so simple, according to some: Just go out to your foreign new warship dealer and buy the warship of your dreams for billions less than you can build it…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ottawacitizen.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Barring missile launchers and the Aegis combat management system, U.S. firms have not grabbed a large slice of naval work in Europe, and no change is on the horizon, according to Peter Roberts, director of military sciences at the Royal United Services Institute in London.
> 
> “Warships are historically linked to national power, and if you stop building them you are no longer seen as a great power — you are at the bidding of others,” Roberts said.
> 
> “The Spanish, the British, the French — they haven’t given up shipbuilding, even if they were better off buying off the shelf, and we are unlikely to see a reduction of yards in Europe,” he added.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An ocean apart: Few naval vendors manage to pierce US and European protectionism
> 
> 
> When it comes to shipbuilding, the two trans-Atlantic allies mostly keep to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


----------



## blacktriangle

Navy_Pete said:


> Honestly have thought about getting into politics and taking a run at being an MP just to call out the various factions within the GoC that keep throwing up barriers based on BS assumptions and a total lack of understanding of shipbuilding who know better than DND, CCG and numerous international third parties.


From your posts, you seem too decent to get into politics. I'm sure LM has something for you...


----------



## Halifax Tar

The fact we keep going back to yards like Irving and expecting a quality product is the problem.  And its what causes the howls from people like me to buy off shore.  

I don't give a crap about an industry and jobs that produce for me equipment that cost too much with shoddy workmanship and quality.  If we had an industry that had a value beyond vote generating I could buy into this.


----------



## Uzlu

childs56 said:


> Its funny how those ship yards have been open for business for all these years. They open, they close its cyclic.


The National Shipbuilding Strategy was established to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycles.


childs56 said:


> As for going to foreign warship dealer, that's exactly what we have done. Except we are modifying the heck out of a current hull and adding so much stuff we minds well start from scratch and build a truly made and designed in Canada approach, kind of like we did with the Halifax class ships.


We could.  Except it would take more time and be a lot more expensive.  And there have been individuals complaining about the delays and price—individuals like you.


childs56 said:


> Maybe we need to build a new Halifax class ship, modify it to fit what equipment we need and build it , sail it and be the envy of the worlds Navies with a high tech piece of equipment.  Or we take a current foreign design, hack and slash it, then hope it works.


The _Halifax_-class frigate is an old design—way too old to try to update and derive a new design from.  We are already taking a current foreign design—the Type 26 frigate—and using that as a basis for a new design.


----------



## CBH99

Navy_Pete said:


> Probably has to do with the level of manufacturing involved with each unit, and that there isn't an OEM. Nothing about building a ship is rocket surgery or proprietary, and there isn't any particular super specialty equipment that is required, but you can keep a couple thousand people working for a few years on every single ship, and the same skill set can transfer over to building non-military ships.
> 
> Not to say that it's easy, or doesn't require skills to do well, but every country on water already has shipyards of some sort, so it's probably a natural one to keep in house as it's not really a new capability. Big things like aircraft carriers or landing ships would be more specialized, and subs are a totally different beast, but when you look at the portion of any shipbuilding expense that goes towards labour, and than do some back of the napkin kinds of calculations, it's hard to argue against economic benefits of doing it in your own country. We already had the shipyard facilities, they were just modernized. The hardest part has been building the experience back up after not doing it so long. But if any of the waterfront shipyards had been sold for condos or whatever, it would probably be gone forever.
> 
> We do build LAVs here though, and the GoC has been supporting Bombardier, the automakers and other industries for generations, so why should we push shipbuilding offshore if we can do it here?


This last part was actually the subject of a different thread, way back yonder.  Or at least it seems like it was.

You bring up a good point, and one that I don’t know the details of.  (Every province, and the federal government, have some kind of assistance to businesses in that province.)

When we look at GD and the LAV’s, Bell Textron, Bombardier, etc - all of these businesses produce quality products.  And yet all of them - with the exception of Bell - rely on government bailouts or government orders.  (I’m thinking of these in the Canadian context, even though GD & Bell are obviously international.)

Despite them all producing quality products, they still don’t seem to “stand out” on the world stage in terms of competitiveness.  Why is this?

Is it poor leadership at the corporate level? Government kneecapping, like what JT did to Bell with the Philippines helicopter purchase?  Other countries having access to their own GD, Bell, etc etc factories?

(sorry for thread derail.  I’ll try to dig up the old thread and continue it there)


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:


> This last part was actually the subject of a different thread, way back yonder.  Or at least it seems like it was.
> 
> You bring up a good point, and one that I don’t know the details of.  (Every province, and the federal government, have some kind of assistance to businesses in that province.)
> 
> When we look at GD and the LAV’s, Bell Textron, Bombardier, etc - all of these businesses produce quality products.  And yet all of them - with the exception of Bell - rely on government bailouts or government orders.  (I’m thinking of these in the Canadian context, even though GD & Bell are obviously international.)
> 
> Despite them all producing quality products, they still don’t seem to “stand out” on the world stage in terms of competitiveness.  Why is this?
> 
> Is it poor leadership at the corporate level? Government kneecapping, like what JT did to Bell with the Philippines helicopter purchase?  Other countries having access to their own GD, Bell, etc etc factories?
> 
> (sorry for thread derail.  I’ll try to dig up the old thread and continue it there)


I think a lot of it is that a lot of countries also want to support domestic production for their own equipment, and a lot of the ones that don't overlap with our restricted weapons dealing list, so the list for possible foreign buyers is pretty small (in real terms).

Not sure about LAVs, helos etc but at least with ships you have a decent chance to export the design to recoup some of that investment;. Best case is that licensed designs use the same equipment, which is great for having a bigger user pool for finding/troubleshooting problems, but presumably supports the supply chain. Even if that doesn't directly benefit manufacturing or suppliers in your country there are a lot of in service benefits. for supportability.

Kind of a weird point made in the article above about IP; the IP agreements to license everything is a big effort, but we're not 'generating' any IP that we'll own free and clear that we could resell.  I don't think it's necessarily much faster to license a design, but customizing it with different equipment definitely needs a much smaller team compared to a 'from scratch' design. At least this one is a current design so we're not having to make major changes to meet updates to SOLAS.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> I think a lot of it is that a lot of countries also want to support domestic production for their own equipment, and a lot of the ones that don't overlap with our restricted weapons dealing list, so the list for possible foreign buyers is pretty small (in real terms).
> 
> *Not sure about LAVs, helos etc but at least with ships you have a decent chance to export the design to recoup some of that investment;.* Best case is that licensed designs use the same equipment, which is great for having a bigger user pool for finding/troubleshooting problems, but presumably supports the supply chain. Even if that doesn't directly benefit manufacturing or suppliers in your country there are a lot of in service benefits. for supportability.
> 
> Kind of a weird point made in the article above about IP; the IP agreements to license everything is a big effort, but we're not 'generating' any IP that we'll own free and clear that we could resell.  I don't think it's necessarily much faster to license a design, but customizing it with different equipment definitely needs a much smaller team compared to a 'from scratch' design. At least this one is a current design so we're not having to make major changes to meet updates to SOLAS.



We continually use this as support for our shipbuilding and never in the history of Canadian ship building has another country looked at our finished Naval product and bought the design.

LAVs I do believe have been copied and used by a few countries.








						LAV III - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:


> Quick question.  And I apologize if it’s been asked upthread.  Hoping someone here in the know can help answer this.
> 
> What Canadian “modifications” are going into our CSC, compared to the British version and the Australian version?  And why does it require a redesign that seems to be a pretty heavy undertaking?
> 
> I’m not asking in a critical way.  Genuinely curious.
> 
> One of the reasons I thought we were only looking at ships in service with another country was specifically so we could get a design & start building when their slot came up.  (I understand that they will be ready to build when their slot comes up after the AOPS)
> 
> But what is it about “our” version of the Type 26 that requires all this design work?   Or is this normal, and the Aussies had to do something similar?


A lot more than you might think.

Outfitting and furnishing - different suppliers of beds, lockers, phones, desks, lights, safes, ammo lockers, light switches, coat hangers, chairs, tables etc... all require different layouts and organization within a space.  Each room has everything planned and placed exactly.

Communications - this is massive.  Every computer, radio, phone (sound-powered, regular phone line, external phone lines), internet port/hub/switch/server, crypto, PA system (different supplier), ship to shore connections, wi-fi.
-the other big thing here is EMCON and EMSEC which is very very critical and because the equipment is different will require testing and certification to US/Canadian standards, 
-as the equipment is different the footprint in the spaces and power requirements are likely different, EMSEC and EMCON may require rerouting of cable or even physical changes to the ship design for security zones (can't be having wi-fi in a security zone, or any leaky signals)

Integrated Topside design - uptakes and down takes for ventilation/engines, satcom, HF UHF VHF -antennas/receivers, radars (multiple navigation, surveillance, fire control, helicopter control), ECM, EO/IR, fire arcs, weapons placement, boats, safety attachments, new mast design.  All these things need to be placed for optimal coverage to do their job with minimal blind spots and no interference from each other electromagnetically.  There are tradeoffs as not everything can be mounted on the prime spots on the very top of the mast.  They spend 3 years designing the masts on the Halifax class and still got it wrong (if there ever was a right answer).
-add to this all of this equipment will be different (aside from the uptakes/downtakes) than the UK because of different suppliers and different requirements

Weapons - more VLS than any other version of this ship, the 127mm might be an Italian vice BAE, using different torp launchers/type than either other version which means a different handling system, magazine racking design/placement, launcher

Helicopter - RCAF flight deck management system, flight safety equipment, furnishing and equipment to service the aircraft - there is a lot of stuff here that is specific to our aircraft

Bridge and navigation - different suppliers so the entire bridge will be redesigned to match our navigation systems/consoles, positions on the bridge, equipment stored on the bridge (lockers etc...), communication devices, chairs, life-saving equipment, binoculars

Fire fighting/damage control - all different Canadian standard equipment for all the "non-fitted systems", different suppliers of pumps, and perhaps other equipment

So many more things (haven't even touched on galley, crew spaces, ballistic protection, ship weight changes, etc...).

_TL/DR:  a giant crapload of stuff because of different suppliers and critical equipment/regulation requirements_


----------



## Rifleman62

I am going by memory here. Many years ago, read a book about Canada's war in the Atlantic. It stated that the Brits were pulling their Corvettes out of service for modifications such as the "wet" forecastle, but MacKenzie King refused to do so. Apparently the Cdn built radar didn't work, froze solid in weather , and other mods needed. King wanted to play politics with a large Navy contribution. 
King lied to the Cdn people re the Quebec Conference. He was not a member, but insured he was in the photo op with Churchill/Roosevelt by driving around and around the Chateau Laurier hotel until the conference was over. Typical Liberal.


----------



## CBH99

Rifleman62 said:


> I am going by memory here. Many years ago, read a book about Canada's war in the Atlantic. It stated that the Brits were pulling their Corvettes out of service for modifications such as the "wet" forecastle, but MacKenzie King refused to do so. Apparently the Cdn built radar didn't work, froze solid in weather , and other mods needed. King wanted to play politics with a large Navy contribution.
> King lied to the Cdn people re the Quebec Conference. He was not a member, but insured he was in the photo op with Churchill/Roosevelt by driving around and around the Chateau Laurier hotel until the conference was over. Typical Liberal.


Rifleman, usually I read your posts and they make perfect sense.  I'm lost on this one?


----------



## Rifleman62

North Atlantic Run: The Royal Canadian Navy and the Battle for the Convoys - By Marc Milner (1985)​Milner focuses primarily on the series of bitter and tragic battles fought by the RCN in the mid-Atlantic during the latter half of 1942. Events of those six months constituted the crisis of Canada's naval war. The fall-out from this crisis, its impact on the operational deployment of the fleet, and the *violent upheaval it caused it Ottawa are key parts of the story*. The drama at sea was played out against a backgroup of bitter controversy at home, as the navy struggled to balance its operational commitments with the urgent need to confront and defeat a deadly enemy.


----------



## Rifleman62

My point was even during a major war, the Liberals were playing politics with our war effort and procurement for the military was one of the victims. Quebec Conference was just another example of Liberalease.


----------



## Weinie

Rifleman62 said:


> North Atlantic Run: The Royal Canadian Navy and the Battle for the Convoys - By Marc _Milner_ (1985)​Milner focuses primarily on the series of bitter and tragic battles fought by the RCN in the mid-Atlantic during the latter half of 1942. Events of those six months constituted the crisis of Canada's naval war. The fall-out from this crisis, its impact on the operational deployment of the fleet, and the *violent upheaval it caused it Ottawa are key parts of the story*. The drama at sea was played out against a backgroup of bitter controversy at home, as the navy struggled to balance its operational commitments with the urgent need to confront and defeat a deadly enemy.


Is he the guy that MilNet is named after?


----------



## childs56

Uzlu said:


> The National Shipbuilding Strategy was established to eliminate the boom-and-bust cycles.


Back when the Halifax ships were built we had a ship building strategy. It failed. 


Uzlu said:


> We could.  Except it would take more time and be a lot more expensive.  And there have been individuals complaining about the delays and price—individuals like you.
> 
> The _Halifax_-class frigate is an old design—way too old to try to update and derive a new design from.  We are already taking a current foreign design—the Type 26 frigate—and using that as a basis for a new design.


The Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer is just as old as our Halifax class ships. They are still going strong, mods have been done and they are building new ones.  Part of a ship building strategy is to build a ship that you can modify and build, then use it to build the next class off, the Halifax class was built with lots of spare room to modify and add in the future. Yet here we are again 30 years later modifying a perfectly fine ship that we do not have any experience with so we can "Canadianize" it. It has nothing to share with the Halifax class ships we currently owned, designed and built. In my opinion we should build a light frigate such as the Halifax class and we should build a heavy Frigate/ Destroyer such as the Type 26/ Arleigh burke. Two classes of ships that we can run side by side that compliment each other.


----------



## childs56

Halifax Tar said:


> LAVs I do believe have been copied and used by a few countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LAV III - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org





Halifax Tar said:


> We continually use this as support for our shipbuilding and never in the history of Canadian ship building has another country looked at our finished Naval product and bought the design.
> 
> LAVs I do believe have been copied and used by a few countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LAV III - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org


During WW2 other countries used our Corvette design.  In Modern times our ships are to specific for others to buy them. If we cant offer a alternative to Canadian Opsec equipment installed then why would another country buy the ship. Then the costs and the long delivery times have another effect.  Canada amazed many countries with our Halifax class ships, of the overall capability of the ship. Yet we failed to gain any sales of the ship because most Navies run a ASW platform, a separate AAW ship. We built a all in one ship with little alternatives and we would not budge off the design for others. Then we through in Opsec and that turned other countries off. Not to mention we wanted them to build them here. 
Our ship yards couldn't produce ships fast enough or cheap enough to compete with the major ship builders around the world. Now South Korea has the second largest ship yard in the world. Add to this they now build Naval ships of various classes. It makes for a hard market to break into for outside sales. We were behind 8 ball already.

Look at the APOS, we didn't design a new class of ship. All we did was modify a current style and Canadianize it at a cost.  Spooled up a ship yard that may shut down in a couple years when this build is finished. We do not have a big enough market to keep things going. Nor do countries want to buy a over priced ship they can get an equivalent of for a lower cost.


----------



## Halifax Tar

The Flower Class Corvette was not our design.  It was British which we took and built as well.









						Flower-class corvette - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Canada has designed some excellent postwar ships, the DDE's , the 280's, the Halifax's and the Kingston's.  None of these ships were born out of ether, they all took elements from other designs around the world at the time of their build. What we are doing with the CSC is actually building closer to a current design than before. However ever modification and use of different equipment causes a ripple of new design challenges. If cooling pipes or power couplings are on different ends, that requires rerouting piping and cabling, that may for design changes in the adjacent compartments. Also you try to incorporate lessons learned fro others working on the same design.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Halifax Tar said:


> We continually use this as support for our shipbuilding and never in the history of Canadian ship building has another country looked at our finished Naval product and bought the design.
> 
> LAVs I do believe have been copied and used by a few countries.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LAV III - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org



A reminder that "LAVs" are not an original Canadian item.  Starting with AVGPs (6 wheelers) in the 70s, it was a MOWAG (Swiss company) designed vehicle.  Even the upgrades to 8 wheel variants (Bisons, LAVIII) were based on the MOWAG Piranha platform.  And in the ensuing years all those companies designing and building these vehicles have been bought up and are now divisions of General Dynamics.


----------



## Underway

childs56 said:


> Back when the Halifax ships were built we had a ship building strategy. It failed.
> 
> The Arleigh Burke-class Destroyer is just as old as our Halifax class ships. They are still going strong, mods have been done and they are building new ones.  Part of a ship building strategy is to build a ship that you can modify and build, then use it to build the next class off, the Halifax class was built with lots of spare room to modify and add in the future. Yet here we are again 30 years later modifying a perfectly fine ship that we do not have any experience with so we can "Canadianize" it. It has nothing to share with the Halifax class ships we currently owned, designed and built. In my opinion we should build a light frigate such as the Halifax class and we should build a heavy Frigate/ Destroyer such as the Type 26/ Arleigh burke. Two classes of ships that we can run side by side that compliment each other.



Arleight Burke Flight III is a completely different ship than I and II flights.   Flight I doesn't even have a flight deck, is 5000 tons lighter (give or take) and smaller by some meters in all dimensions.  That's like saying a Toyota Carola from 1995 is the same car as one that came off the line yesterday.
The US has always done evolutionary design in their military procurement instead of revolutionary design.  They can afford to do it.  Most other nations cannot.

As far as NSPS it's succeeding fairly well.  Its first main goal has been achieved.  Rebuilding Canada's shipyards, improving Canada's industrial capacity, provide jobs to Canadians, develop Canadian technologies.  The second goal is ongoing.  Using those shipyards to rebuild the fleets.  You can argue whether it's worth the cost or the timeframes involved are relevant but never forget the main goal has already been achieved.

As for fleet mix, we will be doing exactly like you said.  The Halifax class will be operating with CSC for at least 10 years.  And as far as what the fleet will look like after CSC is done building perhaps that light frigate may be in that build, or maybe all navies will irrelevant due to hypersonic space based missiles and insane submarine threats.  It will be 2045 by then.


----------



## childs56

Underway said:


> Arleight Burke Flight III is a completely different ship than I and II flights.   Flight I doesn't even have a flight deck, is 5000 tons lighter (give or take) and smaller by some meters in all dimensions.  That's like saying a Toyota Carola from 1995 is the same car as one that came off the line yesterday.
> The US has always done evolutionary design in their military procurement instead of revolutionary design.  They can afford to do it.  Most other nations cannot.


The Halifax class was suppose to be the beginning of a class of ship that would be modified and built upon for the future. As soon as we have ships sailing we forget their replacement. We should be building a class of ship that has future potential also with room for expansion. But we only look to the next day and not the next year. 


Underway said:


> As far as NSPS it's succeeding fairly well.  Its first main goal has been achieved.  Rebuilding Canada's shipyards, improving Canada's industrial capacity, provide jobs to Canadians, develop Canadian technologies.  The second goal is ongoing.  Using those shipyards to rebuild the fleets.  You can argue whether it's worth the cost or the timeframes involved are relevant but never forget the main goal has already been achieved.


Our ship yards did not need billions of government dollars to be rebuilt. They need to find a way to be competitive on the world scale.  That involves getting sales for their offerings. 
As for the main goal. The main goal is for Canada to get the best warship for the best price. Any other spin offs are secondary to that goal. I do not mind putting money into industry, but usually industry has a benefit that they can sustain themselves afterwards. This will not be the case, we stepped into the game to late. The only customer for their product is Canada. If they could show a further benefit beyond the initial purchase it would be pretty awesome. But like the majority of Industries out East they will take the money and ask for more. 
The West Coast was hurting, but that's part the workers fault, part yard size and part management. The long term vision has to be more then just supplying us war ships. Otherwise we need to look at if the costs are worth the results. To many Canadians it is not. 

My comment earlier on about building ship modules in Fort Mac sounds absurd, but it most definitely  is doable. Heck they build whole plants in modules and ship them via truck, barge and ship. We have lots of experienced welders and mod yards that could use the work.  


Underway said:


> As for fleet mix, we will be doing exactly like you said.  The Halifax class will be operating with CSC for at least 10 years.  And as far as what the fleet will look like after CSC is done building perhaps that light frigate may be in that build, or maybe all navies will irrelevant due to hypersonic space based missiles and insane submarine threats.  It will be 2045 by then.


----------



## Underway

childs56 said:


> The Halifax class was suppose to be the beginning of a class of ship that would be modified and built upon for the future. As soon as we have ships sailing we forget their replacement. We should be building a class of ship that has future potential also with room for expansion. But we only look to the next day and not the next year.


Again, we're doing this.  What do you think the CSC is?  It's built with room for future improvement.  The NSPS is literally trying to fix the errors of the past.  You're complaining about the past while ignoring what's actually happening.



childs56 said:


> Our ship yards did not need billions of government dollars to be rebuilt. They need to find a way to be competitive on the world scale.  That involves getting sales for their offerings.
> As for the main goal. The main goal is for Canada to get the best warship for the best price. Any other spin offs are secondary to that goal. I do not mind putting money into industry, but usually industry has a benefit that they can sustain themselves afterwards. This will not be the case, we stepped into the game to late. The only customer for their product is Canada. If they could show a further benefit beyond the initial purchase it would be pretty awesome.


No.  Rebuilding an atrophied Canadian industry is the main goal of NSPS.  They literally did need a large contract to get going.  Guaranteed money so they could expand and hire.

The plan has never ever been the best ship for the best price.  If that was the case, we would have bought foreign, damn the IP or Canadian jobs. 

As for sustaining themselves afterward, no idea. Getting ships for the RCN and Coast Guard are byproducts.  As far as internationally competitive, shipbuilding is a strategic industry, like Colt Canada and our ammunition manufacturing.  It's irrelevant if all the shipyards get foreign contracts.  They likely won't outside of a few things. Other countries are far more aggressive in their yard subsidization than we are (France, Korea, US etc...), so ships will likely be built in those places instead.  But that's the dream.  We'll see if there is a recapitalization in international fleets after COVID.  Right now they are scrapping perfectly good new ships because of the economics of COVID.  There might be a rebound.



> But like the majority of Industries out East they will take the money and ask for more.



Ah, now I understand your posts so much better.


----------



## Good2Golf

childs56 said:


> My comment earlier on about building ship modules in Fort Mac sounds absurd, but it most definitely  is doable. Heck they build whole plants in modules and ship them via truck, barge and ship. We have lots of experienced welders and mod yards that could use the work.


...or the welders and fabricators could, you know, travel to the shipyards and work there so we didn’t have to ship tens of thousands of tons of truck-transportable micro modules from pretty much the geographically furthest point in Canada to get to an oceanic haulage route.

What happened to the part where you (incorrectly) said the main aim was to provide the best capability for the lowest price?   Seems like shipping all the metal to Fort McMurray, then have non-marine welders bang out a few thousand micro locks of ship, then ship the thousands of micro modules thousands of kilometers to where they’ll be assembled is a great way to inefficiently spend the taxpayers’ money.


----------



## childs56

Good2Golf said:


> ...or the welders and fabricators could, you know, travel to the shipyards and work there so we didn’t have to ship tens of thousands of tons of truck-transportable micro modules from pretty much the geographically furthest point in Canada to get to an oceanic haulage route.


Alberta isn't that geographically far from a coast.  They shipped huge modules and gigantic  Reactors to Fort McMurtry from the West Coast. Its funny when you put your mind to something how it can happen. 


Good2Golf said:


> What happened to the part where you (incorrectly) said the main aim was to provide the best capability for the lowest price?   Seems like shipping all the metal to Fort McMurray, then have non-marine welders bang out a few thousand micro locks of ship, then ship the thousands of micro modules thousands of kilometers to where they’ll be assembled is a great way to inefficiently spend the taxpayers’ money.


I know more then a few welders who have travelled to both coasts for work. They are not impressed by the work asked of and conducted by. But of course its a learning curve.


----------



## childs56

Underway said:


> Again, we're doing this.  What do you think the CSC is?  It's built with room for future improvement.  The NSPS is literally trying to fix the errors of the past.  You're complaining about the past while ignoring what's actually happening.


Again we did that with the Halifax class and look where that ended up. What's actually happening is we are spending money on a process to prop up a poorly run company that will keep their hands out asking for more.  


Underway said:


> No.  Rebuilding an atrophied Canadian industry is the main goal of NSPS.  They literally did need a large contract to get going.  Guaranteed money so they could expand and hire.
> 
> The plan has never ever been the best ship for the best price.  If that was the case, we would have bought foreign, damn the IP or Canadian jobs.


Actually that is always the goal. Be fiscally responsible for the best equipment. 


Underway said:


> As for sustaining themselves afterward, no idea. Getting ships for the RCN and Coast Guard are byproducts.  As far as internationally competitive, shipbuilding is a strategic industry, like Colt Canada and our ammunition manufacturing.  It's irrelevant if all the shipyards get foreign contracts.  They likely won't outside of a few things. Other countries are far more aggressive in their yard subsidization than we are (France, Korea, US etc...), so ships will likely be built in those places instead.  But that's the dream.  We'll see if there is a recapitalization in international fleets after COVID.  Right now they are scrapping perfectly good new ships because of the economics of COVID.  There might be a rebound.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, now I understand your posts so much better.


I understand that Eastern Canada gets gobs of money to prop op failing industry's that rely on government money to stay running,. In doing so we get screwed over for getting the best deal.  I am all for government funding to get going, when the program is  double close to triple the cost of other similar programs one has to wonder, besides the assembly of the ship, what specialties services are we really providing. 

If we take a company like Kelowna Flight Craft, they built a reputation of being good at aircraft electronics. They have expanded to provide much larger levels of service. They used government funding to get there. But they do not constantly have their hand out to stay open. Where a few industries out East constantly have their hands out for cash. It usually ends up in the CEOs pocket and not back into the program to create work. 
This project is going to cost billions more then they are saying. Because once Irving Ship Yards spend all the money up front they will require more to keep going. The same crap they pulled with the Halifax Class.  
It will be interesting to see. I hope we get a well built ship.


----------



## dapaterson

childs56 said:


> Because once Irving Ship Yards spend all the money up front they will require more to keep going. The same crap they pulled with the Halifax Class.
> It will be interesting to see. I hope we get* a *well built ship.



Well, at least you understand how the scoping exercise will end... with a ship, singular.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The main problem with the NSPS is it was started 20 years to late, The CSC based on the Type 26 will bring significantly more capability to the RCN, not to mention extra tonnage and deck space for future systems, plus we will be working with the UK and Australia and perhaps others to tweak the design and future improvements.
As for the west coast shipyards, so far as I am aware they are the only one to get a foreign naval contract out of all the other shipyards. The West Coast has been busy with Cruise ship upgrades and other commercial work. The smaller yards have been expanding as well. In fact the shipyards also worked on specialised welding of components for the mini-hydro project that have been popular out here, among other non ships stuff.


----------



## Good2Golf

childs56 said:


> If we take a company like Kelowna Flight Craft, they built a reputation of being good at aircraft electronics. They have expanded to provide much larger levels of service. They used government funding to get there. But they do not constantly have their hand out to stay open.


 
ummmm....KF literally gets tens of millions of dollars a year directly from the federal government on a repeating, multi-year contract.  They don’t need to have a hand open for cash, just their bank account open to deposit the cash! 😆


----------



## Fabius

I know I keep saying this but I am highly sceptical that NSPS will result in ongoing builds and cease the boom bust approach. There are three things that I think speak to an alarming mindset that will potentially guarantee overall failure even if CSC is a a resounding success as a class. 

1. Ongoing discussion of CS needing to be capable of future growth as a platform. I understand this to be mid life refits. If NSPS is to work there needs to be design and build post hull #15.

2. The decision to not take up Davie on the offer of a 2nd Astrix. To me an indicator of a “we already have one, why would we build another”mindset. Not in line with the purported objective of NSPS and yes I get that Davie was not party to the initial plan.

3. Lack of strategic planning for the replacement of the sub fleet. Ack that this will be done offshore likely and that there is a plan to keep them current out to the 2030s. That’s not far away though and it’s again indicating a mindset that doesn’t match NSPS in my opinion. 

Based on these items I am not seeing actions that match the words used to describe the objective of NSPS.


----------



## Good2Golf

childs56 said:


> Alberta isn't that geographically far from a coast.  They shipped huge modules and gigantic  Reactors to Fort McMurtry from the West Coast. Its funny when you put your mind to something how it can happen.



Yeah, it is...

1,200km to up to 1,800km from a major coast...one would be hard-pressed to find a place in Canada geographically further from a cost as you suggest where ship modules should be built.

Maps don’t lie...


----------



## dapaterson

The F35 has proven the business model of widely dispersed manufacturing for overpriced pieces of military equipment.


----------



## MilEME09

Here's another angle, how much of the cost increases are because of the cost of raw materials? Our steel industry is not what it used to be for example. I will go out on a limb and say most of the steel for the CSCs will come from outside the country.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A little humour from when the Halifax's were new


----------



## childs56

Good2Golf said:


> Yeah, it is...
> 
> 1,200km to up to 1,800km from a major coast...one would be hard-pressed to find a place in Canada geographically further from a cost as you suggest where ship modules should be built.
> 
> Maps don’t lie...











						Suncor Voyageur Heavy Transport and Heavy Lift Project | Western
					

Suncor Energy recovers bitumen ore from oil sands and upgrades it to refinery ready feedstock and diesel fuel near Fort McMurray, Alberta. Suncor Energy took part in the ‘Voyageur‘ upgrade, part of a planned $20.6 billion oil sands expansion, with an expected additional 100,000 barrels of oil...




					www.westernmechanical.net
				











						Kearl Oil Sands Module Transport - Foss Maritime Company, LLC
					

Foss Maritime successfully delivered 155 Korean-built modules in support of the Kearl Oil Sands project near Fort McMurray, Alberta – one of Canada’s largest open-pit mining operations.




					www.foss.com


----------



## Good2Golf

And the incremental cost for that transport as opposed to manufacturing in location would make the project cheaper?

Again, what happened to your assertion that the aim is to build at the lowest price?


----------



## childs56

Good2Golf said:


> And the incremental cost for that transport as opposed to manufacturing in location would make the project cheaper?
> 
> Again, what happened to your assertion that the aim is to build at the lowest price?


You would be surprised what the cost could be. Similar to its cheaper to get product built overseas even though it has to be shipped across the ocean. 
What I am getting at is the program can be better served to look at all options of building, all suppliers. Irving was hoping to get a lot of welders who gained experience in the Oil/gas fields of Western Canada back. Maybe get a return of a East coast work force. That has sort of happened. They are plagued with work force issues. Tells me a few things about working for them. I have a few friends who do. 
The other issue is the lack of any progressive planning until the final hour by the builder who is our premier builder of warships. They did little to no planning for the new ships until given billions of dollars to do so. I would have thought they would have a design team in constant design phase. Not much was offered. 
The Government did the same thing. They are in panic mode now because the Halifax ships are supposedly at the end of their life. But they will sail for another 10 plus years. Because they have to. The delay the Liberals have caused along with Irving ship yards could be detrimental to our forward projection of Sea power. I guess we can send a APOS to patrol the Med, or the Gulf as part of our NATO commitment. 

It will be interesting to see the new industry spin offs and the actual dollars spent in Canada for this project. Especially with the contracts signed with BAE Canada and LM Canada.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Would it not be better if the government handled shipyard upgrades in a separate transaction from the ships themselves?  Perhaps using BDC or Industry Canada, provide low interest loans for that specific process?  Then when DND is ordering ships, they in fact are just paying for the ships, and not the upgrade to the shipyards too? Such a process should work better for DND and taxpayers.  The only winners in the current procurement model appears to be the shipyard owners who get their yards upgraded for free by DND (with no associated debt or equity dilution) just so they can actually build what they're bidding on.


----------



## Navy_Pete

childs56 said:


> This project is going to cost billions more then they are saying. Because once Irving Ship Yards spend all the money up front they will require more to keep going. The same crap they pulled with the Halifax Class.
> It will be interesting to see. I hope we get a well built ship.


? That's not at all what happened with the Halifax Class builds; the hours and costs followed a pretty standard learning curve and the last ship was kicked out under budget. Not really sure what you are talking about with that, but suggest you give the hyperbole a rest unless you come with actual data to back it up and not use rumour mill BS as proof.

We've been beating the crap out of a the CPFs for a while, not doing the 1st and 2nd line PM, then when the huge DWP scope comes up, not doing a lot of it. I got to take over a ship that had zero arising work approved from a DWP that only did the planned work; that's insanely unlikely, and not a result of some kind of magic pre-DWP survey program that could see through to the inside of piping or underneath paint. It would be the equivalent to dragging a car out of a back field that hadn't run in decades, dropping in a new battery, fresh fuel and getting a show ready classic car after a quick wash. It may look okay, but probably held together by bondo and luck.

Sure, Irving has done some crappy work. So has FMF, SS, outside contractors etc. Some people will always do crappy work, which is why QC inspections, test and trials etc exist. I have had some bad dealings with them on the business side, but their work isn't overall any better/worse then elsewhere as long as the politicians don't interfere with us enforcing the QC and contractual issues.

The DWP yards aren't the reason the CPFs are in rough shape though ; we've been neglecting maintenance on them since day 1, and a 30 years butchers bill can get pretty big when we drive them like rentals. The west coast has a smaller fleet with a higher comparable resource base, so it's easier to manage and get the in service work done, and they are still having significant issues despite having the better shipyard for DWPs.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> Would it not be better if the government handled shipyard upgrades in a separate transaction from the ships themselves?  Perhaps using BDC or Industry Canada, provide low interest loans for that specific process?  Then when DND is ordering ships, they in fact are just paying for the ships, and not the upgrade to the shipyards too? Such a process should work better for DND and taxpayers.  The only winners in the current procurement model appears to be the shipyard owners who get their yards upgraded for free by DND (with no associated debt or equity dilution) just so they can actually build what they're bidding on.


The shipyard upgrades were paid for upfront by the shipyards with some guarantees that they would get the value of work packages in the RFP. Sure, DND and CCG will pay them for the work, including profit, which indirectly is what paid for the upgrades but there is no 'guaranteed profit' in the contract. So if they lose money or break even on the builds and don't recoup the upgrade costs, that's on them. Having them pay for the upgrades gave them skin in the game to do a better job to pay the upgrades back (which was totally undercut by the forgivable pronvincial loan from NS, but that was an unexpected loophole they found).

Material costs are pretty fixed with transparent markups, so the best way for them to make big profits is to quote on the work at a reasonable level of effort, then get efficient enough to be at/below that level of effort. That means eliminating rework, coordinating work packages tightly so you aren't wasting people's time waiting for another shop, and generally doing all the other things they should be doing to be an competitive shipyard.

So if they do a good job and build the ships efficiently, then they make money, and get a good reputation, with possibility for more work. If they convince us to overpay and do a crap job, they make money but it's a one time shot. If they do a crap job but we don't overpay then they also lose money.

It's like when you get a quote from a mechanic; there is a standard labour quote for a specific jobs plus parts. If it takes them longer, that's their problem, but if they get it done quicker that's money in their pocket. Way more complex to figure out if the labour quote is reasonable, but basically the same idea.

We're also a massively pain in the ass customer. Personally I wouldn't get into a long term business relationship and invest in infrastructure without some guarantees and cancellation penalties either.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

There is no way for them to go to the money lenders and say "yea Canada promises they buy X number of ships from us if we upgrade, can we get the money to upgrade please?" and the banks will laugh and say "A Canadian government promise won't buy you a coffee around here". Seaspan has already had one contract yanked from them for an icebreaker.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> There is no way for them to go to the money lenders and say "yea Canada promises they buy X number of ships from us if we upgrade, can we get the money to upgrade please?" and the banks will laugh and say "A Canadian government promise won't buy you a coffee around here". Seaspan has already had one contract yanked from them for an icebreaker.


Yeah, that's why the 'backstop guarantee' was built into the contract. The gist of it was released publically, but basically Canada agreed to provide some pro-rated payback if we cancelled work (without replacement of equivalent value) so they had a chance to earn money and back back the lenders. It was up to the full value of their shipyard upgrades (which we had previously vetted as meeting their 'Target State' upgrades for NSS).

Ian Mack had explained it much better than I could in one of his articles. Makes sense to me though; it's just a cancellation clause tied that we 'pay down' by awarding them contracts under the NSS.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Major paper from Naval Association of Canada defending CSCs:



> THE NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING STRATEGY AND THE CANADIAN SURFACE COMBATANT
> 
> 
> https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CSC-Report-NAC-Feb-2021-LR.pdf



Mark Collins


----------



## Weinie

MarkOttawa said:


> Major paper from Naval Association of Canada defending CSCs:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Collins


Thanks Mark. Good article for context.


----------



## childs56

Navy_Pete said:


> ? That's not at all what happened with the Halifax Class builds; the hours and costs followed a pretty standard learning curve and the last ship was kicked out under budget. Not really sure what you are talking about with that, but suggest you give the hyperbole a rest unless you come with actual data to back it up and not use rumour mill BS as proof.
> 
> We've been beating the crap out of a the CPFs for a while, not doing the 1st and 2nd line PM, then when the huge DWP scope comes up, not doing a lot of it. I got to take over a ship that had zero arising work approved from a DWP that only did the planned work; that's insanely unlikely, and not a result of some kind of magic pre-DWP survey program that could see through to the inside of piping or underneath paint. It would be the equivalent to dragging a car out of a back field that hadn't run in decades, dropping in a new battery, fresh fuel and getting a show ready classic car after a quick wash. It may look okay, but probably held together by bondo and luck.
> 
> Sure, Irving has done some crappy work. So has FMF, SS, outside contractors etc. Some people will always do crappy work, which is why QC inspections, test and trials etc exist. I have had some bad dealings with them on the business side, but their work isn't overall any better/worse then elsewhere as long as the politicians don't interfere with us enforcing the QC and contractual issues.
> 
> The DWP yards aren't the reason the CPFs are in rough shape though ; we've been neglecting maintenance on them since day 1, and a 30 years butchers bill can get pretty big when we drive them like rentals. The west coast has a smaller fleet with a higher comparable resource base, so it's easier to manage and get the in service work done, and they are still having significant issues despite having the better shipyard for DWPs.


Sorry I miss quoted it was Davie Ship yard that did cost over runs.

Halifax class costs
Original Contract of 3.9 billion for six Frigates equals $650,000,000 each

Additional six frigates cost 5.64 billion. Each additional Frigate cost $940,000,000. Turns into an additional $290,000,000 per ship.

Total cost of contract 9.54 billion. Nope no cost over run there. Your right.

The cost for our New ships is outrageous. I don't care who you are or what you do. Justifying a $4 billion per ship is not justifiable in any way.
That 60billion is including their  contingency fund that was put in place for just in case unknowns. We have already blow that out of the water.  They haven't even cut metal yet.

Its hard as a tax payer to justify buying a frigate for $4billion each when the Us is building a ship for $1.2 billion. So each of our ships are worth 2.8 billion more? Give you head a shake. 
Something's going to give once this project starts cutting steel. It will mean the Navy will settle with fewer then 15 ships. We might even see a downgrading of electronic equipment on the ship due to costs.
Liberals are notorious for extremely high costs of Military contracts. Only to cancel them, only after we pay a huge fee to do so.


----------



## childs56

Navy_Pete said:


> The shipyard upgrades were paid for upfront by the shipyards with some guarantees that they would get the value of work packages in the RFP. Sure, DND and CCG will pay them for the work, including profit, which indirectly is what paid for the upgrades but there is no 'guaranteed profit' in the contract. So if they lose money or break even on the builds and don't recoup the upgrade costs, that's on them. Having them pay for the upgrades gave them skin in the game to do a better job to pay the upgrades back (which was totally undercut by the forgivable pronvincial loan from NS, but that was an unexpected loophole they found).
> 
> Material costs are pretty fixed with transparent markups, so the best way for them to make big profits is to quote on the work at a reasonable level of effort, then get efficient enough to be at/below that level of effort. That means eliminating rework, coordinating work packages tightly so you aren't wasting people's time waiting for another shop, and generally doing all the other things they should be doing to be an competitive shipyard.
> 
> So if they do a good job and build the ships efficiently, then they make money, and get a good reputation, with possibility for more work. If they convince us to overpay and do a crap job, they make money but it's a one time shot. If they do a crap job but we don't overpay then they also lose money.
> 
> It's like when you get a quote from a mechanic; there is a standard labour quote for a specific jobs plus parts. If it takes them longer, that's their problem, but if they get it done quicker that's money in their pocket. Way more complex to figure out if the labour quote is reasonable, but basically the same idea.


Again this is where cost plus always comes into play. 


Navy_Pete said:


> We're also a massively pain in the ass customer. Personally I wouldn't get into a long term business relationship and invest in infrastructure without some guarantees and cancellation penalties either.


Even the government said that the large cost of the overall project was because it included upgrade costs to the ship yards because they are investing in a industry.
The best way to "make money" on these contracts are for "cost plus"  that's how it goes.

in reality if they can not secure customers after the fact the yards will significantly scale down and or shut down. We went this route with the Halifax class ships as part of a ship building strategy back then.    

I have said my piece on this subject. Some people are so convinced paying double the cost for a program is justified then so be it. 

I hope the Navy gets the best ship, the required amount of ships and get them on time.


----------



## Good2Golf

childs56 said:


> Sorry I miss quoted it was Davie Ship yard that did cost over runs.
> 
> Halifax class costs
> Original Contract of 3.9 billion for six Frigates equals $650,000,000 each
> 
> Additional six frigates cost 5.64 billion. Each additional Frigate cost $940,000,000. Turns into an additional $290,000,000 per ship.
> 
> Total cost of contract 9.54 billion. Nope no cost over run there. Your right.
> 
> The cost for our New ships is outrageous. I don't care who you are or what you do. Justifying a $4 billion per ship is not justifiable in any way.
> That 60billion is including their  contingency fund that was put in place for just in case unknowns. We have already blow that out of the water.  They haven't even cut metal yet.
> 
> Its hard as a tax payer to justify buying a frigate for $4billion each when the Us is building a ship for $1.2 billion. So each of our ships are worth 2.8 billion more? Give you head a shake.
> Something's going to give once this project starts cutting steel. It will mean the Navy will settle with fewer then 15 ships. We might even see a downgrading of electronic equipment on the ship due to costs.
> Liberals are notorious for extremely high costs of Military contracts. Only to cancel them, only after we pay a huge fee to do so.


You do know that the budget includes in-service support for 

*1/5 of a Century*

...right?

20-year ISS currently budgets to 2.5-3 times the initial acquisition costs, so that puts each ship acqusition share at around 950M-1150M, which compared to last flight of CPF isn’t unreasonable at all.


----------



## Navy_Pete

childs56 said:


> Sorry I miss quoted it was Davie Ship yard that did cost over runs.
> 
> Halifax class costs
> Original Contract of 3.9 billion for six Frigates equals $650,000,000 each
> 
> Additional six frigates cost 5.64 billion. Each additional Frigate cost $940,000,000. Turns into an additional $290,000,000 per ship.
> 
> Total cost of contract 9.54 billion. Nope no cost over run there. Your right.
> 
> The cost for our New ships is outrageous. I don't care who you are or what you do. Justifying a $4 billion per ship is not justifiable in any way.
> That 60billion is including their  contingency fund that was put in place for just in case unknowns. We have already blow that out of the water.  They haven't even cut metal yet.
> 
> Its hard as a tax payer to justify buying a frigate for $4billion each when the Us is building a ship for $1.2 billion. So each of our ships are worth 2.8 billion more? Give you head a shake.
> Something's going to give once this project starts cutting steel. It will mean the Navy will settle with fewer then 15 ships. We might even see a downgrading of electronic equipment on the ship due to costs.
> Liberals are notorious for extremely high costs of Military contracts. Only to cancel them, only after we pay a huge fee to do so.


Holy crap; the difference in the project costing for the US has been explained in detail in this thread and in a ton of articles, but basically it boils down to their $1.2 Billion is JUST FOR THE HULL AND MARINE SYSTEMS. Everything else is provided to the shipyards and costed under different projects.

For example the Zumwalts were estimated at $4.2 B each for just the ships; that excluded all the R&D and other real costs to develop and operate them. That's over $5.4 B Canadian, and still excludes a bunch of other costs we would roll into our own project accounting.

The initial frigates included some FMS which drastically lowered the shipyard contract award, but the actual total cost between the first ship and the last ship was something like 20-30% lower once they got better at building it. All of that fed into the NSS analysis, and you can see the same thing in any public report for the US, EU and others that talk about a 'learning curve' for ship building. Even experienced yards have it; they just started at a better baseline than the brand new NSS yards.

Our project costs include everything to do with designing and building the ships, all the weapon systems, all initial sparing and ammunition, all initial crew training, infrastructure like jetties, trainers, etc, all technical information (and related IP licensing) plus 30% contingency. So it's not $4B per ship, it's for the entire program delivery per ship. And some of those are fixed regardless of how many ships we buy, so it's not linear. Again, this has been explained repeatedly and quite publically in multiple articles, interviews and analyses. Even our own PBO couldn't find a valid cost comparison between the AOPs project costs and other countries programs because everyone reports totally different data sets as part of their costs.

And the NSS concept was developed and awarded under the Harper govt, so no idea why you think this is a Liberal program.

You are railing against something you are uninformed about against people involved in the actual work and making some pretty crappy arguments not backed up by any actual facts. If you want to know why big procurement takes so long in the GoC, imagine there are whole hordes of people doing the same thing every time you brief something up, and continue to do it after approval using the same uninformed, already disproven arguments not based on any kind of reality.


----------



## Navy_Pete

childs56 said:


> Again this is where cost plus always comes into play.
> 
> Even the government said that the large cost of the overall project was because it included upgrade costs to the ship yards because they are investing in a industry.
> The best way to "make money" on these contracts are for "cost plus"  that's how it goes.
> 
> in reality if they can not secure customers after the fact the yards will significantly scale down and or shut down. We went this route with the Halifax class ships as part of a ship building strategy back then.
> 
> I have said my piece on this subject. Some people are so convinced paying double the cost for a program is justified then so be it.
> 
> I hope the Navy gets the best ship, the required amount of ships and get them on time.


Except the build contracts are fixed price, so not sure what your point is. 

Some bits of the contract are cost plus (like buying materials, we pay actual cost plus the overhead), but build contracts are negotiated in batches so we can get new fixed prices based on the continuing efficiency gains (which we can see because we have access to the production data that includes actual labour hours as well as planned). There were probably initial build bits that were also at 'cost plus' because the design wasn't finalize, and that's a totally reasonable approach to share the risk, but not the standard way of doing business. 

Labour hours will always be expected to go down until you get into the only incremental improvement stage near the end, but that could still mean costs go up between ships because of normal inflation and cost of living increases. So everytime we negotiate the next batch it's based on a projection for the labour hours continuing to improve, not how long it took them the first time they did it.

The people running the projects aren't stupid, and they also brought a lot of really experienced people with a huge amount of shipbuilding time to consult on it so that we can get the best bang for our buck and also try to have an endstate of genuinely competitive shipyards. Everyone involved is keenly aware that every dollar wasted means it won't be spent on an actual capability, so it's not like we're just bending over and taking whatever highball quote we get.

I get it, you don't like the program, but please do us the favour of making informed arguements based in demonstrable facts that match the context and don't just recycle the same BS from op-eds written by people who haven't got a clue what they are talking about (and have been explained repeatedly over the 111 pages and counting of this thread).


----------



## childs56

Navy_Pete said:


> Holy crap; the difference in the project costing for the US has been explained in detail in this thread and in a ton of articles, but basically it boils down to their $1.2 Billion is JUST FOR THE HULL AND MARINE SYSTEMS. Everything else is provided to the shipyards and costed under different projects.
> 
> For example the Zumwalt's were estimated at $4.2 B each for just the ships; that excluded all the R&D and other real costs to develop and operate them. That's over $5.4 B Canadian, and still excludes a bunch of other costs we would roll into our own project accounting.
> 
> The initial frigates included some FMS which drastically lowered the shipyard contract award, but the actual total cost between the first ship and the last ship was something like 20-30% lower once they got better at building it. All of that fed into the NSS analysis, and you can see the same thing in any public report for the US, EU and others that talk about a 'learning curve' for ship building. Even experienced yards have it; they just started at a better baseline than the brand new NSS yards.
> 
> Our project costs include everything to do with designing and building the ships, all the weapon systems, all initial sparing and ammunition, all initial crew training, infrastructure like jetties, trainers, etc, all technical information (and related IP licensing) plus 30% contingency. So it's not $4B per ship, it's for the entire program delivery per ship. And some of those are fixed regardless of how many ships we buy, so it's not linear. Again, this has been explained repeatedly and quite publically in multiple articles, interviews and analyses. Even our own PBO couldn't find a valid cost comparison between the AOPs project costs and other countries programs because everyone reports totally different data sets as part of their costs.
> 
> And the NSS concept was developed and awarded under the Harper govt, so no idea why you think this is a Liberal program.
> 
> You are railing against something you are uninformed about against people involved in the actual work and making some pretty crappy arguments not backed up by any actual facts. If you want to know why big procurement takes so long in the GoC, imagine there are whole hordes of people doing the same thing every time you brief something up, and continue to do it after approval using the same uninformed, already disproven arguments not based on any kind of reality.


Our build Costs taking from the PMOs review of the program. 
Pre-Production 5.3 Billion Per ship $353,333,333 (277,702,333US)
Production 53.2 Billion Per ship cost  $3,546,666,666 Cdn  (2,787,254,399US)
Project-Wide 11.4 Billion (spares, training Life cycle) Per ship $760,000,000
Total 69.8  Per ship overall cost is $4,653,333,333Cdn  ($ 3,615,048,000US)


The Contract cost per Ship for the U.S. Navy’s future small combatant (FREMM)
1,470,000,000 US Each (1,870,413,300Cdn)


The Zumwalt class was a R and D into s future combatant. They decided the costs for value is not worth it at this time. 


Yup it was a Conservative process the costs were much lower for a reason. 
Fact is we are over paying per ship cost no matter how you want to swing it. If we take overall project cost we are paying double what we should be. 
To buy a ship design and then re design the thing and add an extreme amount of weight tells me that once Again a Canadian made problem to a solution is at work. We are trying to make all in one platform at a "budget price" those guys out east are loving it. Were already into cost contingency fund and we haven't even started the build.  Numbers do not lie. Yes I do know how to crunch numbers and read reports.


----------



## Halifax Tar

childs56 said:


> Our build Costs taking from the PMOs review of the program.
> Pre-Production 5.3 Billion Per ship $353,333,333 (277,702,333US)
> Production 53.2 Billion Per ship cost  $3,546,666,666 Cdn  (2,787,254,399US)
> Project-Wide 11.4 Billion (spares, training Life cycle) Per ship $760,000,000
> Total 69.8  Per ship overall cost is $4,653,333,333Cdn  ($ 3,615,048,000US)
> 
> 
> The Contract cost per Ship for the U.S. Navy’s future small combatant (FREMM)
> 1,470,000,000 US Each (1,870,413,300Cdn)
> 
> 
> The Zumwalt class was a R and D into s future combatant. They decided the costs for value is not worth it at this time.
> 
> 
> Yup it was a Conservative process the costs were much lower for a reason.
> Fact is we are over paying per ship cost no matter how you want to swing it. If we take overall project cost we are paying double what we should be.
> To buy a ship design and then re design the thing and add an extreme amount of weight tells me that once Again a Canadian made problem to a solution is at work. We are trying to make all in one platform at a "budget price" those guys out east are loving it. Were already into cost contingency fund and we haven't even started the build.  Numbers do not lie. Yes I do know how to crunch numbers and read reports.



You always have me until the "east" comments start to come out.


----------



## Uzlu

childs56 said:


> Yes I do know how to crunch numbers and read reports.


Maybe your ability to crunch numbers and read reports is not that good.  https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CSC-Report-NAC-Feb-2021-LR.pdf


----------



## childs56

Halifax Tar said:


> You always have me until the "east" comments start to come out.


Bombardier, Irving, Chevy/GMC, Dodge/Chrysler, lesser extent Davies, Ford and GD are all heavily subsidized by both provincial and federal. Yet we see very little in the investment return for money invested overall. Those are facts. Eventually they have to build product on their own to sustain them. We have to see a commitment for them to do this. 
Yes industries are subsidized. But Bombardier and Irving more so then others. Were not not talking about a couple hundred million here and there. Were talking about Billions, maybe another Billions here and there. 
In Order for us to be taking seriously international theses companies need to build a quality product at a fair price. The economic benefit has to outweigh the investment dollars. Spending double the cost of a project just to create jobs is not fiscally responsible nor is is sustainable. 

We are seeing our NATO partners, Our Pacific Partners buying ships from foreign countries. We were not prepared for this. We could have had a wicked ship building capacity. That we could have projected off shore. Instead we are building ships when everyone else has already made orders. Once again our ships will be so Canadianized that they will not be sellable.
I understand having to invest in Canadian industry to make money. I understand investing in the Canadian economy to employ Canadians especially in keeping our Military supplied with equipment. But the only time we spend this much money is to shore up the ship yards, or shore up Bombardier. Then they go bust right afterwards. 
This is as much a Government problem as a business problem. 
Maybe we need government ship yards that are leased out to companies. 
Maybe we need a Defence program that owns Ship building abilities, airplane building abilities, land vehicle abilities. For long term on going research and sustainability.


----------



## childs56

Uzlu said:


> Maybe your ability to crunch numbers and read reports is not that good.  https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CSC-Report-NAC-Feb-2021-LR.pdf


My numbers are from the PMO report on the CSC. Cant get any more concrete then that I would think.  They are broken down pretty good. 
That report you linked to narrowly breaks down the cost. Then compares us to the US Navy only in  terms of capability.   yet leaves out Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Portugal to name a few. 
Then goes off on the "_holistic" approach. But most of the projects such as the Artic Sea port  upgrades to the Jettys on the East/West Coast were already budgeted outside of the budget for the ships. The actual cost of design, build, equip, launch, float, test and sail away is what?  It sounds like we are buying a Anti Air surface ship with limited ASW abilities. Which is different then the original requirements. _


----------



## SeaKingTacco

childs56 said:


> My numbers are from the PMO report on the CSC. Cant get any more concrete then that I would think.  They are broken down pretty good.
> That report you linked to narrowly breaks down the cost. Then compares us to the US Navy only in  terms of capability.   yet leaves out Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Portugal to name a few.
> Then goes off on the "_holistic" approach. But most of the projects such as the Artic Sea port  upgrades to the Jettys on the East/West Coast were already budgeted outside of the budget for the ships. The actual cost of design, build, equip, launch, float, test and sail away is what?  It sounds like we are buying a Anti Air surface ship with limited ASW abilities. Which is different then the original requirements. _


You are entirely incorrect about the “buying an AAW ship with limited ASW capabilities”. We are buying a ship which can survive for the next 30 years. The ASW suite is impressive, too. 

Statements like this are convincing me that you do not have the first clue about warships or naval warfare.


----------



## Good2Golf

childs56 said:


> My numbers are from the PMO report on the CSC. Cant get any more concrete then that I would think.


PMO hasn’t issued a report on CSC.


----------



## Uzlu

childs56 said:


> My numbers are from the PMO report on the CSC. Cant get any more concrete then that I would think.


Not all your numbers were from the Parliamentary Budget Officer.  And it is not about concrete numbers.  It is about a fair comparison. When you stated those prices, was it a fair comparison?  What does the Naval Association of Canada say about fair comparisons of prices of the Canadian Surface Combatants compared to other frigates?


childs56 said:


> They are broken down pretty good.


Are the numbers for the _Constellation_-class frigates broken down pretty good?  Are they broken down as good?  Is it even a fair comparison?  Are the Canadian Surface Combatants going to be more capable frigates than the _Constellation_-class frigates?  What did the Naval Association of Canada have to say about this?


childs56 said:


> That report you linked to narrowly breaks down the cost.


That report I linked to debunks your claim that the Canadian Surface Combatants are outrageously expensive when compared to the _Constellation_-class frigates.


childs56 said:


> Then compares us to the US Navy only in  terms of capability.


No.  It also compares the different ways prices are calculated.


childs56 said:


> yet leaves out Australia, New Zealand, Britain, Portugal to name a few.


And what is your point?  Are you perhaps suggesting that Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Portugal, etc. all can build frigates  like the Canadian Surface Combatants at a much lower price?


----------



## Navy_Pete

childs56 said:


> Our build Costs taking from the PMOs review of the program.
> Pre-Production 5.3 Billion Per ship $353,333,333 (277,702,333US)
> Production 53.2 Billion Per ship cost  $3,546,666,666 Cdn  (2,787,254,399US)
> Project-Wide 11.4 Billion (spares, training Life cycle) Per ship $760,000,000
> Total 69.8  Per ship overall cost is $4,653,333,333Cdn  ($ 3,615,048,000US)
> 
> 
> The Contract cost per Ship for the U.S. Navy’s future small combatant (FREMM)
> 1,470,000,000 US Each (1,870,413,300Cdn)
> 
> 
> The Zumwalt class was a R and D into s future combatant. They decided the costs for value is not worth it at this time.
> 
> 
> Yup it was a Conservative process the costs were much lower for a reason.
> Fact is we are over paying per ship cost no matter how you want to swing it. If we take overall project cost we are paying double what we should be.
> To buy a ship design and then re design the thing and add an extreme amount of weight tells me that once Again a Canadian made problem to a solution is at work. We are trying to make all in one platform at a "budget price" those guys out east are loving it. Were already into cost contingency fund and we haven't even started the build.  Numbers do not lie. Yes I do know how to crunch numbers and read reports.



I'm assuming you are talking about the PBO report; did you miss the part where the actual parametic estimate for the 9th ship is $1.9 B, with the FREMM at $1.6 B and Arleigh at $2.0B? That's a ROM based on the size of the hull and power output, so because the FREMM is smaller it's cheaper, but pretty close to the Arleigh because they are about the same tonnage and similar power out.

The overall costs of $4B per ship includes absolutely everything (including contingency), which is why it's so much higher than the 'just the ship' costs. The early estimate under the Harper govt was a ROM with no firm ship specs, so it got updated once we nailed down the actual ship requirements figured out and ended up with a bigger hull then envisioned. TBS also added all the other costs into the reporting requirements, so that's why the budget ballooned. Some of it was due to a bigger ship that gives real costs increases, some of it was existing costs that got added in, and then there were inflation costs from an overly optimistic initial schedule.

None of that really had anything to do with a change of government, but comparing the two is an apple/oranges effort.

Preproduction work is all the fixed costs to create the production design (basically the build instructions and planning) plus any design changes. Even if you buy an off the shelf design and build it somewhere other than the donor shipyard, you need to do the production design and planning. It's a lot of work. That's a real cost that would have been added on by building in Canada, but if we want functional shipbuilding yards, they need that expertise. On the flip side, it means that if something happens, we aren't hoping a foreign government won't step in and seize the production for their own needs (see COVID).

The production costs are adjusted for inflation, and have built in the contingency. When that's 30 % of the project budget, that's pretty significant. They also note that every delay adds billions to the overall cost of the project just in inflation (even though the level of effort is the same). The PBO report also includes taxes for some reason; DND doesn't (because it doesn't make sense for use to pay taxes for the companies to process the payment and return the taxes to us; it's an electronic money shuffle that actually costs us real money to do).


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

May I ask for clarification as the exchange leaves me uncertain....

Is the number quoted for "Production Only" of $2.78 billion USD per ship accurate or not?  As if we are collectively trying to come up with Apples-to-Apples comparisons, that seems like a good basis for such a comparison.


----------



## childs56

SeaKingTacco said:


> You are entirely incorrect about the “buying an AAW ship with limited ASW capabilities”. We are buying a ship which can survive for the next 30 years. The ASW suite is impressive, too.
> 
> Statements like this are convincing me that you do not have the first clue about warships or naval warfare.


That comment about the lack of ASW was in response to the article that UZLA posted and I read a few times. It states that we are sacrificing ASW for the new systems. Should have made that more clear.  

Canada has always been a strong leader in ASW technology.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> May I ask for clarification as the exchange leaves me uncertain....
> 
> Is the number quoted for "Production Only" of $2.78 billion USD per ship accurate or not?  As if we are collectively trying to come up with Apples-to-Apples comparisons, that seems like a good basis for such a comparison.


I think he took that off the PBO 2019 report. They did some estimates and rolled up the total production costs to come up with the $53.2 B *CAD *for production. They seem to include taxes and contingency as well as inflation, but not really clear how they got there. You can see the report at the link below. On the DND budget the contingency is about 30% and taxes aren't included. An extra 13% on the DND estimate for max program costs matches pretty close to the PBO total, but that's really based on using up the full contingency.

Previously the PBO and AG have done some odd things like and they do it in isolation from the actual project, so might be higher in some areas and lower in others, but probably not a wholey unreasonable estimate. The problem with comparing it to other countries spend is that normally they don't have anything that is included under pre-production, in-service and some of the production costs. For example the US supplies a lot of weapon systems to the yards, so those procurement costs are usually under a different budget. We take a different approach and lump in absolutely everything. Also, we all have different contract clauses, and that can drastically affect the implementation plan and related costs, so you would need full access to the contracts, financials and production data for two build projects to compare side by side. We aren't going to get that from another country, and the CPF data is old enough to have some relevance issues.

They also are including all the IP licensing (including the Type 26 design) in pre-production work, and you pay that even when you build at the original shipyard. There are a lot of things in the budget that you have to pay regardless of where you build the ship, so the only really good way for a direct comparison is use the labour rate. As soon as you use standard economic benefit calculations for about 1000 personnel working for 30 years, it's pretty hard for a foreign yard to compete, especially when you start looking at the logistic issues and costs with overseeing a build and doing training overseas.






						The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants:  2019 Update
					

The Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) provides independent analysis to Canadian Parliament on the state of the nation's finances, the government's ...




					www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca


----------



## Thumper81

childs56 said:


> That comment about the lack of ASW was in response to the article that UZLA posted and I read a few times. It states that we are sacrificing ASW for the new systems. Should have made that more clear.
> 
> Canada has always been a strong leader in ASW technology.


Sacrificing ASW?  The Type 26 was designed as an ASW Frigate by the British as it's primary function.  Yes we are putting more above-water warfare systems on it but the CSC will still have an HMS and a TAS plus the Cyclone and possibly AUVs/ROVs.  This makes them as good or even more capable than the Halifax-class in terms of ASW capability.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Thumper81 said:


> Sacrificing ASW?  The Type 26 was designed as an ASW Frigate by the British as it's primary function.  Yes we are putting more above-water warfare systems on it but the CSC will still have an HMS and a TAS plus the Cyclone and possibly AUVs/ROVs.  This makes them as good or even more capable than the Halifax-class in terms of ASW capability.


If I'm not mistaken, I was under the impression that the electric drive system on T26 was being touted as one of the main reasons why it would be an exceptional ASW platform. As a matter of fact, I thought the whole point to the T26 was an ASW bias, given they already have an AAW class?


----------



## Thumper81

Swampbuggy said:


> If I'm not mistaken, I was under the impression that the electric drive system on T26 was being touted as one of the main reasons why it would be an exceptional ASW platform. As a matter of fact, I thought the whole point to the T26 was an ASW bias, given they already have an AAW class?


The British are using the Type 26 to replace the Type 23, which is designed specifically for ASW.


----------



## Uzlu

It will be at least a decade before Canada sees any of its new frigates

*New frigates are being packed with more combat capability than comparable ships of allies*

It will be 2031, at the earliest, before the navy sees the first of its new frigates; a setback brought about partly by the fact Canada, Britain and Australia are still feeling their way around how to build the ultra-modern warship.

The outgoing president of Irving Shipbuilding Inc., which is in charge of constructing combat ships for the federal government, said he anticipates steel will be cut on the first of the new generation high-end warships by mid-2024.

"We have been trying to take an honest look at where we are and what it will take to build the ship," said Kevin McCoy who recently announced his retirement from the East Coast shipbuilder.

The current estimate is that it will take up to seven-and-a-half years to build the surface combatant, a timeline being used by Britain's BAE Systems Inc., which is constructing the first of what's known as the Type 26 design.

Both Canada and Australia are building their own variants.

"Early on [in the shipbuilding process] estimates are not very good," said McCoy. "Early estimates are not very good for price; they're not very good for size; they're not not very good for duration," McCoy said. "The British ship has a seven-and-a-half year build cycle. So, we're locked in. We said our build cycle will be seven-and-a-half years as well."

If they can find ways to speed up the process, they will, he said.

If that timeline holds, it means the federal government's marquee shipbuilding strategy will be two decades old by the time it produces the warship it was principally set up to create.

While Irving has been pumping out smaller, less complicated arctic patrol ships and Seaspan, in Vancouver, is building coast guard and science vessels, the strategy conceived by the former Conservative government was driven by the necessity of replacing the navy's current fleet of Halifax-class frigates.

Originally, when the shipbuilding strategy was unveiled, it envisioned Canada receiving the first new frigate in 2017. A lot of water, wishful thinking and even money has gone under the bridge since then.

*Building off existing design*

The current Liberal government, since taking over in 2015 and embracing the strategy, has been opaque in its public estimates of the build time; suggesting, in some documents, a delivery time in mid-2020s while other more internal records have pegged the first new frigate in the 2027 timeframe.

The Department of National Defence, in a statement, acknowledged some of the design and build intricacies are now better understood, and because of that; the first warship will be "approximately 2-3 years later than the previous estimate."

A spokeswoman echoed McCoy's remarks about finding ways to move construction along.

"We continue to look for efficiencies and are actively working with industry to accelerate the project in order to deliver this important platform to the RCN as soon as possible," said National Defence spokesperson Jessica Lamirande.

One of the ways they could do that, she said, would be to construct some, less complex modules of the warship early, the way it has been in the navy's Joint Support Ship project at Seaspan's Vancouver Shipyard.

McCoy, a blunt-talking former U.S. Navy admiral, suggested the expectations going to the surface combatant program were ultimately unworkable because the federal government came in expecting to do a so-called "clean sheet" design; meaning a warship built completely from scratch.

It was the shipyard, he said, which ultimately inched the federal government toward building off an existing design because of the enormous risk and expense of purpose-built ships, a position the Liberals adopted in the spring of 2016.

The selection of the British Type 26 design by the Liberal government has spawned criticism, a court challenge and will figure prominently in upcoming reports by the auditor general and the Parliamentary Budget Officer.  

*Combat capability packed into ship*

The nub of the complaints have been that the frigate is not yet in the water and is still under construction in the United Kingdom.

The defence department acknowledged that adapting the British design to Canadian expectations and desires will take a year longer than originally anticipated and is now not scheduled to be completed until late 2023, early 2024.

Canada, McCoy said, can expect to pay no more $2.5 billion to $3 billion, per ship as they are produced, which is, he claimed, about what other nations would pay for a warship of similar capability.

"This is a big ship, lots of capability" he said, indicating that full displacement for the new frigate will likely be about 9,400 tonnes; almost double the 4,700 tonnes of the current Halifax-class.

McCoy said what is not generally understood amid the public concern over scheduling and cost is the fact that the Canadian version of the Type 26 will be expected to do more than its British and Australian cousins.

Where those navies have different warships, performing different functions, such as air defence or anti-submarine warfare, Canada's one class of frigates will be expected to perform both because that is what the government has called for in its requirements.

Dave Perry, a defence analyst and vice president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, has studied the program and said he was surprised at the amount of combat capability that was being packed into the new warship.

"On the one hand, Canada's one [class] of ship will have more combat capability than many of the other classes of ship that our friends and allies sail with, but it also adds an additional level of complexity and challenge getting all of that gear, all of that firepower into one single floating hull and platform," he said.



			https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-shipbuilding-decade-frigates-1.5912961


----------



## Fabius

At approx 9400 tonnes the CSC isn't far behind the 9500 long tons of a Arleigh Burke Flight III and basically right in line with a Flight IIA at  9300 long tons, even accounting for the slight differences between the types of measurement.
A bit bigger than the high 7000s that I was tracking previously.


----------



## MarkOttawa

That's about the displacement of US Navy heavy cruisers built before WW II:





						US Navy Cruisers, 1940-45
					

A complete list of all US Navy Cruisers, by type and class, in commission during WWII. Links to individual pages giving description, history, and photo.



					www.ibiblio.org
				






USS New Orleans 1943.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## suffolkowner

9400 tonnes seems like a huge increase in weight as only a few months ago it was stated at 7800 tonnes. Are these different displacements? Like one is a light load and the other a heavy load? Did the ship grow from 150m long to 170m?


----------



## torg003

I'm wondering why they are still called frigates if they're going to be twice as big (displacement) than the current ones?  What would be the traditional name for a ship of this size, destroyer, cruiser?


----------



## MilEME09

torg003 said:


> I'm wondering why they are still called frigates if they're going to be twice as big (displacement) than the current ones?  What would be the traditional name for a ship of this size, destroyer, cruiser?


That's not decided by displacement in modern day. It more by role the craft is to preform.


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:


> 9400 tonnes seems like a huge increase in weight as only a few months ago it was stated at 7800 tonnes. Are these different displacements? Like one is a light load and the other a heavy load? Did the ship grow from 150m long to 170m?


Canadian Surface Combatant:
•    Full-load displacement: 9 400 tonnes
•    Length: 151.4 metres
•    Beam: 20.75 metres

_Arleigh Burke_ Flight IIA:
•    Full-load displacement: 9 500 tonnes
•    Length: 155 metres
•    Beam: 20 metres


----------



## suffolkowner

I see that, I'm just curious what the different numbers mean and where they come from? The UK is 6900 tonnes/8000+ full load, AUS is 8800 full load and the Canadian was 7800 but is now 9400?


----------



## Uzlu

torg003 said:


> I'm wondering why they are still called frigates if they're going to be twice as big (displacement) than the current ones?


The MKS 180 frigates might be about 10 000 tonnes.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKS_180_frigate


torg003 said:


> What would be the traditional name for a ship of this size, destroyer, cruiser?


It depends on the year.  The _Adventure_-class cruisers, for example, had a displacement of 2 713 tonnes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure-class_cruiser


----------



## dapaterson

This is the same progression as a young Bos'n joining the RCN, weighing 160lbs when he completes his QL3.  Give him a decade, promote him PO2, and he'll be tipping the scales at 225.


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:


> I see that, I'm just curious what the different numbers mean and where they come from? The UK is 6900 tonnes/8000+ full load, AUS is 8800 full load and the Canadian was 7800 but is now 9400?


It depends on the weights of the sensors, weapons, computers, electronics, etc. in the design.  None of these frigates have been built.  So these three displacements might change.  “New frigates are being packed with more combat capability than comparable ships of allies.”  

"Early estimates are not very good for price; they're not very good for size.” Warships are sometimes designed with a growth margin—empty space in the ship for more equipment in, say, a major mid-life refit.  And can 8 000+ be equal to 9 400?


----------



## RDBZ

Uzlu said:


> McCoy said what is not generally understood amid the public concern over scheduling and cost is the fact that the Canadian version of the Type 26 will be expected to do more than its British and Australian cousins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-shipbuilding-decade-frigates-1.5912961



Not entirely correct with regard to the RAN.  The RAN's Hobart class are AAW, ASuW and ASW capable, as will be the Hunter class.   Significantly, both classes will use the same combat system, gun, VLS, etc.


----------



## Uzlu

RDBZ said:


> Not entirely correct with regard to the RAN.  The RAN's Hobart class are AAW, ASuW and ASW capable, as will be the Hunter class.   Significantly, both classes will use the same combat system, gun, VLS, etc.


“Where those navies have different warships, performing different functions, such as air defence or anti-submarine warfare, Canada's one class of frigates will be expected to perform both because that is what the government has called for in its requirements.”  Does the _Hobart_-class have a bias toward air warfare?  Does the _Hunter_-class have a bias toward anti-submarine warfare?


----------



## daftandbarmy

torg003 said:


> I'm wondering why they are still called frigates if they're going to be twice as big (displacement) than the current ones?  What would be the traditional name for a ship of this size, destroyer, cruiser?



How about 'Pocket Cruiser', then that would also nicely describe what it will do to the budget?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Liberals will declare them "Cadillac's" and cancel the order and muck around for another 20 years.


----------



## CBH99

Pay $500 million in additional penalties.  Then turn around and buy them anyway, just in smaller numbers.  (EH-101, then smaller numbers of Cyclones... eventually built the T26, but then supplement it with T31)

I know it doesn’t seem to matter at all when it comes to politicians, but shouldn’t wasting THAT MUCH public money be criminal??

(Not trying to derail the thread.  But paying $500 million in cancellation penalties, aka paying $500 million to NOT have a capability.  That’s public money that could have been invested, or spent elsewhere.  Shouldn’t that breach some kind of law??)


----------



## Czech_pivo

Not sure if this has been talked about previously but what would be the reasons not to shift the construction of the 2 CCG AOPS (with the possibility of more being built if needed by the CCG) over to Davie and starting the construction of the CSC in the time slot that the 2 CCG AOPS would have occupied in the queue at Irving? The time slots for the 2 CCG's AOPS at Irving have never been released to the public from what I've been able to find.  Irving hasn't begun to cut steel on AOPS 5 and 6 yet and realistically won't start on #6 until 2023. 
Obviously Irving won't be happy but this might provide a better chance of actually building 15 CSC instead of a reduced number due to the outrageously long timelines and help keep the costs in check because construction would start 2-4yrs earlier.
Since Davie is being given CCG icebreaker work, this would line up nicely. Removes the need to have Davie go through all the defence level security clearance that has been discussed previously as a requirement for them to work on the CSC.
It's not easy to see how a Polar Class 5 that the AOPS has been given lines up with an Arctic Class 2 that the CCGS Anne Harvey has, but it looks like a AOPS is better equipped to handle the duties that Anne Harvey currently performs. Building more than 2 CCG AOPS at Davie might add to the capabilities of the CCG going forward. Also having a class of ships that is 8+ in size means that the supply lines will be operational for years to come.


----------



## CBH99

The only downsides I can see in your plan is...

Typically, shipyards 'learn' how to build a class of ship.  So the last ship tends to be built faster, cheaper, and more efficiently than the first.  If we transferred the final 2 AOPS to Davie, then Davie would have to 'learn' how to build AOPS - for only 2 ships.  This would also cost more money, than if we let Irving just continue building the fleet, since they have some steady momentum on that fleet now.


Overall, your idea isn't a bad one at all.  I'm sure there's complex things behind the scenes (contracts & such) that would make it far more of a hassle than it's worth.  But, good creative thinking for sure


----------



## Czech_pivo

CBH99 said:


> The only downsides I can see in your plan is...
> 
> Typically, shipyards 'learn' how to build a class of ship.  So the last ship tends to be built faster, cheaper, and more efficiently than the first.  If we transferred the final 2 AOPS to Davie, then Davie would have to 'learn' how to build AOPS - for only 2 ships.  This would also cost more money, than if we let Irving just continue building the fleet, since they have some steady momentum on that fleet now.
> 
> 
> Overall, your idea isn't a bad one at all.  I'm sure there's complex things behind the scenes (contracts & such) that would make it far more of a hassle than it's worth.  But, good creative thinking for sure


I agree with your comments on the synergies possibly being lost by moving the CCG AOPS over to Davie.  But when looking at when the first AOPS was laid down (5ys ago this March) and then the last of the AOPS (6+2) would be laid down, sometime in the 2025-2026 time frame, I'm not convinced that Davie wouldn't be able to start the first CCG AOPS in that same time frame, potentially even a year earlier. So the CSC get's moved into the 2024/25 time frame, right when the 2 CCG AOPS get started at Davie.


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> I agree with your comments on the synergies possibly being lost by moving the CCG AOPS over to Davie.  But when looking at when the first AOPS was laid down (5ys ago this March) and then the last of the AOPS (6+2) would be laid down, sometime in the 2025-2026 time frame, I'm not convinced that Davie wouldn't be able to start the first CCG AOPS in that same time frame, potentially even a year earlier. So the CSC get's moved into the 2024/25 time frame, right when the 2 CCG AOPS get started at Davie.


This all assumes that if you moved things around that they could be ready to cut steel earlier.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don`t think steel cutting is the issue, it's where and how to cut and where to weld that is. What they can do is determine which parts of the ship design are untouched by Canadian needs and start cutting steel for those bits and consider which modules can be built offsite. I suspect not every module needs a security clearance, a sewage system is a sewage system for example.


----------



## Underway

9400 tons is either wrong or the design margin (the max tonnage a hull can be based on its design).  Based on comparable ship sizes (see Burke Blk II dimensions) 9400 is not far off of what the design margin could be.

Given that the Aussies stated their ship would be 8800 with a similar loadout to ours (24VLS etc...) then this makes some sense.  An extra 600 ton design margin.

As far as calling it a frigate, ships haven't technically haven't been named by tonnage ever in history.  They were named by role though during WW1-early cold war, ships generally fell into categories.  An aircraft carrier is the same tonnage as a large cruiser or battleship but it's not called a battleship because its role is different.

A frigate by NATO designation is a multi-role escort ship.  So CSC will likely be called a frigate.  It doesn't really matter. A rose by any other name will still stab you with thorns...


----------



## Gorgo

I'd go with calling them destroyers.  Since they have a mixture of weapons capabilities, it fits perfectly to a DDG designation.


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:


> 9400 tons is either wrong or the design margin (the max tonnage a hull can be based on its design).  Based on comparable ship sizes (see Burke Blk II dimensions) 9400 is not far off of what the design margin could be.
> 
> Given that the Aussies stated their ship would be 8800 with a similar loadout to ours (24VLS etc...) then this makes some sense.  An extra 600 ton design margin.
> 
> As far as calling it a frigate, ships haven't technically haven't been named by tonnage ever in history.  They were named by role though during WW1-early cold war, ships generally fell into categories.  An aircraft carrier is the same tonnage as a large cruiser or battleship but it's not called a battleship because its role is different.
> 
> A frigate by NATO designation is a multi-role escort ship.  So CSC will likely be called a frigate.  It doesn't really matter. A rose by any other name will still stab you with thorns...


Max allowed tons for the design makes sense, that way you leave a wide margin for later refit.


----------



## CBH99

Gorgo said:


> I'd go with calling them destroyers.  Since they have a mixture of weapons capabilities, it fits perfectly to a DDG designation.


I imagine they will be called 'multi-purpose patrol frigates' so the public doesn't get all weird about the military actually being able to do military things (for the 2 days they pay attention, before focusing on some other stupid useless thing.)

"Armed reconnaissance helicopter" ring a bell?


----------



## daftandbarmy

CBH99 said:


> I imagine they will be called 'multi-purpose patrol *Peacekeeping *frigates' so the public doesn't get all weird about the military actually being able to do military things (for the 2 days they pay attention, before focusing on some other stupid useless thing.)
> 
> "Armed reconnaissance helicopter" ring a bell?



There, FTFY


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> There, FTFY


Peace operations support ships


----------



## daftandbarmy

MilEME09 said:


> Peace operations support ships


Acronym?

POS


----------



## MilEME09

daftandbarmy said:


> Acronym?
> 
> POS


Would of flotilla if them be a POSSE?


----------



## CBH99

Posse is racist.  Tsk tsk...


----------



## Czech_pivo

Hopefully its ok to post this here - 





						We Will Always Have Your Back? – Canadian Naval Review
					

David Dunlop, 15 February 2021 It seems that the only way Canadians are receiving current and accurate information on the CSC Type 26 Frigate program Definition Phase is through the media over the last several months.




					www.navalreview.ca
				




It does talk about some of the equipment on the CSC being moved to the 'build' phase...


----------



## Underway

It's not quite the whole story.  The long lead items that have been identified and are not going to change are being ordered.  Gearboxes, engines, generators, and some of these more complicated electronics are being purchased.  This is to get into the sub-contractors schedule.  Sonar's come under that heading.  We know the type of sonar, we know the general setup so go ahead and purchase the sonar.  Odds are that the sonar won't be built for a while, but it's on the order books, thus the builder can now get on with sourcing the materials they need to build the sonar (including workforce) and planning for delivery sometime in the late 20's.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> It's not quite the whole story.  The long lead items that have been identified and are not going to change are being ordered.  Gearboxes, engines, generators, and some of these more complicated electronics are being purchased.  This is to get into the sub-contractors schedule.  Sonar's come under that heading.  We know the type of sonar, we know the general setup so go ahead and purchase the sonar.  Odds are that the sonar won't be built for a while, but it's on the order books, thus the builder can now get on with sourcing the materials they need to build the sonar (including workforce) and planning for delivery sometime in the late 2


----------



## Czech_pivo

Snippet from the CBC news piece on the keel laying ceremony for the William Hall - “Mooney confirmed first steel will be cut in 2024 on construction of much larger, more complex and more expensive surface warships for the navy, with the first warship to be delivered in the early 2030s.”
That timeline lines up with them having started the 6th RCN AOPS and not having started on the 2 CCG AOPS’s yet. Starting to wonder if the CCG AOPS’s ever get built at all or if they get moved over to Davie. 
Not sure it’s possible to be cutting steel on CCG AOPS 1 and 2, as well as building them, finishing off RCN AOPS #6 and then cutting steel on the first CSC at the same time. Does Irving even have the space, equipment, capacity and manpower to be doing all of that at the same time?
I’m coming out and saying that the CCG doesn’t get any AOPS’s or they get built by Davie.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Not sure how eager the CCG are for the AOP's, they aren't really setup for buoy tending, science work or serious icebreaking. They can do each, but not as well as purpose designed CCG ships can.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin Parkinson said:


> Not sure how eager the CCG are for the AOP's, they aren't really setup for buoy tending, science work or serious icebreaking. They can do each, but not as well as purpose designed CCG ships can.



I had the joy of sitting with some dude from the CCG a couple of years ago on a flight to Ottawa.  His constant drone on about how shitty the AOPs will be and lament that the CCG will be getting them leads me to believe they are not "excited" in that good way.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> I had the joy of sitting with some dude from the CCG a couple of years ago on a flight to Ottawa.  His constant drone on about how shitty the AOPs will be and lament that the CCG will be getting them leads me to believe they are not "excited" in that good way.



AOPS have a negative rap before they even sailed.

Word was the AOPS don't handle well in high seas.  My buddy is sailing on it right now and with the stabilizers SS6, he said it wasn't that bad (with stabilizers), much better than the MCDV's if more energetic than the frigates.  Reality over supposition.

 The CCG version is being modified (read simplified) for their requirements.  I'm not sure what their plan is for the ships, but I'm pretty sure there are plenty of jobs one can do with them that the CCG will be happy to have them for.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I don`t think they are going to be a bad ship, but unless they mod them a fair bit, they won`t be a great fit. 9 ton buoys and anchor gear take up a lot of space. So expect a smaller helicopter hanger, flight deck. Problem of course is a lot of design changes drives up costs. One option is to keep them as is, then sell them to another navy as new CCG purpose built ships come online.


----------



## Good2Golf

Doesn’t the resupply ship format of the ‘new’ breakers lend itself to buoy tending, etc?


----------



## Czech_pivo

The peanut was just pushed further up the hill by the ant...









						Ultra to provide Hull-Mounted Sonar for Canadian Surface Combatant - Naval News
					

Ultra is delighted to announce a contract award to commence work on the S2150-C Hull-Mounted Sonar (HMS) system for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) program...




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## Uzlu

The Canadian Surface Combatant: Capability and Context


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:


> Doesn’t the resupply ship format of the ‘new’ breakers lend itself to buoy tending, etc?


The current configuration does not give much storage or working space. Buoys are big, awkward and dangerous


----------



## Czech_pivo

Another step forward by the ant....








						MDA Awarded First Production Contract for the Canadian Surface Combatant Project
					

/CNW/ - MDA today announced that it has been awarded an initial contract with an expected production value of more than CAD$60 million on the Canadian Surface...




					www.newswire.ca


----------



## Czech_pivo

FYI 









						PBO's latest estimate says warships will cost $77B as estimated price jumps $17B
					

OTTAWA — Parliament’s budget watchdog is predicting another multibillion-dollar increase in the cost of a new fleet of warships for the Royal Canadian Navy, pegging the price for what was already the largest military procurement in Canada’s history a




					www.halifaxtoday.ca


----------



## Underway

Good lord.  A Type 31 is worse than the current CPF in capability.  Worse radar, worse FC, and significantly worse ASW.  It would be moving backwords.


----------



## childs56

Underway said:


> Good lord.  A Type 31 is worse than the current CPF in capability.  Worse radar, worse FC, and significantly worse ASW.  It would be moving backwords.


But we could modify it and Canadianize it, you know for a few billion here and there.........😅😂🤣😂🤣


----------



## CBH99

Unless I missed it, he now says it will cost yet _another_ $17 Billion... but doesn't say _why _it will cost another $17 billion.

*$17 billion is A LOT OF MONEY.*  A LOOOOOTTTTTTTT of money.  That's almost our entire annual budget.  Yet he won't specify on what exactly is going to cost that much extra money?

Even if they used $70B as their baseline number, an extra $7B is a lot.


These guys still haven't figured out that a country that is mostly unemployed, won't be paying income taxes/GST anytime soon.  And once the Covid nonsense is over with, a lot of people won't have jobs to go back to.  Combine that with their efforts to deliberately cripple any mass employment opportunities we had (Tekk, LNG pipelines in Ontario & Quebec, etc etc) -- I would take his estimate with a grain of salt.  

0.02


----------



## Colin Parkinson

childs56 said:


> But we could modify it and Canadianize it, you know for a few billion here and there.........😅😂🤣😂🤣


We will build a Type 31 for the same money that other countries build a Type 26 for.


----------



## MTShaw

That’s exactly why the government will not shutdown public projects.

$17 billion over 20 years is not that much. Now, instead of $3 gigadollars per year, we will spend $3.85 Giga Loonies. Not chump change, but real a big deal either.


----------



## Gorgo

Honestly, governments should get into the habit of breaking down the annual cost of things.

$17B over twenty years is $850M a year.  Have then say, "We're going to be spending approximately 850 million dollars a year for the next twenty years employing X number of people to prepare fifteen warships for the RCN."

That might work.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Just imagine that your 30yrs old and start house hunting and every single house that you looked at had the total price of ownership for 40yrs included in the list price (2 sets of furnaces, 2 sets of a/c, 3 new roofs, 3 sets of fences, 2 new driveways, landscaping, 1 addition, 2 remodeling's multiple sets of furniture, appliances, etc, etc, etc) .  Add to the above scenario that the bank will use that 'all-in' price when calculating how much of a mortgage you qualify for.  
How many houses do you think would get sold or built in the above scenario?


----------



## Blackadder1916

Czech_pivo said:


> Just imagine that your 30yrs old and start house hunting and every single house that you looked at had the total price of ownership for 40yrs included in the list price (2 sets of furnaces, 2 sets of a/c, 3 new roofs, 3 sets of fences, 2 new driveways, landscaping, 1 addition, 2 remodeling's multiple sets of furniture, appliances, etc, etc, etc) .  Add to the above scenario that the bank will use that 'all-in' price when calculating how much of a mortgage you qualify for.
> How many houses do you think would get sold or built in the above scenario?



Just imagine that you're 30 years old and start house hunting but you have no money, no job and frankly no ambition to change your financial situation.  But you do have a family that are willing to co-sign a mortgage so that you can have a place to live but one of the conditions with accepting responsibility for another's debt is that any other debts that the 30 year old incurs with that particular lender will automatically fall under the same responsibility.  Now the family likes this 30 year old relative (_or they did before he started drawing from that line of credit the bank automatically gave him_) but before the family co-signs they want some idea of what will be the total housing expenses of this wastrel for the next 30 years (_at which time one of the parties will be dead - the 30 y.o. probably by the family's hand_) with the expectation that the 30 y.o. won't exceed that budgeted amount.  The family isn't making that total amount available to the 30 y.o. up front, but every year when the family gathers at Thanksgiving and complains about the lazy SOB, they know roughly how much each will have to chip in so that they don't have to see him until next year.  That's project budgeting.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Personally, I'd be quite happy to follow the UK path ... as long as we follow it all the way:

Three Type 26 and twelve Type 31 !

Fine, but I also then want the proportional 3 Type 45 AAW destroyers, one Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier (with attendant 40 F-35B's), one Bulwark class amphibious assault ship, six Sandown class and three Hunt class mine hunters  and six Astute class SSN (because we don't want SSBN's) and of course, seven various fleet oilers, AOR's and amphibious support ships.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

As much as this is a cost issue, in my opinion this is monumental "effective communicate failure" issue.  

DND/Government should present pricing for all military programs in a format citizens can relate to and intuitively understand.

1.  What's the "sticker price" (to walk out of the store or showroom with the item)?
2. What's the anticipated "parts for maintenance and service" cost per annum?
3. What's the "crew costs" per annum?  

Full life cycle budgeting is absolutely appropriate for some things like assessing RFQ submissions.  But for communication to the public?  It's akin to the CRA posting a news release: "Average Federal Income Tax is going up to $2 million per person!", with the fine print then explaining that's actually for the average total over their working lives.  Although factually accurate, the information is in a context that most people can't relate to easily, and therefore ends up being extremely misleading....which does a disservice to everyone.


----------



## Good2Golf

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> As much as this is a cost issue, in my opinion this is monumental "effective communicate failure" issue.
> 
> DND/Government should present pricing for all military programs in a format citizens can relate to and intuitively understand.
> 
> 1.  What's the "sticker price" (to walk out of the store or showroom with the item)?
> 2. What's the anticipated "parts for maintenance and service" cost per annum?
> 3. What's the "crew costs" per annum?
> 
> Full life cycle budgeting is absolutely appropriate for some things like assessing RFQ submissions.  But for communication to the public?  It's akin to the CRA posting a news release: "Average Federal Income Tax is going up to $2 million per person!", with the fine print then explaining that's actually for the average total over their working lives.  Although factually accurate, the information is in a context that most people can't relate to easily, and therefore ends up being extremely misleading....which does a disservice to everyone.


...and provide ‘Payments to Individuals’ amounts for the same periods.  That EI alone, in the same period as CSC is *TRILLIONS* of dollars, would indeed help put 0.017 trillion dollars for a key national defence capability into relative perspective.


----------



## Stoker

DND says they have no intention looking for anything else. Looks like no Type 31.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That statement is good for 24hrs, until a certain possible bipolar person changes their mind.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The bigger question is who authorized/requested the PBO to research then release the (obviously cheaper) Type 31 as a comparable as I strongly doubt they would have done that on their own initiative.  My wager would be on a former drama teacher with a penchant for colourful socks.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> The bigger question is who authorized/requested the PBO to research then release the (obviously cheaper) Type 31 as a comparable as I strongly doubt they would have done that on their own initiative.  My wager would be on a former drama teacher with a penchant for colourful socks.



In the PBO report it states


> On June 19, 2020 the House of Commons Standing Committee on
> Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) requested that the Office of
> the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) undertake a costing analysis of the
> Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project. This was to include the cost of
> the current program, based on the Type 26 design, as well as the cost for two
> other designs: the FREMM and the Type 31e.1



From the minutes of the OGGO meeting for June 19, 2020




__





						Minutes - OGGO (43-1) - No. 21 - House of Commons of Canada
					

Minutes - OGGO (43-1) - No. 21 - House of Commons of Canada



					www.ourcommons.ca
				





> Motion
> *Julie Vignola moved*, — That the committee request that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer undertake a costing analysis of building the Canadian Surface Combatants and building the FREMM and the Type 31e and that the report containing this analysis be presented to the Chair of the committee by Thursday, October 22, 2020.
> The question was put on the motion and it was agreed to on the following recorded division:
> 
> YEAS: Ziad Aboultaif, Kelly Block, Francis Drouin, Matthew Green, Majid Jowhari, Irek Kusmierczyk, Steven MacKinnon, Kelly McCauley, Julie Vignola, Patrick Weiler — 10;
> 
> NAYS: — 0.



Ms. Vignola is one of the vice-chairs of the committee (the chair is a Conservative, other vice-chair is Liberal).  She is the Bloc Québécois MP  for Beauport--Limoilou (that's in Quebec City, directly across the river from the Davie shipyard). I don't know whether she was a former drama teacher nor anything about her fashion style.

And if you read the evidence (transcript) there was no discussion and basically the yeas were given because it was the end of a Friday afternoon meeting and they wanted to get out of there.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Personally, I'd be quite happy to follow the UK path ... as long as we follow it all the way:
> 
> Three Type 26 and twelve Type 31 !
> 
> Fine, but I also then want the proportional 3 Type 45 AAW destroyers, one Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carrier (with attendant 40 F-35B's), one Bulwark class amphibious assault ship, six Sandown class and three Hunt class mine hunters  and six Astute class SSN (because we don't want SSBN's) and of course, seven various fleet oilers, AOR's and amphibious support ships.


I get it, but the Type 31 is not useful in our context. It is too small and underarmed for for what we need.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Blackadder1916 said:


> In the PBO report it states
> 
> 
> From the minutes of the OGGO meeting for June 19, 2020
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Minutes - OGGO (43-1) - No. 21 - House of Commons of Canada
> 
> 
> Minutes - OGGO (43-1) - No. 21 - House of Commons of Canada
> 
> 
> 
> www.ourcommons.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ms. Vignola is one of the vice-chairs of the committee (the chair is a Conservative, other vice-chair is Liberal).  She is the Bloc Québécois MP  for Beauport--Limoilou (that's in Quebec City, directly across the river from the Davie shipyard). I don't know whether she was a former drama teacher nor anything about her fashion style.
> 
> And if you read the evidence (transcript) there was no discussion and basically the yeas were given because it was the end of a Friday afternoon meeting and they wanted to get out of there.



My sincerest thanks for not only the correction, but the thorough links. I'd much rather be corrected and learn what is right, than be left uncorrected and continue to believe a falsehood.

Although I still distrust our PM greatly, it appears he was completely innocent in this particular case and I hereby retract my charge.


----------



## Colin Parkinson




----------



## Colin Parkinson

HMS Glasgow (Type 26) continues to take shape


----------



## JMCanada

According to PBO's numbers (including taxes and so) ...
T26: $77 B / 15 hulls = 5.133 B / hull
T31: $27 B / 15 hulls = 1.80 B / hull  (50 B savings)

... seems like there are no cancellation costs or penalties,  and this works with 
3 T26 + 12 T31 = 3× 5.133 + 12× 1.80 = 37 B  
that is $40 B savings as the PBO reports.

Mix it all and my bet is for...
10 × Type 26 ($51.33 B)  +  6 × Type 31 ($10.80 B)  =  $62.13 B

This is not to come soon, will take some years to come, but bet my 2 cents for an hybrid fleet will be the end of this story.

Selling points for a politician:
1. $15 B savings !! (62 vs 77). And still the cut is just below 20% (15/77 , 19.5 %).

2. Ten top-combatants...
   - more than AUS or UK
   - 5 ships per coast
   - three units deployed or ready for it (3 times 3) plus one under extensive refit.

3. Six low-profile combatants, means two in operations like Caribbe or the coast of Africa. At much lower cost than T26 but better prepared against assimetric threats than AOPs or MCDVs.

4. In total, one more ship than initially planned.

5. If built in parallel (Irving and Davie) could be "sold to the voters" as more jobs at a time (even though delivery might be stretched for the same total period).

6. Loss of capability... yes, but ... who cares? (from a politician's point of view).


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> ...and provide ‘Payments to Individuals’ amounts for the same periods.  That EI alone, in the same period as CSC is *TRILLIONS* of dollars, would indeed help put 0.017 trillion dollars for a key national defence capability into relative perspective.


Or even the GoC itself; the numbers aren't really clear, but from what I was able to gather, the cost of running Parliament and the Senate combine to about $1B per year.**

So the operating costs of Parliament over CSC will be about $25-30B +

**those numbers were fuzzy, but was about $140-200 million for the Senate and $700-800 million for Parliament. That seemed to include the cost for staff, security, 3rd party reports etc. No idea if that had the Parliament repairs in there or how else it broke down, but honestly expected it to be higher. That was just gleamed from a few CBC stories so could be totally wrong.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

I'm not an expert on big project items such as the CSC program, and I realize that the PBO is only looking at the budgetary aspects of the CSC program but I found the following statement interesting:



> 3.1.Design Characteristics
> 
> A detailed analysis of the capabilities of the FREMM or the Type 31e with respect to those of the Type 26 is outside the scope of this report.



I would have thought that a comparison of the three designs capabilities would be a part of your cost analysis?


----------



## Underway

The PBO is basically doing a few things here.  They looked at the cost as directed by the committee.  They compared with the other options listed. But they also stayed in their lane.  It's not their job to assess capability aligned with GoC requirements for the RCN.  That's the RCN's job to do that.  They are the professionals in that sphere.

The RCN put quite a bit of work into the SOR for the CSC and did just as much analysis on the bids to see if they met the SOR.  This was done because the GoC asked for certain jobs to be done and the RCN looked at those jobs and said this is what we need to do it.

Right now its working the way it should.  

The RCN response was "We don't agree with your numbers and we couldn't do the jobs asked with a different ship, so we're holding course".

Outside of a few circles there really isn't a challenge to the program that I can see.  Both the conservatives and libs want it to continue.  The challenges to it seem to be a few in the press, and a few sour grapes from the industry types who lost. No one I know outside of military circles is paying attention to this, they are focused on COVID, vaccines, jobs, economy and WandaVision.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Retired AF Guy said:


> I'm not an expert on big project items such as the CSC program, and I realize that the PBO is only looking at the budgetary aspects of the CSC program but I found the following statement interesting:
> 
> 
> 
> I would have thought that a comparison of the three designs capabilities would be a part of your cost analysis?


Including those factors would have sunk their report and made them look like fools I suspect.


----------



## MilEME09

It’s time to ban the buying of made-in-Canada warships - Macleans.ca
					

Scott Gilmore: Decades of waste and failure prove Canada is simply incapable of building ships for our navy. There's only one way to end the insanity once and for all.




					www.macleans.ca
				




I'll just leave this here


----------



## Uzlu

JMCanada said:


> T31: $27 B / 15 hulls = 1.80 B / hull  (50 B savings)


Maybe not. 


> Several important categories of costs are not included in this analysis. These are:
> • The cost of extending the life of the current Halifax-class fleet of frigates, which may be necessary to bridge a 4-year gap in the delivery of new frigates;
> • Any costs arising from a 4-year interruption of production at the partner shipyard, Irving Shipbuilding Inc., including any impacts this interruption may have on subcontractors; and,
> • Any additional costs associated with legal proceedings and contract liabilities that are otherwise not already included.





> 3 T26 + 12 T31 = 3× 5.133 + 12× 1.80 = 37 B


The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the Type 26 development and acquisitions costs for the first three ships is 17.2 billion dollars.  “While outside the scope of this report, we note that there could be costs associated with supporting two fleets of ships instead of one.”  So, that means more than 5.133 billion dollars for each Canadian Surface Combatant.


> If built in parallel (Irving and Davie) could be "sold to the voters" as more jobs at a time (even though delivery might be stretched for the same total period).


Irving will never allow Davie to build frigates.  But let us suppose Irving did allow Davie to build frigates.  What happens after all these sixteen frigates are built?


----------



## Stoker

MilEME09 said:


> It’s time to ban the buying of made-in-Canada warships - Macleans.ca
> 
> 
> Scott Gilmore: Decades of waste and failure prove Canada is simply incapable of building ships for our navy. There's only one way to end the insanity once and for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.macleans.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just leave this here


Not sure the guy knows what he's talking about.


----------



## dapaterson

Stoker said:


> Not sure the guy knows what he's talking about.


Not sure Irving knows how to build or repair ships affordably, either...


----------



## Underway

Build and repair _war_ ships affordably?  There is no such thing.  Navies are expensive.  Have always been that way and will always be that way.  You'll see from Davie doing Docking Work Periods now that the price is pretty close between them and Irving.  Now the "are we getting value for the money we are spending" argument.. well that's different. 

We all know the issues left over when a ship comes back from Irving work periods.  We'll have to see if Davie can do any better.


----------



## CBH99

I don’t agree with his general position, but there are a few points in his article that do have some merit.  A few...

He isn’t looking at the big picture of building an industry that is sustained for decades, just with this order book alone.

Nor does he factor in the economics of money trickling back to the government, and substantially boosting the local economies.  (In 2 areas that seem to constantly be in recession.)

Overall - we’ve discussed his points in this thread ad nausea.  Not all his points are bad, but he doesn’t see the big picture.


0.02


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Build and repair _war_ ships affordably?  There is no such thing.  Navies are expensive.  Have always been that way and will always be that way.  You'll see from Davie doing Docking Work Periods now that the price is pretty close between them and Irving.  Now the "are we getting value for the money we are spending" argument.. well that's different.
> 
> We all know the issues left over when a ship comes back from Irving work periods.  We'll have to see if Davie can do any better.


Agree all shipyards have issues. Irving is often a target as they get the lions share of government shipyard work. Davie has certainly had its issues over the years from the government having to a steal a ship back from them right up until issues with the Asterix build. 
If we want to try and be relevant on the world stage then we need to spend the money and get the Navy that we deserve.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Stoker said:


> Agree all shipyards have issues. Irving is often a target as they get the lions share of government shipyard work. Davie has certainly had its issues over the years from the government having to a steal a ship back from them right up until issues with the Asterix build.
> If we want to try and be relevant on the world stage then we need to spend the money and get the Navy that we deserve.



What is your attachment that drives your unwavering support for Irving and criticism of Asterix and Davies ?  You seem to run counter to every other person in the East Coast Navy.

I have taken multiple CPFs and 1 AOR out of Irving refits and well to be gentle as this is a public forum, if they were working on my car I wouldn't have gone back a second time. 

I say again we are propping a black hole of an industry for the sake of votes.  Let it die and build where the work can be done to a good standard and a fair price.


----------



## Halifax Tar

MilEME09 said:


> It’s time to ban the buying of made-in-Canada warships - Macleans.ca
> 
> 
> Scott Gilmore: Decades of waste and failure prove Canada is simply incapable of building ships for our navy. There's only one way to end the insanity once and for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.macleans.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll just leave this here



Canada isn't incapable of building military ships.  We just don't put the building of quality equipment ahead of things like votes and ensuring friends get work to take their profits offshore.


----------



## Stoker

Halifax Tar said:


> What is your attachment that drives your unwavering support for Irving and criticism of Asterix and Davies ?  You seem to run counter to every other person in the East Coast Navy.
> 
> I have taken multiple CPFs and 1 AOR out of Irving refits and well to be gentle as this is a public forum, if they were working on my car I wouldn't have gone back a second time.
> 
> I say again we are propping a black hole of an industry for the sake of votes.  Let it die and build where the work can be done to a good standard and a fair price.


Perhaps if we had better QA in the yards the product would be better. I never said Irving is the best but I can't get some of hate and insistence that Irving is fleecing the government by driving truckloads of cash out the door late at night.

If you talk to the right person you would know about the issues with Asterix.

You are right it is propping up an industry, just as we regularly prop up the Auto, airline, farmers etc and every supplier, service provider that relies on these industries to put food on the table.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> What is your attachment that drives your unwavering support for Irving and criticism of Asterix and Davies ?  You seem to run counter to every other person in the East Coast Navy.
> 
> I have taken multiple CPFs and 1 AOR out of Irving refits and well to be gentle as this is a public forum, if they were working on my car I wouldn't have gone back a second time.
> 
> I say again we are propping a black hole of an industry for the sake of votes.  Let it die and build where the work can be done to a good standard and a fair price.


I think if you had seen ships come out of other yards you might have a bit of context for what is typical. It's not like ships come out of any yard in turn key condition unless that's what you pay for, and we don't. There is usually a lot of arisings that come up that get punted past the DWPs for various reasons (usually time but sometimes money). The same things that happen at Irving happen at the other yards for work quality, and also with the FMFs and the different ISSCs. That's why you do QC and require rework for quality issues.

Wrt Irving they had some change to upper management on the DWP side so the approach has changed a bit, but previously they would try and get away with as much as they could, and we would let them. If you do some crap work with a customer that doesn't enforce the contract and they keep coming back why change? That's improved a lot, but sometimes things come up in QC and we also take a refund instead of a repair, so it's complicated.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Halifax Tar said:


> Canada isn't incapable of building military ships.  We just don't put the building of quality equipment ahead of things like votes and ensuring friends get work to take their profits offshore.


They will continue to build ships on the East Coast and West Coast no matter what the cost.  Ceasing to have this type of work would be another nail in the coffin to the economies of the East Coast.  The population of Nova Scotia has barely moved over the last 40yrs and the overall age of the population there has only gotten older. Killing Irving and all that suckle on the Irving teat would kick off another great exodus of young people for the East for the Central or the West. Keeping the shipyards allows the provincial governments there to have a stable tax base from all those that rely on Irving. Removing/reducing the tax base would cause the social services provided by the provincial governments to suffer more and fall further behind.  The Fed's know this and thus make a conscious decision to keep this flow of money open and moving.
This is not a knock on the East Coast at all.  Please don't take it as such.  Its just a plain review of how the lay of the land is currently.  Being off on the periphery of North America, far from any large demographics, with limited natural resources (except for oil/gas) or large scale high tech facilities, this is the reality for alot of places in the world.


----------



## CBH99

I’m not super familiar with the situation out on the east coast.  Just snippets on the news, but I’ve never lived there or even visited for long.

This NSS may be a good way to also get Irving to shape up.  While some have stated it is partially a contracting issue (we fail to specify things in the contract, and they do the minimum as per the contract) — Irving needs to shape up when it comes to refits, no doubt.

The bare minimum isn’t great customer service.

Anyways my question is - while we are propping up an industry, is this industry significant in terms of the regional economy?  

If so, it’s not just a matter of the economic circulation of building local - its helping to stabilize a regional economy, which then produces more benefits?


----------



## CBH99

Czech_pivo said:


> They will continue to build ships on the East Coast and West Coast no matter what the cost.  Ceasing to have this type of work would be another nail in the coffin to the economies of the East Coast.  The population of Nova Scotia has barely moved over the last 40yrs and the overall age of the population there has only gotten older. Killing Irving and all that suckle on the Irving teat would kick off another great exodus of young people for the East for the Central or the West. Keeping the shipyards allows the provincial governments there to have a stable tax base from all those that rely on Irving. Removing/reducing the tax base would cause the social services provided by the provincial governments to suffer more and fall further behind.  The Fed's know this and thus make a conscious decision to keep this flow of money open and moving.
> This is not a knock on the East Coast at all.  Please don't take it as such.  Its just a plain review of how the lay of the land is currently.  Being off on the periphery of North America, far from any large demographics, with limited natural resources (except for oil/gas) or large scale high tech facilities, this is the reality for alot of places in the world.


We posted our posts at the same time.

But yeah.  What Czech said ☺️👍🏻


----------



## Halifax Tar

Stoker said:


> Perhaps if we had better QA in the yards the product would be better. I never said Irving is the best but I can't get some of hate and insistence that Irving is fleecing the government by driving truckloads of cash out the door late at night.
> 
> I have seen the shape we get the ships back in.  The garbage left all over.  The poor quality of work, incomplete work and attention to detail. Irving is a for profit company, I cant really blame them if we're the ones who keep going back I suppose.
> 
> If you talk to the right person you would know about the issues with Asterix.
> 
> I have never heard anyone say anything bad about Asterix who has sailed her. Outside of the lack of baffles in her tanks, which I think is rectified now.
> 
> You are right it is propping up an industry, just as we regularly prop up the Auto, airline, farmers etc and every supplier, service provider that relies on these industries to put food on the table.
> 
> I don't understand why we prop those up either.  I believe people should accept that they will have to move to where there is work and not expect public money to provide them a subsistence because of reason XYZ.  I also believe in the free market, if your company cant my a descent product at a price point people will buy you shouldn't be be able to compete or exist.



Replies in yellow(ish)


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:


> I’m not super familiar with the situation out on the east coast.  Just snippets on the news, but I’ve never lived there or even visited for long.
> 
> This NSS may be a good way to also get Irving to shape up.  While some have stated it is partially a contracting issue (we fail to specify things in the contract, and they do the minimum as per the contract) — Irving needs to shape up when it comes to refits, no doubt.
> 
> The bare minimum isn’t great customer service.
> 
> Anyways my question is - while we are propping up an industry, is this industry significant in terms of the regional economy?
> 
> If so, it’s not just a matter of the economic circulation of building local - its helping to stabilize a regional economy, which then produces more benefits?



NSS and ship repair are two different beasts all together. Generally there are good practical reasons for the ship repairs to be geographically co-located with the operating areas for our bases, and there are pretty significant additional costs to going outside the region. Some of it gets added into the bid eval, but it's only a fraction of the real costs we incur, so the local yards have a natural advantage.

There is definitely good cross polination to the ship repair though; ship building maximizes profits by doing the job efficiently as possible the first time without re-work, and that requires a tonne of planning and coordination. Ship repair is a lot more reactive planning, so that aspect is different but there are a lot of neat surveying and QC practices from the build that you can take advantage of to improve the ship repair process, so definitely possible.

In terms of local economy in Halifax, the base and ship repair activities are a significant part of the economy. Aside from the direct employees there are all the supporting industries (part supply, environmental, etc etc) that all have significant business interests. If either of those moved out permanently, there would like be a significant contraction in the direct work, as well as the companies that had those as a big portion of their work. The DWPs are part of that, but there is a big overlap between contractors and suppliers for those and in service repairs. Similarly a lot of the same suppliers are already in place to support the ongoing new build work, so it's all kind of tied together, and means there is a strong base there for any commercial ships that need repairs during port visits.

After DND and Irving, the next biggest employer is probably the local government, the universities and Olands. Not really great


----------



## NavyShooter

The words I use when I describe the 'work' I've seen from ISI include:

"Wilful, Deliberate Sabotage"
"Thievery"
"Incompetence"

If you wish to discuss multiple examples I've seen with my own eyes in reactivating ships, I can provide them.  

Grey-water lines deliberately blocked with materiel.
Fiber-optic cables cut
Cat-6 cables for AHWCS cut and tucked back into wireways
Fire-hose connectors cut off hoses and stolen for the scrap brass value

Many more examples available...then there's my friend who worked QA at the AOPS project and found them only welding 10% of the length that they were supposed to on portions of the double hull on ship #1 - basically, spot-welding instead of seam welding.  After they found the first instance of that, they did a WHOLE lot more checking, and the delays started getting longer because ISI actually had to do the construction properly IAW the design plans.

Yeah, the months of work required to re-activate a ship out of ISI are partly to discover all the things that ISI either didn't fix or deliberately broke so that they'd get called in for an 'arising' so they could charge more to come back and fix it later.  

Ask me about the C-5 Hull Outfit they didn't both wrapping and protecting against the cold...and how many SET's had to be replaced because of that (hint - over 10%)

Ask me about the PA system on the ship that they deliberately yanked cables out of speaker boxes and cut other cables....one day it was 93% functional ship-wide and tested.  The next day, it was less than 40% functional.  

I've got a pretty low opinion of ISI's capabilities, for reasons I've seen with my own eyes.  

I'm glad that there's ships going elsewhere for work, even though the logistics of supporting a ship in Refit out of province during COVID times is a massive drain on resources...it's still worth it.  Maybe it will cause ISI to up their game to compete.


----------



## GR66

If there have been deliberate acts of sabotage of our warships found was there an investigation and were charges laid?  If not, why?  

And if this has happened on more that one refit or build then were measures put in place to monitor the work being done to ensure it doesn't happen again, or if it does it is detected and the appropriate actions taken?

Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me.


----------



## Czech_pivo

NavyShooter said:


> The words I use when I describe the 'work' I've seen from ISI include:
> 
> "Wilful, Deliberate Sabotage"
> "Thievery"
> "Incompetence"
> 
> If you wish to discuss multiple examples I've seen with my own eyes in reactivating ships, I can provide them.
> 
> Grey-water lines deliberately blocked with materiel.
> Fiber-optic cables cut
> Cat-6 cables for AHWCS cut and tucked back into wireways
> Fire-hose connectors cut off hoses and stolen for the scrap brass value
> 
> Many more examples available...then there's my friend who worked QA at the AOPS project and found them only welding 10% of the length that they were supposed to on portions of the double hull on ship #1 - basically, spot-welding instead of seam welding.  After they found the first instance of that, they did a WHOLE lot more checking, and the delays started getting longer because ISI actually had to do the construction properly IAW the design plans.
> 
> Yeah, the months of work required to re-activate a ship out of ISI are partly to discover all the things that ISI either didn't fix or deliberately broke so that they'd get called in for an 'arising' so they could charge more to come back and fix it later.
> 
> Ask me about the C-5 Hull Outfit they didn't both wrapping and protecting against the cold...and how many SET's had to be replaced because of that (hint - over 10%)
> 
> Ask me about the PA system on the ship that they deliberately yanked cables out of speaker boxes and cut other cables....one day it was 93% functional ship-wide and tested.  The next day, it was less than 40% functional.
> 
> I've got a pretty low opinion of ISI's capabilities, for reasons I've seen with my own eyes.
> 
> I'm glad that there's ships going elsewhere for work, even though the logistics of supporting a ship in Refit out of province during COVID times is a massive drain on resources...it's still worth it.  Maybe it will cause ISI to up their game to compete.


Kind of reminds me back to my university days at the end of the 80's into '90 when I worked Friday nights, Saturday's and the occasional Monday night at Chrysler's in Windsor making the mini-van.
I would break down the plant into 2 groups, those over the age of say 40-45+ who were 'old school' and had a solid work ethic and cared about their work and those FTE in the 25-35 age group who barely made it through high-school (and in some cases didn't) and had a huge sense of entitlement and a chip on their shoulder. They knew, THEY KNEW, that the Union would back they to the hilt and thus they didn't really care about quality or having a sense of proud.  I saw first hand on a number of cases direct sabotage to the 'line' in order to stop production, I saw first hand deliberate mis-installing of parts into vehicles or breaking parts and installing.  I saw first hand guys smoking pot during their 5-6min break every 2hrs and they go back and start making mini-vans. I saw a guy punch-out, laid him out flat, his Line Manager because he was doing shitty work and the Line Manager called him out for it. All he got for assaulting his boss was the rest of the day off with pay and moved over to another area because the union backed him and the company didn't pursue the issue as they didn't want any work stoppages.
I've got no idea on what goes on within the Irving workspace but I'm sure that it must share some similarities to what I've described above - in fact most manufacturing facilities that are unionized must as well.


----------



## Uzlu

Response to latest PBO report on CSC

*Statement by the Department of National Defence on the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s Report on the Canadian Surface Combatant*

_February 24, 2021 – Ottawa (Ontario) – National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces_

The Department of National Defence (DND) thanks the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) for its work, and welcomes its report on the Canadian Surface Combatant. Reports such as this one serve a critical role in validating our project costs, while supporting our shared objective of ensuring that the best value is provided to Canadians.

After reviewing the report, we find that the key differences in our cost estimates can be primarily attributed to the PBO including provincial sales tax and the additional emphasis PBO puts on weight-related costing.  

We conducted extensive research to ensure that the selected Type 26 design will provide the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) with the modern and capable warships it needs to support operations. The design was selected following an open, fair, and transparent competitive procurement process, in which performance against the RCN’s requirements was a key selection criteria. As the PBO noted the other design options that they examined would have “more limited” and “modest” capabilities than our selected design. These reductions would impede the RCN’s ability to execute its assigned roles and missions to keep Canadians safe both at home and abroad.  

While we recognize the differences in our calculations, we are confident in our current estimate of $56 billion to $60 billion (before taxes). This accurately reflects the value of this project, and is based on our detailed costing model and ongoing work with industry. As we adapt the design to meet the needs of the RCN and confirm more details related to the ship’s combat and support systems, we gain greater confidence in our costing.

Delivery timelines continue to be reviewed and are not final. We are actively working with industry to accelerate the project in order to deliver these important ships to the RCN as soon as possible. One way this will be done is by starting construction of the simpler zones of the ship while the design work on the more complex sections continues, similar to what we have done for the Joint Support Ship.

The report also calculated the costs of selecting a new design for the CSC project. This is not an option we will be pursuing. As the PBO accurately states throughout the report, there are important differences in capabilities when comparing the cost of these three designs.

Selecting a new design at this stage in the project would lead to significant economic loss for Canada’s marine industry and those employed in it. It would have major operational impacts for the RCN, due to associated project delays and life-extension requirements, as well as increasing the costs to operate and maintain more than one class of ships in the future. 

Additionally, launching a new competitive process would not guarantee that a new design would result in a lower cost, and would certainly incur additional project management costs related to launching a new procurement process and restarting the required design work.

In addition to providing an invaluable investment into the future operational capability of the RCN, the CSC is also at the core of our Government’s commitment to revitalize Canada’s marine industry through the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which supports over 15,000 jobs per year. This project will provide significant and long-standing investments into the Canadian economy from coast to coast during construction and over decades throughout the CSC’s operational life.

The CSC is the right ship for the RCN, and will provide the best value for the military, Canada, and the Canadian economy. We remain confident that the capability and versatility of the selected CSC design will equip the RCN with the modern, capable, and effective fleet of 15 surface combatants that it will need to support operations for decades to come. We will continue ongoing work to support the start of construction in 2023/2024.

_Associated Link:_
The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants: 2021 Update and Options Analysis






						FRONTLINE COMMENTARY | FrontLine Defence
					






					defence.frontline.online


----------



## Underway

Uzlu said:


> After reviewing the report, we find that the key differences in our cost estimates can be primarily attributed to the PBO including provincial sales tax *and the additional emphasis PBO puts on weight-related costing.*



This.  Taxes don't actually count as a cost because they are collected and returned to the taxpayer.  Its basically moving a fiver from one pocket to the next.  

Weight-related costing is the dumbest thing ever invented.  Basically what it is you go back and look at what a ship costs per ton to build.  It doesn't matter what the ship is, what its equipment is, or what role it has.  This means the PBO had to go back to the Halifax build (the last time we built warships) to get the cost per ton of that build.  Then apply inflationary calculations to make this a today's dollar amount and then project forward inflationary costs.

Then you multiply by the expected tons of CSC you're getting and this is your answer.  So for the math geeks:

(cost of Halifax Class) / (Halifax class tons) * inflation calculations * number of tones of CSC being built = program cost

This is the equivalent of buying a Ford Truck today on the basis of what it cost per pound in 1992.

This doesn't account for what's going in the ship, the changes in electronics weight and cost over the last 30 years, the changes in missile technology, reserve space, manufacturing, supply management, fuel prices, maintenance budgets, crew salary etc...

If they were more modern then they looked at other national warship programs to get a better indication of cost per ton (say the Australian AAW destroyer program) but I'm not sure that's what they did and that, of course, comes with its own risks..


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway said:


> This is the equivalent of buying a Ford Truck today on the basis of what it cost per pound in 1992.



At least, today's Ford truck would come out great: There was a lot more steel in the 1992 models, so today's "light" version would be quite "cheap" calculated that way.

Not so unfortunately for warships: High tensile strenght steel is still high tensile strength steel.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> At least, today's Ford truck would come out great: There was a lot more steel in the 1992 models, so today's "light" version would be quite "cheap" calculated that way.
> 
> Not so unfortunately for warships: High tensile strenght steel is still high tensile strength steel.


Electronics cost is one example where weight is a completely weird way to calculate.  Not only are electronics lighter and cheaper (with COTS servers in mil-spec racks) how do you account for software costs which weigh nothing?  What about changes in radars where we have solid-state panels and massive cooling systems vs motors/hydraulics/dishes and feedhorns?  It's mind-boggling that this is method still in use.


----------



## JMCanada

Uzlu said:


> The Parliamentary Budget Officer says that the Type 26 development and acquisitions costs for the first three ships is 17.2 billion dollars. (...)  So, that means more than 5.133 billion dollars for each Canadian Surface Combatant.



I agree with your points. Myself was surprised about no cancellation costs were included, not to mention that in long building runs the latest ships are cheaper than the first ones. However take my points just as gross simplifications, based on PBO's report. They work in gross terms. 

My point leads to the hybrid fleet which is not in discussion yet,  probably not within next couple of years. But alongwith the economy cycles, there will come times of budget cuts and search for savings. That's when the type 31 frigate may come in to fill the gaps and keep the numbers of frigates (while with much less capability, I know).

Sorry this post comes after so many replies in between. So it may be off-topic in  the present discussion.


----------



## MilEME09

Fed’s navy, shipbuilding plan delayed by mismanagement: Auditor general - National | Globalnews.ca
					

Karen Hogan's warning was contained in a new report that offers a scathing assessment of Ottawa's multibillion-dollar national shipbuilding strategy.




					globalnews.ca
				




Auditor general once again holds nothing back against the ship building program.


----------



## childs56

Czech_pivo said:


> FYI
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PBO's latest estimate says warships will cost $77B as estimated price jumps $17B
> 
> 
> OTTAWA — Parliament’s budget watchdog is predicting another multibillion-dollar increase in the cost of a new fleet of warships for the Royal Canadian Navy, pegging the price for what was already the largest military procurement in Canada’s history a
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.halifaxtoday.ca


This seems to be heading a similar direction the replacement helicopters went.  increased costs, election year...... huge cancellation costs. Still need the ship. But extremely expensive. One can say this is restarting the Canadian ship building industry but at what cost and at what sacrifice who is profiting from this.  If one does a bit of research a few big names pop up on the radar.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Just a little exercise here to have fun with the PBO's method:

Anybody knows what type of warship is the cheapest on a "cost-per-ton" basis, and which one is the most expensive?


Cheapest: Amphibious assault ship (inclusive of the the cost of the landing crafts and all airframes carried on board); closely followed by a classic propulsion aircraft carrier - yep, a carrier - inclusive of the cost of all airplanes on board.

Most expensive: Minehunters.


Funny, ain't it. It's because LHA's and CVA's are very heavy but mostly empty boxes with little self armament or sophisticated sensors and combat control systems as compared to their escorts - for instance.

On the other hand, building large (yes, for that product -large) hulls in glass reinforced plastic and with careful attention to then everything onboard (aluminium main engines -plastic/aluminium furniture and hatches/doors, etc being non-magnetic or having any other noise signature, plus designing sophisticated sonar systems and under water vehicles (non-magnetic also) to deliver explosive charges for remote detonation of mines is very expensive.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> Fed’s navy, shipbuilding plan delayed by mismanagement: Auditor general - National | Globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> Karen Hogan's warning was contained in a new report that offers a scathing assessment of Ottawa's multibillion-dollar national shipbuilding strategy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> globalnews.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Auditor general once again holds nothing back against the ship building program.


Hmmm
“As an example, she noted that the last of the navy’s existing Halifax-class frigates is due to retire in 2047 — only one year before the last of 15 new warships is scheduled to arrive.”

HMCS Ottawa was commissioned in 1996, that would make her 51yrs old in 2047. Anyone want to take the bet here and now that HMCS Ottawa will not be an active warship by that time..... 
Pathetic- simply and utterly pathetic.


----------



## MilEME09

Czech_pivo said:


> Hmmm
> “As an example, she noted that the last of the navy’s existing Halifax-class frigates is due to retire in 2047 — only one year before the last of 15 new warships is scheduled to arrive.”
> 
> HMCS Ottawa was commissioned in 1996, that would make her 51yrs old in 2047. Anyone want to take the bet here and now that HMCS Ottawa will not be an active warship by that time.....
> Pathetic- simply and utterly pathetic.


I'll take that bet for $5 and a beer of my choice.


----------



## Underway

> “I am of the view that the shipbuilding strategy has been, by and large, successful,” Anand said. “I don’t think it is a mistake when you see the contribution to the Canadian economy … and the actual vessels that have been produced.”


So the program got off to a rocky start, but the AG thinks its working now.   I guess "Program Working" is a terrible news story.



> The report revealed the Vancouver shipyard “sustained significant financial losses” during the construction of those vessels, the last of which was delivered in October, due to a significant underestimation in the time and effort needed to build them.


Oh good it's in the news I can talk about it now.  The contract the CCG project office signed with Vancouver SY for those vessels was absolutely criminal  (in my personal opinion).  I'll let people come to their own conclusions on potential knock-on effects for other shipbuilding contracts/work in the future.  



> As an example, she noted that the last of the navy’s existing Halifax-class frigates is due to retire in 2047 — only one year before the last of 15 new warships is scheduled to arrive.



Yep, planning for it...  Though I suspect when we get to ship 11 or 12 of the CSC the timelines/plan gets fuzzy as you then have a one-for-one replacement.  I don't expect us to be rolling in personnel at that time either given current trends so the ship might be there, but there might be no one available to crew her...


----------



## Czech_pivo

MilEME09 said:


> I'll take that bet for $5 and a beer of my choice.


It can be any beer, as long as its 'Czech'


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Oh good it's in the news I can talk about it now.  The contract the CCG project office signed with Vancouver SY for those vessels was absolutely criminal  (in my personal opinion).  I'll let people come to their own conclusions on potential knock-on effects for other shipbuilding contracts/work in the future.


Well they are fighting for the Polar Icebreaker contract so they still want the work.


----------



## Kirkhill

> Just a little exercise here to have fun with the PBO's method:
> 
> Anybody knows what type of warship is the cheapest on a "cost-per-ton" basis, and which one is the most expensive?
> 
> 
> Cheapest: Amphibious assault ship (inclusive of the the cost of the landing crafts and all airframes carried on board); closely followed by a classic propulsion aircraft carrier - yep, a carrier - inclusive of the cost of all airplanes on board.
> 
> Most expensive: Minehunters.
> 
> 
> Funny, ain't it. It's because LHA's and CVA's are very heavy but mostly empty boxes with little self armament or sophisticated sensors and combat control systems as compared to their escorts - for instance.
> 
> On the other hand, building large (yes, for that product -large) hulls in glass reinforced plastic and with careful attention to then everything onboard (aluminium main engines -plastic/aluminium furniture and hatches/doors, etc being non-magnetic or having any other noise signature, plus designing sophisticated sonar systems and under water vehicles (non-magnetic also) to deliver explosive charges for remote detonation of mines is very expensive.



So, to expand on that thought.....

It is cheap to add an empty box onto a 4000 tonne frigate, extending her hull, increasing her speed and seaworthiness, adding to her cargo carrying capacity and ability to lift pongos, trucks, boats and helicopters. 

It is expensive to start filling up the empty box with the permanent attachment of every weapon and sensor known to the world's navies, just because it is possible.

NB - and in the process slow her down unless adding bigger, more expensive engines.


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> Oh good it's in the news I can talk about it now. The contract the CCG project office signed with Vancouver SY for those vessels was absolutely criminal (in my personal opinion). I'll let people come to their own conclusions on potential knock-on effects for other shipbuilding contracts/work in the future.


Care to expand, even if it's just the basic nuts & bolts?  Genuinely curious


----------



## Weinie

I know that many with far more knowledge than I have posted about costing for the CSC. I am a long-time CAF member, and believe that we should get the best equipment possible for our folks. But my mind boggles at the thought that each of these ships will cost us in excess of $5 billion.


----------



## Good2Golf

Want to take a guess on the life-cycle cost of a C-17?  😉


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:


> Want to take a guess on the life-cycle cost of a C-17?  😉


If you discount for pilot egos, they're eminently affordable.


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Want to take a guess on the life-cycle cost of a C-17?  😉


Probably not. I have already updated my mantra to "Freedom 75". Do I need to add 10 years?


----------



## daftandbarmy

Weinie said:


> I know that many with far more knowledge than I have posted about costing for the CSC. I am a long-time CAF member, and believe that we should get the best equipment possible for our folks. But my mind boggles at the thought that each of these ships will cost us in excess of $5 billion.



And, yet, we can't seem to make a pair of boots that doesn't cause more casualties than the enemy


----------



## Good2Golf

dapaterson said:


> If you discount for pilot egos, they're eminently affordable.


“Departmental indirect sunk costs.”  Hate the game, not the players. 😉 




Weinie said:


> Probably not. I have already updated my mantra to "Freedom 75". Do I need to add 10 years?


At least... 😆


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:


> Care to expand, even if it's just the basic nuts & bolts?  Genuinely curious



Well here is my personal opinion.  I have no major inside information as I haven't worked on that project but have talked to some about it.  Some of this is supposition.

_I believe_ the CCG project office significantly underestimated the cost and then more or less told the shipyard what they were going to pay. Not wanting to lose the follow-on work the shipyard said yes with some misgivings.  

Then the design that was bought for the CCG project needed some engineering rework. _I believe_ that extra cost was not captured in the contract. Hence the shipyard lost a lot of money.

The JSS project likely saved them, as moving that project forward allowed them to get some money in the door.


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> I know that many with far more knowledge than I have posted about costing for the CSC. I am a long-time CAF member, and believe that we should get the best equipment possible for our folks. But my mind boggles at the thought that each of these ships will cost us in excess of $5 billion.



Ammunition, spares, fuel, salaries, maintenance.  The sail away cost is likely 2 billion.  The 25-year cost of ownership gets expensive.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Ammunition, spares, fuel, salaries, maintenance.  The sail away cost is likely 2 billion.  The 25-year cost of ownership gets expensive.


Not a surprise to those familiar with defence procurement and life-cycle costing inclusion in contemporary acquisitions.  In-service support costs over 20-ish years being 2-3 times capital acquisition is entirely expected.


----------



## Weinie

Good2Golf said:


> Not a surprise to those familiar with defence procurement and life-cycle costing inclusion in contemporary acquisitions.  In-service support costs over 20-ish years being 2-3 times capital acquisition is entirely expected.


Yeah, to me it is sticker shock, compounded by the Rolls Royce cost of maintenance.


----------



## FJAG

Good2Golf said:


> Not a surprise to those familiar with defence procurement and life-cycle costing inclusion in contemporary acquisitions.  In-service support costs over 20-ish years being 2-3 times capital acquisition is entirely expected.


You know that, I know that, we all here know that. Why in heaven's name do we not publish the costs as a breakdown of costs so that the general public understands that. I saw DND's response to the PBO's estimates and it was just "While we recognize the differences in our calculations, we are confident in our current estimate of $56 billion to $60 billion (before taxes)".  Jeezus Louise. Why didn't that include the breakdown. At that rate the average Joe thinks each ship will cost $4 billion. A recent Mail article on the Queen Elizabeth calls her their 3 billion pound carrier. That makes it appear that their aircraft carrier's cost is the same as one of our frigates which we all know it isn't.

If you break out the costs and the press then refuses to publish the details you can still post it on the Forces websites and issue more pointed press releases. Where's our information campaign (other than making up stories about wolves in Nova Scotia.) Let's face it folks we're in an info war within our own country and we're loosing big time.

Seems to me that we may have too many info officers and not enough info.

Rant ends.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Well here is my personal opinion.  I have no major inside information as I haven't worked on that project but have talked to some about it.  Some of this is supposition.
> 
> _I believe_ the CCG project office significantly underestimated the cost and then more or less told the shipyard what they were going to pay. Not wanting to lose the follow-on work the shipyard said yes with some misgivings.
> 
> Then the design that was bought for the CCG project needed some engineering rework. _I believe_ that extra cost was not captured in the contract. Hence the shipyard lost a lot of money.
> 
> The JSS project likely saved them, as moving that project forward allowed them to get some money in the door.


The group has 3 shipyards, the repair drydock facility in Vancouver is always busy and Washington Group has a whole bunch of other things going on as well


----------



## childs56

From the PBO for 2021 on the cost of the Type 26
                                            Point Estimate                   1 year delay            2 year delay
Development                              4.4                                     4.5                           4.5
Acquisition - Production           58.6  (3.9billion ea)            60.5                         62.4
Ancillary acquisition                  13.0                                     13.4                         13.8
Spares                                        1.3                                       1.4                           1.4
Total                                           77.3   (5.1billion each)         79.7                         82.1


PBO office 2017
Pre-Production       5.3 billion

Production              53.2 Billion (3.54 billion Ea)

Project wide            11.4billion  (spares training, life cycle)

Total                         69.8 billion (4.65 billion each)




			https://pbo-dpb.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/artefacts/b2559c27bdd1bb8703d979c8a3dafc7ad10460acdd7d3b87c223e1b58bd09018


----------



## MilEME09

childs56 said:


> From the PBO for 2021 on the cost of the Type 26
> Point Estimate                   1 year delay            2 year delay
> Development                              4.4                                     4.5                           4.5
> Acquisition - Production           58.6  (3.9billion ea)            60.5                         62.4
> Ancillary acquisition                  13.0                                     13.4                         13.8
> Spares                                        1.3                                       1.4                           1.4
> Total                                           77.3   (5.1billion each)         79.7                         82.1
> 
> 
> PBO office 2017
> Pre-Production       5.3 billion
> 
> Production              53.2 Billion (3.54 billion Ea)
> 
> Project wide            11.4billion  (spares training, life cycle)
> 
> Total                         69.8 billion (4.65 billion each)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://pbo-dpb.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/artefacts/b2559c27bdd1bb8703d979c8a3dafc7ad10460acdd7d3b87c223e1b58bd09018


Anyone In the know, how likely is the unit cost to go down over the course of a 15 ship build schedule?


----------



## Uzlu

MilEME09 said:


> Anyone In the know, how likely is the unit cost to go down over the course of a 15 ship build schedule?


Zero.  The first frigate is to be delivered in about 2030 or 2031.  The fifteenth frigate is to be delivered in about 2048 or 2049.  The rate of inflation of warships is much higher than the general rate of inflation.  Why Have Navy Ship Costs Risen?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Uzlu said:


> Zero.  The first frigate is to be delivered in about 2030 or 2031.  The fifteenth frigate is to be delivered in about 2048 or 2049.  The rate of inflation of warships is much higher than the general rate of inflation.  Why Have Navy Ship Costs Risen?


The actual labour effort will drop significantly between the first few builds then taper off, but yeah, over that timeline the costs might increase for exactly that reason. Big jumps in commodities (steel etc), shortage of semiconductors, exchange rates and who knows what can drive a lot of your line items up faster than you will save in labour costs. A drop on the CAD will have huge impact on the line items.

For context, usually there is a huge learning curve in the first few ships (10%+ improvements), but when you are comparing 2030 costs to 2045+ costs it gets weird unless you start doing adjustments for inflation (and usually there are multiple indexes that would apply to different aspects so it's complicated)


----------



## Underway

Don't forget the rework for mistakes, misses, and things that worked on the plan but just didn't work in practice.  Those start disappearing rapidly.  AOPS has seen QC reported issues drop to only 10% of what they were in ship1 for ship 3.  That saves quite a bit of money.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Sorry if I missed this in the fine print, but is the Type 31e estimate based on Canadian production or "Canadianization" of living quarters, sensors, communication gear and weapons?  It's also odd that the graphics presented appear to be based on the BMT Venator design which was not what the UK selected, which makes me question how up to date that estimate really is.


----------



## Kirkhill

After beating this costing issue into the deck for eternity I have come to the conclusion that I would change the entire budgetary focus from platforms to effects.

Not Navy, Army, Air Force, SOF, INT, RCMP, CCG, DFO etc....

Not ships, tanks, planes ...

But

Cost of Sigs Watch
Cost of Air Watch
Cost of Maritime Watch
Cost of Surface Watch

Cost of Air Reaction Forces
Cost of Naval Reaction Forces
Cost of Land Reaction Forces (Fyrd, Huskarls and Polis)  
Cost of a Standing Army (trick question - British system... there are no Standing Armies - at least there weren't until we colonials got the RCMP and their sisters across the Empire).

Costs then become the sum of Personnel, Consumables, Ops and Maintenance, Capital, Finance and Insurance. 

Annualized
In Perpetuity

Capital then becomes just another Consumable.  Something that has to be replaced as it is used.  It can either be replaced by a similar device or by a completely new technology.


----------



## Uzlu

Cdn Blackshirt said:


> Sorry if I missed this in the fine print, but is the Type 31e estimate based on Canadian production or "Canadianization" of living quarters, sensors, communication gear and weapons?





> These cost estimates are inclusive of all activities associated with the development and acquisition phases of the procurement project and also account for provincial taxes and an initial 2-year supply of spare parts for each vessel.


Source: page one in the following PDF:


			https://pbo-dpb.s3.ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/artefacts/b2559c27bdd1bb8703d979c8a3dafc7ad10460acdd7d3b87c223e1b58bd09018
		


So the estimates for the Type 31 frigate do include the price of modifying the design to Royal Canadian Navy standards.  Anyway, I find it strange to compare costs with FREMM and Type 31—Naval Group and Fincantieri did not submit formal bids and Type 31 is a low-end design.  If the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates wanted estimates of alternatives, they should have requested estimates for frigates based on _De Zeven Provinciën_ and _Cristóbal Colón_.


----------



## blacktriangle

Uzlu said:


> _Cristóbal Colón_.


Talk about a way to get a project cancelled...


----------



## Colin Parkinson

reveng said:


> Talk about a way to get a project cancelled...


Apparently similar to the Hobart class of ships, does not appear to much of a downgrade from the Type 26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_frigate_Cristóbal_Colón


----------



## blacktriangle

Colin Parkinson said:


> Apparently similar to the Hobart class of ships, does not appear to much of a downgrade from the Type 26 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_frigate_Cristóbal_Colón


Yes, I know what it is. It was one of the designs proposed for CSC IIRC. 

Not sure how a design based on a ship named after Christopher Columbus would look optics wise in this day and age...


----------



## Good2Golf

Also intriguing why cost comparisons weren’t done for De Zeven Provencien and F-105, yet T31 was included when it never was in contention.


----------



## Blackadder1916

Uzlu said:


> . . .  If the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates wanted estimates of alternatives, they should have requested estimates for frigates based on _De Zeven Provinciën_ and _Cristóbal Colón_.



But did the OGGO "really" want estimates of alternatives.  The request to the PBO arose from this discussion in committee.



> Mr. Ziad Aboultaif
> Thank you.
> Mr. Chair, I will yield the rest of my time to Ms. Vignola for a motion.
> 
> Mrs. Julie Vignola
> Thank you very much.
> So I will read the motion, which is the following:
> 
> That the Committee request that the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer undertake a costing analysis of building the Canadian Surface Combatants and building the FREMM and the Type 31 and that the report containing this analysis be presented to the Chair of the Committee by Thursday, October 22, 2020.
> This is the first version you received.
> 
> The Chair
> Colleagues, I will point out just a couple of things.
> 
> Although we have a motion in front of us, we're under a very tight timeline. As all committee members know, we have to finish. We normally end our committees on the hour because our technicians need additional time to set up for the next meeting. I'm somewhat disappointed that we have to deal with this now, because it's cutting into our technicians' time for the next committee.
> 
> The motion in front of us is in order. It can be debated and amended. I'm looking to see if anyone wants to speak to it.
> 
> Mr. Francis Drouin
> Mr. Chair, technically it should have been ruled out of order, but it's feel-good Friday so I'll be voting in favour of it.
> 
> The Chair
> I'm seeing no debate, so I am going to ask Paul to do the roll call, please.
> (Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 0)
> 
> The Chair:  Since this is, as Mr. Drouin pointed out, feel-good Friday, I feel the love. I feel the love from all of you.
> 
> Colleagues, that will conclude our meeting for today. I remind you that we will have two more meetings throughout the summer, if the whips approve the dates. The first one will be on Thursday, July 23, at 2 p.m. eastern time. The following one will be on Thursday, August 27, at 11 a.m. eastern time. You will be getting a notification from our clerk to confirm those meeting times when we have confirmation from our whips.
> With that, I wish you all a great summer. I hope you all stay healthy and safe. I also hope you have opportunities to spend time with your loved ones, your families and friends. These last three months have been quite an experience for all of us, and I appreciate what all of you have done to make this committee a working success, in my humble opinion. We'll see you back here in July.
> The meeting is adjourned.



That's the extent of the discussion and the interest paid to the issue.  Though I searched for any other reference in committee minutes and Hansard, it hadn't been raised in committee previously, no other evidence was given and the only discussion in subsequent meetings was a quick one line from the chair that the original deadline for the report couldn't be met so they extended the deadline to February.  It was only after the report was presented was the issue raised in the House.

Ms. Vignola brought the motion up at 1305 hrs after all other business in the meeting agenda was attended to.  This item wasn't in the agenda.  The meeting was scheduled to finish at 1300 hrs so they were only a couple of minutes past deadline.  This final motion was discussed (as briefly as it was) and the meeting concluded at 1309 hrs.  So they expended four minutes on the issue - obviously important.

_(Edited to add)_
The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates will hold it's first committee meeting to discuss the PBO's report on Monday 8 March 2021.





						Notice of Meeting - OGGO (43-2) - No. 19 - House of Commons of Canada
					

Notice of Meeting - OGGO (43-2) - No. 19 - House of Commons of Canada



					www.ourcommons.ca


----------



## blacktriangle

Good2Golf said:


> Also intriguing why cost comparisons weren’t done for De Zeven Provencien and F-105, yet T31 was included when it never was in contention.


Setting the stage for a discussion on "Good" vs "Good Enough", perhaps? Maybe I'm just cynical.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> Also intriguing why cost comparisons weren’t done for De Zeven Provencien and F-105, yet T31 was included when it never was in contention.


Honestly think it's because they don't know any better, and probably picked random new ships they read about being in development.

A more Machivellian approach would have that fed to them from the various anti-NSS camps in GoC, but honestly a lot of MPs are shockingly uninformed on the topics they chair committees on.


----------



## JMCanada

It's a non-sense for me that Navantia had to submit their offer based on F-105 (C. Colón), an AAW frigate, because the original request was for already built vessels. 
They had already designed the F-110 (just it was only a paper sheet, quite similar as it was the Type 26), a new ASW frigate, which is now close to the preliminary design review, and includes both CODLAG propulsion and SPY-7 radar, like the CSC.


----------



## Weinie

JMCanada said:


> It's a non-sense for me that Navantia had to submit their offer based on F-105 (C. Colón), an AAW frigate, because the original request was for already built vessels.
> They had already designed the F-110 (just it was only a paper sheet, quite similar as it was the Type 26), a new ASW frigate, which is now close to the preliminary design review, and includes both CODLAG propulsion and SPY-7 radar, like the CSC.


Anyone want to bet that we end up with 3 Type 26's and then the rest will be mongrel Type 28.5's, which will be Canadian-only bastardized versions of combining Type 26 and Type 31's aspects, with future Naval combat capabilities built in?


----------



## Good2Golf

Reminds me of the CP-140 really being an S-3 Viking inside a P-3 Orion body...initially, anyway.


----------



## Uzlu

> NAC provides context on PBO Report on CSC
> 
> In early February, the Naval Association of Canada (NAC) released an in-depth research paper outlining the inherent complexities of costing and comparing shipbuilding projects. The focus of the paper was the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) Project, which is now garnering considerable attention in the wake of the recent Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) Report.
> 
> The NAC's aim was to highlight both the broader strategic value and economic advantages of domestic shipbuilding and the challenges of comparing different warship designs. In doing so, the intent was to offer a more holistic understanding of Canada's approach to shipbuilding and the CSC Project.
> 
> Now that the PBO has released cost estimates and comparisons between the CSC and other warship designs, the NAC would like to comment on certain assumptions and conclusions within that Report.
> 
> As with our past work, the intent is not to criticize the PBO, who has produced a realistic and cost analysis, but rather to re-emphasize sophisticated the layers of complexity and uncertainty in shipbuilding and to provide context to assist readers in their evaluation of the Report.
> 
> *The PBO Report – Overview*
> 
> The PBO's Report on the CSC was prepared in response to a request from the House of Commons Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.
> 
> The assigned task was to examine the cost of the existing CSC Project to replace both the current fleet of 12 Halifax-class frigates and three Iroquois-class destroyers with a new fleet of 15 multi-purpose warships, based on the BAE Global Combat Ship (GCS) design, known as the 'Type 26' frigate, and to cost compare two other designs – the US Navy Constellation-class frigate, based on the FREMM European multi-mission frigate, and the British Type 31e general-purpose frigate based on the Danish Iver Huitfeldt design.
> 
> While such comparisons may appear appropriate to the layman, it is the NAC's opinion that they are of marginal value to the overall discussion. The CSC Project is already too far along in the development process to consider an abrupt halt and a shift to a new platform. The significant costs that have already been incurred, combined with the additional costs of contract cancellations, and the major disruption to the project schedule would be too severe. Canada does not need a repeat of the Maritime Helicopter Project.
> 
> It should be noted that while a capabilities comparison was purposefully excluded from the PBO's work, the report was clear that it recognized the "differences in capabilities" between the various ship designs.
> 
> This omission is critical to understanding the complexity of the comparisons and evaluating the Report. In order to be relevant in international affairs, Canada needs a versatile fleet of high-end naval combatants that are capable of "maritime security, counter-terrorism and counterpiracy operations, escort duties, and presence missions."
> 
> While the CSC will also need to undertake "low-end" constabulary missions, the rationale underpinning the Navy itself is its ability to conduct full spectrum maritime operations, which include the ability to engage in combat operations.
> 
> The PBO's CSC costing estimate, which is an update on that undertaken in 2019, indicates a $7.5 billion increase in the Project's overall budget, owing largely to updates in the ship's specifications and timelines.
> 
> While the PBO's costing analysis appears both thorough and fair, the CSC build complexity and requirements reconciliation effort have been underestimated. Canada's history working with the CSC Project has shown how much time and cost is involved making alterations to even a cutting-edge design.
> 
> Additionally, the idea that the timeframe for the selection of a new design could be shortened is simply unrealistic. Canada lacks the necessary staff to undertake that work on a condensed schedule, while simultaneously continuing the ongoing CSC Project activities. If the Department of National Defence (DND) had the capacity to complete that work faster, it would have done so on the current Type 26 design modifications.
> 
> *PBO Scenario One – Recompete and Replace the T26 Design*
> 
> Following the cost analyses depicted above, the PBO Report then presents two scenarios, each with two options, for consideration.
> 
> The first scenario entails stopping the design and procurement activity on the current Type 26 design chosen by Canada in 2019 and initiating a new competitive procurement to build either the US FREMM or the Type 31e.
> 
> Given that the Type 26 design has already been deemed the preferred solution, most closely aligned with Canada's requirements, this raises serious questions. How the Government of Canada, which values a fair, open, and transparent process in all defence procurements, would endeavour to preclude the Type 26 design from a subsequent competition is left unstated in the PBO Report. Certainly, such action would present a real avenue for legal challenge by the current industrial team and create a foundation for successful litigation, with additional costs to all parties.
> 
> In the NAC's view, the switch from the Type 26 to any new ship design would present significant risk for negligible potential returns. While the US FREMM is a close comparison to the Type 26/CSC design in that it is a general-purpose frigate capable of conducting anti-air, anti-surface, and anti-submarine operations, there would be only a marginal savings in switching to that design. Those savings were also estimated by the PBO without considering the demanding contractual terms and conditions imposed on the Type 26 team that proposed this design solution. These terms, imposed by Canada, carry additional costs associated with the commitments made by the industrial team to achieve Canada's stringent requirements in support of the Industrial and Technological Benefits (ITB) and Value Proposition (VP) policy. None of the costs associated with these contractual commitments appear to have been considered in the PBO's cost comparisons.
> 
> A fleet of 15 US FREMM warships is costed by the PBO at $71.1 billion – roughly 9% less expensive  than 15 Type 26 and well within the PBO's self-defined 20% margin of error. However, a switch to the US FREMM would result in the loss of four or more years of detailed options analysis and project definition work and would stretch Canada's replacement program even further into the future. Moreover, such a change would undoubtedly tax the Halifax-class frigates to the limit, and perhaps leave Canada without a functioning navy as those ships become obsolete before being replaced.
> 
> The PBO explicitly excludes any costs arising from an interruption of production at Irving Shipbuilding and among its subcontractors.  Yet any such delay would leave the shipyard and its suppliers with a multi-year gap in orders. The result would be the disbanding of a workforce which has been assembled and trained over many years and at considerable cost. It would also pose significant new risks associated with the inability to resume production efficiently after that workforce dispersed.
> 
> While opting to switch to the Type 31e design at a cost of $27.5 billion for a fleet of 15 (which is roughly 65% cheaper than the current CSC Project) may have allure at a superficial level, the assumption that the Type 31e would be a suitable replacement is deeply flawed. First, The PBO's cost estimates for that ship are not from the United Kingdom but are based on the Danish build of the Iver Huitfeldt class frigate, which was a largely commercial design by Odense Maritime Technology (OMT). Not only is the price comparison not founded on the unique Canadian requirements, including the CSC contractual terms and conditions, but in the previous competitive solicitation OMT, despite qualifying as a CSC Short-Listed Respondent, chose not to offer this design solution as a Lead Warship Designer. Assuming a renewed interest by another commercial firm to propose the Type 31e to Canada requires a significant leap of faith.
> 
> In terms of combat capability, the PBO notes that the Type 31e possesses "more modest capabilities." This a profound understatement. Indeed, this class of ship is not only less capable – but likely incapable of performing many of the tasks that are required of the CSC. A significant hull redesign would have to be undertaken to accommodate the larger CSC crew size and other survivability requirements like damage control systems, gas-tight citadels, and fitted degaussing coils.
> 
> Designed as a 'light frigate' or even a well armed patrol ship, the Type 31e does not have significant weapons capacity built into the design and was never intended to carry the full suite of sensors and weapons that the RCN has long identified as a basic requirement. The projected crew size (of around 100) is also much smaller than the current projected CSC crew of 204. That smaller complement will leave the ship unable to undertake continuous operations – an essential requirement in sustained combat situations.
> 
> Virtually all Type 31e sensor and weapon systems would have to be replaced, and new systems sourced, evaluated and integrated into the combat system. Unlike the Type 26 and US FREMM designs, this lighter warship would have to be radically augmented to meet Canadian requirements, or the requirements would have to be completely re-written to accommodate a less capable platform.
> 
> The reliability of the Type 31e costing is also somewhat suspect. The Iver Huitfeldt class was not actually built in Denmark, but rather was constructed in blocks in Estonia and Lithuania, and then transported to Denmark for assembly and fit out of the modules. In the build process, the Danish employed their StanFlex system, which allows for change-out of modular systems and separates the cost of components (weapons and sensor packages) from the overall cost estimates of the ship.
> 
> In fitting out the ships the Danes also reused older weapons from other ships. This is significant, as the combat systems of a modern warship are typically the most expensive part of the total ship package and they are also the primary driver of cost escalation. In essence, the Iver Huitfeldt class was built with relatively cheap labour using a fitted for (but not with) approach to weapons and sensors. Hence the construction and the associated costs are not comparable to any other purpose-built warship.
> 
> The task of securing bids to provide a US FREMM or Type 31e replacement is also by no means certain. Canada's CSC Request for Proposals in 2016 qualified only three bidders – in part because industry did not trust Canada to be a reliable customer.
> 
> Changing tack at this point and after so many years and so much investment by previous bidders would be hard to overcome and could damage Canada's reputation further. Which firm would invest the millions of dollars needed to prepare the bid that would offer the Type 31e or a US FREMM?
> 
> *The Mixed Fleet Scenarios*
> 
> The PBO's second scenario suggests switching to a mixed fleet of Type 26 and US FREMM or Type 31e warships. In addition to all of the concerns outlined above, in this scenario the Navy would be forced to continue the redesign process on the existing CSC Project while undertaking an entirely new set of modifications. In the case of the CSC Project, most of this work is already being done, not by DND, but by engineers at Irving Shipbuilding. With DND and industry running at capacity, sourcing the expertise for the second team, required to progress this work on a second design, would be a significant challenge – likely leading to additional cost inflation and delay. In the Naval Association's opinion, the possibility of achieving a satisfactory outcome in four years as the PBO has suggested, is extremely remote.
> 
> Additionally, switching to a second design as part of a mixed fleet would lead to missed opportunities for efficiencies and cost savings. Shipyards enjoy a learning curve as they progress with a building program. Typically over time, efficiencies improve, and costs go down. A hybrid fleet would reset that learning curve after completion of Type 26 design hull number three before the switch to a US FREMM or Type 31e design.
> 
> A mixed fleet would also require DND to support two separate classes of major combatants. This would create added administrative, logistical, and maintenance burdens and limit the possibility of cost savings by buying in bulk. The mixed fleet approach would also create longer-term challenges in terms of crewing and training inefficiencies for operators and engineers. Operating two classes of ships would necessitate different training requirements and ashore support infrastructure.  Initially the CSC Project envisioned a mixed fleet of two different variants (Task Group Command/Air Defence and General Purpose). However, the RCN dismissed this approach for precisely these reasons.
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> Canada is a maritime nation, dependent upon the free flow of goods across the world's seas and the security provided by our maritime alliances. All Canadians should recognise that the Canadian Surface Combatant ships, when they enter service, will be making a significant contribution to Canada's defence and security, by enhancing global stability, advancing Canadian values and interests, and helping to ensure our economic prosperity for the next 40 years. The CSC Project is the most expensive government acquisition in this country's history. Despite the cost, we must maintain a combat-capable globally deployable navy.
> 
> From an economic perspective, significant industrial disruption would result from the considerable delay caused by switching to a different design. The already significant sunk costs accrued thus far, compounded by a delay to the project of four or more years, would result in little if any real benefits.
> 
> Moreover, all aspects of Canada's terms and conditions including the ITB/VP policy, and the significant legal implications, would all have to be factored into such a bold move.
> 
> In the case of the US FREMM design, only marginal cost savings would be achieved. Similarly, a switch to a fleet of Type 31e warships would be strategically ill-advised in that it would leave Canada with a navy incapable of performing most of its critical combat functions.
> 
> Since the PBO Report was released, on 24 February, there has been a litany of commentary from the media and various "experts" in this domain regarding the supposedly upward spiralling cost of the CSC Project. In the NAC's opinion, this could have been avoided if DND had been forthright in explaining the circumstances, context, and validity of its initial costing of the project and had communicated to all concerned more information on the status of the project as it progressed.
> 
> In conclusion, while the Naval Association congratulates the PBO for its exemplary work, we have serious reservations regarding the scenarios and potential options presented to Government. While cost is important, so too is capability. We are pleased to be able to contribute this additional layer of operational and strategic context and add some additional clarity to this most important investment by Canada.
> 
> ____
> Howie Smith on behalf of the Naval Association of Canada.








						FRONTLINE COMMENTARY | FrontLine Defence
					






					defence.frontline.online


----------



## MarkOttawa

Uzlu said:


> FRONTLINE COMMENTARY | FrontLine Defence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> defence.frontline.online


British view at _Thin Pinstriped Line_:



> The Curiously Canadian Case for Type 26.​...
> The risk Canada has is that its national tendency to defer decisions till the last possible moment, then take a decision could have very serious consequences when it comes to the long-term sustainability of the Canadian Forces. It is hard to see a path through the next 20-30 years which sees all current RCN capabilities maintained and replaced – if anything, the diesel submarine force looks the most vulnerable...
> 
> Arguably the RCN is a luxury – there is no direct need to Canada's existential status that calls for the RCN to deploy globally with NATO or in the Gulf or Pacific. But to say this is to miss the point that Canada is a global player with a long and proud history of doing the right thing and supporting nations in need. This means that tough decisions will be required of Canadian defence, and taxpayers in years to come, to work out what needs to change in order to keep the RCN, and the wider Canadian Forces too as a credible long-term force...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Curiously Canadian Case for Type 26.
> 
> 
> A blog about UK defence issues which tries to put a positive and fresh look at many current matters impacting UK and wider defence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thinpinstripedline.blogspot.com



But North Atlantic ASW vs Russkie subs with cruise missiles (nuke or conventional, see "Responding to Russia’s Northern Fleet"  https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/march/responding-russias-northern-fleet  )?

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> Also intriguing why cost comparisons weren’t done for De Zeven Provencien and F-105, yet T31 was included when it never was in contention.


Because it was a committee decision by politicians taken on a Friday afternoon before a long weekend?  Let's not kid ourselves.  Unlike the US system where many politicos are fairly well versed in military matters (better to pork-barrel my riding my dear) Canadian ones generally are not.

They grabbed onto ships that represent two other COAs.  Another high-end ship of a different design and the low-end mixed fleet ship.  The UK decision to go mixed fleet was highly publicised and visibilt.  The FREMM was of course offered as a cheaper option which was bid non-compliant so to get that monkey out of the way it was also picked. 

I think their goal was to examine two questions.  Would another high end ship be just as expensive, and how much cheaper would a fleet mix be. They weren't interested in other ships in the blue blook.


----------



## Uzlu

> In defence of Canadian shipbuilding
> 
> *Jeffrey F. Collins: It would be nice if there were an off-the-shelf ship Canada could acquire, but none exist. Nations build ships to meet their own operational demands.*
> 
> _Jeffrey F. Collins is a Fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute and a researcher in defence procurement_
> 
> Budgets, it is said, can sink warships. Reports by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) and Auditor General (AG) last week into Canada’s National Shipbuilding Strategy (NSS) paint a challenging picture for the multi-decade effort to build 52 large ships for the navy and coast guard. The PBO report estimates that the cost for the yet-to-be-built 15 ship Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) has jumped from $60 billion to $77 billion. The AG meanwhile pins delays and cost overruns in the NSS on the lack of personnel both within shipyards and in government.
> 
> The near consensus response from the national commentariat is to throw in the towel, accept that Canada cannot do defence procurement, launch a Royal Commission, make it “illegal” to build ships in Canada, and bizarrely, considering their own challenges, buy our fleet from the Australians. Abandoning ship (pardon the pun) and opting for an overseas buy may certainly seem tempting, but beware: modern naval shipbuilding is far more complex and expensive than meets the eye. What may seem like a bargain (see: ex-British submarines) rarely ever is. Instead, the decision to build a fleet at home or aboard must be seen within the context of trade-offs, of which cost is just one.
> 
> Strategically, Canada is a maritime power. Although often forgotten in central Canada, Ottawa presides over the world’s longest coastline, second largest continental shelf, and fifth largest exclusive economic zone containing vast sea life and petroleum reserves. To the north, the twin impact of melting sea ice, a global resource hunt, and tensions between the U.S., Russia and China are transforming the Canadian Arctic into a ‘geopolitical centre of gravity’. In the north Atlantic, Russian submarine activity is at post-Cold War highs. The Indo-Pacific, the site of growing Canadian trade and political ties, sees a Sino-American rivalry criss-cross the South China Sea and the Taiwan Strait, all amid a regional submarine arms race, and anti-ship missile build-up.
> 
> It would be nice if there were an off-the-shelf ship Canada could acquire, ready-made for naval service in such a challenging global operational environment, but this is not the case. To no surprise, foreign countries build ships to meet their own operational demands. German submarines are designed for short range missions in shallow Baltic waters. Likewise, the British Type-26 frigate is one of four warship types being built for protecting the Royal Navy’s aircraft carriers and nuclear ballistic submarines.
> 
> Canada’s adoption of the Type-26 design in 2018 for the CSC project envisions a more expansive and ambitious role. Meant to last for 40 to 50 years, the CSC will be the sole true warship for Canada. It adds new capabilities to deal with the global tensions cited above (e.g., Tomahawk cruise missiles) and replicates those found in the now retired Iroquois class destroyers (area air defence) and still-serving Halifax class frigates (anti-submarine warfare). Fitting these Canadian requirements into the British design has consumed time and money but Canada is left with a Type-26 attuned to its needs.
> 
> The National Shipbuilding Strategy’s 30-year approach of continuous shipbuilding to avoid ‘boom and bust’ cycles may be new, but building Canadian warships, to Canadian specifications and in Canadian yards, dates to the Second World War. Except for submarines and aircraft carriers, it has been official bi-partisan policy to build Canada’s large naval ships domestically. The impetus to build local is hardly a Canadian preoccupation. All other G7 members have naval shipbuilding programs, as do smaller and mid-size powers like Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Australia and Norway.
> 
> Finally, building in Canada has other ancillary benefits too. In a time of economic nationalism (e.g., vaccine production), domestic shipbuilding minimizes both the risk in relying on foreign supply chains and in operational disruptions (and costs) from sending fleets overseas for maintenance. The knowledge gained from building the Halifax frigates paid off when it came to completing the equally technically challenging and costly refits here in Canada.
> 
> The NSS is far from perfect (as the PBO and AG reports note) but neither are there easy or cheap options. If we are serious about tackling international security threats, upholding global norms, managing tensions, and defending our own sovereignty we better be prepared to pay up.











						In defence of Canadian shipbuilding - Macleans.ca
					

Jeffrey F. Collins: It would be nice if there were an off-the-shelf ship Canada could acquire, but none exist. Nations build ships to meet their own operational demands.




					www.macleans.ca


----------



## Czech_pivo

Another supplier contract signed. Delivery set in the 2024-26 time range









						JSK to Supply Torpedo Launcher System for Canadian Surface Combatant - Naval News
					

Canadian defence firm JSK Naval Support (JSK) has been selected by Lockheed Martin Canada to supply its Torpedo Launcher System (TLS).




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

The following video was posted by Kirkhill in the Air Defense thread, but I thought it also deserved a place in the CSC thread in the context of the ship's ability to defend itself from swarm attacks as it paints a much clearer picture of what the potential of those attacks looks like....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I can see these making a comeback as the last line of defense, likley in a small caliber to allow more ammunition ready to go. For ships, likley the missile and gun systems combined if possible.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Staying with ships, these smaller drones will likely be delivered near the ship by some means where they attack the ship to use up ammunition and to attack Bridge, sensors, weapon mounts, then followed by large conventional Anti-ship missiles to sink the ship.


----------



## suffolkowner

Thats the question though, isn't it? Is the 30mm capable enough to take out a volume of small drones/loitering munitions? 24 Sea Ceptors=24 drones?


----------



## Loachman

Colin Parkinson said:


> Staying with ships, these smaller drones will likely be delivered near the ship by some means where they attack the ship to use up ammunition and to attack Bridge, sensors, weapon mounts, then followed by large conventional Anti-ship missiles to sink the ship.


I see it as much like the carrier battles in the Pacific Ocean - whoever detects the other first and launches the right aircraft at the right time with the right weapons and can still defend their own airspace and can best co-ordinate their recovery/refuelling/re-armament had the best chance of coming out on top. The Japanese were hampered by their inability to conduct launches and recoveries simultaneously/close together, had less-well-protected aviation fuel and bomb/torpedo stores, and only specialized damage control parties that were easily overwhelmed.

And for every measure, there is always a countermeasure.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

suffolkowner said:


> Thats the question though, isn't it? Is the 30mm capable enough to take out a volume of small drones/loitering munitions? 24 Sea Ceptors=24 drones?



That's exactly my question too....


----------



## Colin Parkinson

.50cal gives you more range and mass than a 7.62, but does not take up the volume that 20mm+ does. If your going big than the 40-57mm with proximity fuzes with work well, ammo designed to spread small ball bearings in a even pattern. 

Roof hatches on trucks with MG's will have to be common to increase the volume of fire, along with "self-defense drones" mounted in something that looks like smoke discharger.


----------



## Underway

Swarm attacks from small UAV are not the threat people make them out to be.  If an aircraft is in a position to launch a bunch of tiny UAV with extremely limited range, electronic hardening and payload then it would be better off dropping two Exocets.

If a ship is close enough to the shore to have to deal with UAV's of that type then it would be better to just drop artillery and mortars on the ship.  UAV's like that are much better for land warfare given the terrain, dispersed nature of the enemy, tiny battlespaces (in comparison to naval ones) and limited countermeasure availability.

UAV's like that have uses in naval warfare.  A sonobouy launched UAVs with MAD exist.  They disperse in a pattern and can detect submarines.


----------



## suffolkowner

I have a limited understanding of this obviously but the systems are not limited to land and a 1000km range and 9 hr endurance would seem to pose a threat to any ship









						Ship-Launched Version Of The Israeli Harop Suicide Drone Will Be Sailing With An Asian Navy
					

The Harop loitering munition was a star of Azerbaijan's victory over Armenia on land last year, but it can pose an equally wily threat at sea.




					www.thedrive.com
				












						Azerbaijan's Border Guard Has This Awesomely Bad Music Video With Tanks and Suicide Drones
					

A participant on The Voice of Azerbaijan sings around armored vehicles and gives an upbeat performance as missiles, rockets, and bullets fly.




					www.thedrive.com
				












						IAI Harop - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am less worried about massed drones for the moment and more worried about individual or small groups of suicide drones going after the lesser navy ships, like AOR's, AOP's and the Kingston's. Suicide drones will become the weapon of choice for organized non-state actors. They allow for a significant propaganda victory, complete with video and at minimal risk and cost to themselves.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt

Just my opinion, but given this threat could evolve in multiple ways, I'm thinking ensuring 360-degree coverage with a gun system with fuseable ammunition would appear to be a wise investment.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I suspect you see the AOP's and perhaps the AOR's armed with the 57mm and some other counter measures within 10 years as the evolving threat sinks in. The Bofors 57mm seems well placed as effective defense against suicide drones.


----------



## CBH99

Would the good ol' modernized CWIS still be a good option against a threat like this?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think it's biggest drawback is the limited ammo supply and lengthy reload


----------



## blacktriangle

Colin Parkinson said:


> I think it's biggest drawback is the limited ammo supply and lengthy reload


For sure.

I'd also wonder about how often they'd have mechanical issues relating to elevation/traverse, gun etc during heavy use (no idea) as well as how effective they'd really be against saturation attacks. Not things that I'd want discussed in detail on public internet, but my layman concerns nonetheless.

Perhaps one day, some form of phased-array DEW system will address many of these issues.


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> I have a limited understanding of this obviously but the systems are not limited to land and a 1000km range and 9 hr endurance would seem to pose a threat to any ship



Well, a missile is a true drone.  Those are basically missiles you're talking about.

What's the difference between a whole bunch of missile-sized UAV's and a whole bunch of missiles?   From a ships perspective, the threat is the same.  I see nothing there the isn't pre-existing, except for perhaps the mission profile.

It's the small UAV's (less than 1m in any dimension) that are hard to detect that are the new threat IMHO.  The main defence against them is to keep moving and standoff.  Followed by ECM and then 40mm and below.

As for CIWS being useful, CIWS may not recognize them as a threat as they move relatively slow, as CIWS in AA Auto has parameters like target speed it uses to detect threats.  You can of course set the parameters wider but then you run into things like the CIWS targeting your own approaching helicopter.  It would have to be a policy thing to manage.

CIWS with a manual control setting using IR tracking however can likely do the job.  If you have a CIWS magazine with a direct feed to the mount you wouldn't have to worry about ammo (the Tico's have this setup).  Just keep clipping on more to the belt and let fly.

20-30mm Mk38 type naval guns can also do this sort of thing as they have IR tracking and predictive targeting.  AOPS carries a 25mm version of this gun-type (might not be that specific brand) and the CSC will carry two 20mm versions.  With low and slow UAV's I think this sort of setup would work great.  I suppose we might need to try it out with the Snyper drones the RCN uses...


----------



## Uzlu

> No plans to change warships despite PBO cost warning, top official says
> 
> OTTAWA — Canada’s top military procurement official says there are no plans to change directions on the construction of a fleet of new Navy warships despite a recent warning about escalating costs from Parliament’s budget watchdog.
> 
> In an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press, Troy Crosby, the assistant deputy minister of materiel at the Department of National Defence, said he remains confident in Ottawa’s estimated price tag for the 15 vessels.
> 
> And he suggested switching things up now to save money would only lead to delays and undercut the Navy’s ability to protect Canada.
> 
> "The solution that we have will deliver the equipment that the Navy and Canada require for its surface combatants for the long term," Crosby said. "We’re going to do the best we can to deliver that in as timely a fashion as possible so the Navy gets the ships it needs."
> 
> Crosby’s comments come about a month after parliamentary budget officer Yves Giroux released a report predicting another multibillion-dollar cost increase in what is already the largest military procurement in Canada’s history.
> 
> While the government says the warships will cost up to $60 billion, Giroux put the figure at more than $77.3 billion.
> 
> The vessels were supposed to cost $26 billion when the project to replace the Navy’s frigates and destroyers was launched in earnest a decade ago.
> 
> Despite the parliamentary budget office’s demonstrated track record of predicting such costs over the years, Crosby was adamant about the accuracy of the government’s current figure, which was set in June 2017.
> 
> "They use a different model than we do, which is okay, it does provide a comparison," he said. "But we’re confident in the estimates that we wrote."
> 
> Crosby also stands by the government’s estimates despite recent revelations that the first of the warships, which will be based on the British-designed Type-26 model that has yet to be built by any country, won’t arrive until at least 2030. That is years later than expected.
> 
> Officials previously questioned Giroux’s figure, suggesting he put too much emphasis on the ship’s weight in his calculations and included tax, which they say the government doesn’t have to pay.
> 
> Crosby also noted the $60-billion figure includes contingency funds, adding his confidence in that number is based on having more understanding about the project as it has moved from an abstract idea over the years to a real design.
> 
> "We’ve got far more facts to be able to bring to the cost estimating," he said. "Information brought to us by the contractors, and the experience they’ve got internationally on the Type-26 program, for example, that can all be brought into our own estimating work now."
> 
> Giroux and his team also looked at the idea of a hybrid fleet, in which Canada builds three Type-26 ships and supplements them with 12 other vessels. That would mimic how the Navy was previously built, with three destroyers and 12 frigates.
> 
> To that end, the PBO found that the government could save $40 billion if it built only three Type-26 frigates and supplemented them with 12 smaller, less capable Type-31s, which is similar to what Britain has decided to do.
> 
> Canada could also save $50 billion if it scrapped plans to build any Type-26s and went with an entire fleet of Type-31s, according to the report, though the PBO noted the Type-31 was "designed to operate alongside the ‘higher-end’ Type-26."
> 
> It also found that launching a competition to select a new design could delay delivery of the first ship by four years.
> 
> The government has previously said it has no plans to restart the project, while Crosby said a hybrid approach "would not meet the needs, would not meet the requirements" of the Navy.
> 
> One area where Crosby would concede concern was around whether the Halifax shipyard and its counterpart in Vancouver, which is building two Navy support ships alongside several vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard, have enough staff to get the job done.
> 
> Potential staffing shortages, as well as the need for more government officials to oversee the shipbuilding projects, were highlighted in a recent report by the federal auditor general.
> 
> "There isn’t sufficient workforce to do all of the work that needs to be done, but that’s okay because the work doesn’t need to be done today," Crosby said. "It’s certainly something that we keep an eye on for ourselves as well."
> 
> He also suggested some of the projects already underway, most of which are behind schedule, could face further delays as shipyards have been forced to scale back work and otherwise adapt to COVID-19.
> 
> "COVID has caused a challenge in the yards," he said. "The full consequences of COVID will be clearer over time."











						No plans to change warships despite PBO cost warning, top official says
					

OTTAWA — Canada’s top military procurement official says there are no plans to change directions on the construction of a fleet of new Navy warships despite a recent warning about escalating costs . . .




					www.newsoptimist.ca


----------



## MTShaw

Uzlu said:


> No plans to change warships despite PBO cost warning, top official says
> 
> 
> OTTAWA — Canada’s top military procurement official says there are no plans to change directions on the construction of a fleet of new Navy warships despite a recent warning about escalating costs . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsoptimist.ca


As I said in a different thread, they’re probably out of time.


----------



## MilEME09

MTShaw said:


> As I said in a different thread, they’re probably out of time.


We're out of time for a lot of projects, ships, fighters, logistics vehicles, dithering and mismanagement of our fleets has come home to roost and it isn't pretty. Our required capital expenses by the end of the decade are massive.


----------



## MTShaw

MilEME09 said:


> We're out of time for a lot of projects, ships, fighters, logistics vehicles, dithering and mismanagement of our fleets has come home to roost and it isn't pretty. Our required capital expenses by the end of the decade are massive.








						Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

The Defence Capabilities Blueprint (DCB) offers access to information related to defence investment opportunities. The DCB provides industry access to planning information such as funding ranges and project timelines. Information on approximately 250 projects funded under Strong, Secure, Engaged...




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca
				




According to the blueprint, HMG is not doing to bad. Tons of equipment expenditures is what is going to move our defence/gdp toward to 2%.


----------



## MilEME09

MTShaw said:


> Defence Capabilities Blueprint
> 
> 
> The Defence Capabilities Blueprint (DCB) offers access to information related to defence investment opportunities. The DCB provides industry access to planning information such as funding ranges and project timelines. Information on approximately 250 projects funded under Strong, Secure, Engaged...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the blueprint, HMG is not doing to bad. Tons of equipment expenditures is what is going to move our defence/gdp toward to 2%.


You are assuming given the pandemic we get the money, and can spend it.


----------



## MTShaw

MilEME09 said:


> You are assuming given the pandemic we get the money, and can spend it.


To be the best of my knowledge, the programs are a go.They’d be supporting Canadian industry with the purchases. I don’t think they’re going to go full Chrétien.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Hopefully one day soon this ill also happen in Canada

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1383003285876043777


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The person that started this FB page invites anyone interested in the CSC/Type 26 to join up their page Facebook Groups


----------



## Uzlu

MBDA Confirms Sea Ceptor Order For Canadian Surface Combatant


----------



## Underway

> In addition, the CSC program will further strengthen the partnership between MBDA and Lockheed Martin Canada, which has already seen Sea Ceptor and CMS330 providing world-class air defence capabilities to the Royal New Zealand Navy and the Chilean Navy.



I completely forgot about this.  This makes complete sense from LMCs perspective.  They are leveraging their previous work to upgrade the ANZAC's and Chilean Type 23's. 

I also realized that Sea Ceptor as a CIWS has another big advantage over the Phalanx.  It can engage multiple targets at the same time and have more engagements before it runs dry.


----------



## dimsum

Underway said:


> I also realized that Sea Ceptor as a CIWS has another big advantage over the Phalanx. It can engage multiple targets at the same time and have more engagements before it runs dry.


Is the plan to have SC rather than Phalanx as the CSC's CIWS?


----------



## Underway

dimsum said:


> Is the plan to have SC rather than Phalanx as the CSC's CIWS?


That is the plan.  SC for CIWS* and ESSM2 for self/local air defence.  After that it seems mission dependant on the loadout from what I'm hearing.

*edit:  Meant to say CIAD.  As CIWS generally defines a gun based solution...


----------



## calculus

This is interesting. Different main gun for CSC (relative to the UK and Aussie T26s): Canada Selects Leonardo Naval Gun Systems for the CSC Combat Ships - Naval News


----------



## Kirkhill

calculus said:


> This is interesting. Different main gun for CSC (relative to the UK and Aussie T26s): Canada Selects Leonardo Naval Gun Systems for the CSC Combat Ships - Naval News




It is interesting. 

It makes for an interesting indicator of how this/these project(s) are being run.  Effectively we have one common project being run concurrently by three separate project managers.  Each one gets to make their own initial picks on the bill of material and three separate "prototypes" will emerge.

The Littoral Combat Ships had two prototypes as did the FREMMs.

The FREMMs maintained their distinctions and the projects were completed as two separate ships with little commonality.
The LCS produced a lot of prototypes before being debugged and getting their weapons suites sorted  with eventual down selection of a single hull and fit.

I wonder if the Project Managers will have the opportunity to revise the Bills of Material as the projects progress and lessons are mutually learned?


----------



## Kirkhill

I don't know if this 2019 presentation has already been posted.  A bit dated in places (CIWS vs Sea Ceptor - BAE  Mk 45 vs Leonardo) but still highly educational - especially as regards costs and schedules.

It compares the RCN/RN/RAN Type 26s to each other and to their contemporaries


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> This is interesting. Different main gun for CSC (relative to the UK and Aussie T26s): Canada Selects Leonardo Naval Gun Systems for the CSC Combat Ships - Naval News


It's an interesting comparison between the two weapons. 

The OTO Light Weight has a longer range for the same ammunition (owing to its 64 caliber vice 62 caliber *) than the Mk45

OTO has a higher rate of fire, 32rpm vs 20rpm

OTO can hold 66 rounds ready in four drums (thus four different ammo types) where Mk45 holds 20 rounds

OTO weighs 17 tons, Mk 45 weighs 22 tons.

OTO can automatically reload from the magazine so it can continuously fire.  It can even download ammunition back into the magazine. The Mk45 requires a six-person crew to continuously fire (not sure about download capability however it would still require crew to place the ammo back on the racks).

OTO is ITAR free... (this is a BIG deal).

OTO is designed to use the Vulcano ammunition system which has some pretty amazing stuff, in particular their long range GPS guided ammo.

Performance-wise I think it's the best option.  Cost and maintenance not entirely sure but it would make sense that the OTO would be more on that end.


*Naval gun calibers are their barrel length divided by their bore diameter.  Larger calibers generally mean more time for the propellant gasses to push on the round, leading to higher muzzle velocities thus longer ranges


----------



## Uzlu

> McCoy: New warship will serve Canada well — at a fair price
> 
> *The Royal Canadian Navy needs new, modern vessels to remain relevant as the Halifax Class of ships approaches end of life. Let's stop wasting time and move forward.*
> 
> In light of recent suggestions that the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) procurement should be scrapped in favour of a less expensive approach, I want to provide my unique perspective as the former president of the Halifax Shipyard and as a retired U.S. Navy vice-admiral leading all U.S. Navy ship design and acquisition from 2008 to 2013.
> 
> The federal government set the missions for CSC. This started the process to define the warship’s performance requirements. Canada’s requirements process was the most rigorous that I have ever participated in.
> 
> Canada engaged international experts working alongside Navy leaders in a series of war-gaming sessions using real-world threat data. This process weeded out unnecessary capability (and its cost) and ensured missions could be accomplished with the ship and crew surviving. The resulting performance requirements underwent additional scrutiny from Canada’s Independent Review Panel for Defence Acquisition.
> 
> These requirements — such as the need for a leading-edge radar in complex, multi-threat situations — drive the size and cost of CSC. To appreciably reduce the cost, Canada would have to accept that some missions will not be executed. Canada should expect to pay about the same as other nations for similar ships.
> 
> Several opinion writers have cited the U.S. Navy’s Constellation Class of Frigate as a potentially cheaper alternative for CSC. However, the U.S. is building these smaller and less capable ships because it already has more than 90 ships similar in capability to CSC. Canada will only have the 15 CSC ships to rely on, though CSC will be as capable as any surface combatant owned by any nation.
> 
> One recent opinion article advocated starting the CSC procurement over and called for “an open, fair, and transparent competition involving ship designers and shipyards” and for the government to “retain its oversight responsibility.” Canada has already devoted three full years to doing exactly this. The Request for Proposal (RFP) process was exhaustive and more comprehensive than any I experienced in my five years leading U.S. Navy ship and weapon system procurement.
> 
> Canada was and remains in charge. The process started with more than a year of collaborative industry engagement involving more than a dozen shipyards, designers and combat systems companies. This was followed by another year to develop and test the RFP requirements to ensure fairness. Finally, Canada provided bidders another year to ask questions and respond to the RFP. This ensured that all bidders had a fair chance to compete.
> 
> The same opinion writer called for starting the new open, fair, transparent process for selecting CSC with mention of an unsolicited proposal with no contractual commitment by shipbuilder Fincantieri.  However, Fincantieri dropped out of the official competition and instead made an unsolicited proposal to the government outside the official, open, fair and transparent procurement process.
> 
> The CSC requirements are based on Canada’s national priorities. When it comes to protecting the brave sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy, CSC will be second to none in the world. These vessels will allow Canada to independently operate in international waters, and satisfy responsibilities to NATO and NORAD allies through greater interoperability.
> 
> The RCN needs new, modern ships to remain relevant as the Halifax Class of ships approaches end of life. CSC is already delivering thousands of jobs across the country and that will continue to grow – a vital part of Canada’s economic recovery.
> 
> My departing advice is to stop wasting time and move forward. Keep skilled Canadians working. Build the ships.
> 
> _*Kevin McCoy* was president of the Halifax Shipyard from 2013 until earlier this year. He was previously a three-star vice-admiral in the U.S. Navy responsible for the design, construction, maintenance and modernization of all U.S. Navy ships, aircraft carriers and submarines from 2008 through 2013.  As commander of the Naval Sea Systems, he led one of the largest procurement and engineering agencies in the United States with a workforce of 60,000._











						McCoy: New warship will serve Canada well — at a fair price
					

The Royal Canadian Navy needs new, modern vessels to remain relevant as the Halifax Class of ships approaches end of life. Let's stop wasting time and move…




					ottawacitizen.com


----------



## Underway

Seeing as how RAVEN ECM was chosen as the CSC main active ECM here is a nice factsheet for those who are interested.

RAVEN Factsheet


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Interesting that Raven has no ITAR components


----------



## Kirkhill

Could the CSC be completely non-ITAR?

Would make for an interesting marketing strategy.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> Could the CSC be completely non-ITAR?
> 
> Would make for an interesting marketing strategy.


I doubt it. We will inevitably have systems with US IP inside of them.

However, where ever we can avoid having to deal with the US State Department, we should.


----------



## Good2Golf

Kirkhill said:


> Could the CSC be completely non-ITAR?
> 
> Would make for an interesting marketing strategy.


Not with the SPY-7 radar it sure won’t be.


----------



## Kirkhill

Seen.   On the other hand even minimizing the ITAR load, so as to make a full non-ITAR product more easily produceable, might make for some interesting marketing opportunities - to, say, countries like India?  Swap the SPY-7 for a SMART-L / APAR suite?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Kirkhill said:


> Seen.   On the other hand even minimizing the ITAR load, so as to make a full non-ITAR product more easily produceable, might make for some interesting marketing opportunities - to, say, countries like India?  Swap the SPY-7 for a SMART-L / APAR suite?


I think we looked at both and concluded that the SPY-7 best fit for what we were trying to achieve, sensorwise. Notwithstanding the ITAR penalty.


----------



## Kirkhill

Gotcha SKT.  I don't know enough to argue the toss either way.  

I am just pondering whether, for another customer, we could do something different - something that would set us apart from the Brits and the Aussies and keep our yards open.  Although the Brits will also be producing Types 31, 32 and 83 from their yards.


----------



## Good2Golf

SeaKingTacco said:


> I think we looked at both and concluded that the SPY-7 best fit for what we were trying to achieve, sensorwise. Notwithstanding the ITAR penalty.


👍🏼 

SPY-7 (based on my knowledge of its precursor and leveraged systems) is an excellent capability.   It’s BMD capabilities alone, are an excellent ticket to admission to the THAD world...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> 👍🏼
> 
> SPY-7 (based on my knowledge of its precursor and leveraged systems) is an excellent capability.   It’s BMD capabilities alone, are an excellent ticket to admission to the THAD world...


And, I wonder, does it open the door for AEGIS Ashore to recapitalize the NWS as part of NORAD?


----------



## blacktriangle

Kirkhill said:


> Seen.   On the other hand even minimizing the ITAR load, so as to make a full non-ITAR product more easily produceable, might make for some interesting marketing opportunities - to, say, countries like India?  Swap the SPY-7 for a SMART-L / APAR suite?


Perhaps a naval engineer can weigh in - but once you start changing the radar fit, one would think there might be additional design changes needed to account for weight differences & power requirements? I suppose as long as it's lighter and less power hungry system it should be less of a challenge?

LMC already does system integratation work for foreign navies (Chile comes to mind), so I'm sure they could lend expertise elsewhere around the globe. I doubt India will be building at Irving, though.  (but don't think that's what you were suggesting?)


----------



## Kirkhill

reveng said:


> Perhaps a naval engineer can weigh in - but once you start changing the radar fit, one would think there might be additional design changes needed to account for weight differences & power requirements? I suppose as long as it's lighter and less power hungry system it should be less of a challenge?
> 
> LMC already does system integratation work for foreign navies (Chile comes to mind), so I'm sure they could lend expertise elsewhere around the globe. I doubt India will be building at Irving, though.  (but don't think that's what you were suggesting?)




Irving might get another 4 or 5 hulls out of the deal before "licencing" additional hulls to India.  It could also poach on Arab and Indonesian  purchases.


----------



## blacktriangle

Kirkhill said:


> Irving might get another 4 or 5 hulls out of the deal before "licencing" additional hulls to India.  It could also poach on Arab and Indonesian  purchases.


After re-reading your other post, I see you did indeed mean building in Canada. 

My gut says that other nations would prefer to buy from more established shipbuilders, or build locally with some outside help in terms of design/systems integration. The Canadian government also does it's best to alienate current & future customers. 

I think Canada should focus on leveraging eventual (I hope) success of CSC into other domains i.e. NWS as SKT suggested, GBAD etc. CAF has a long shopping list it needs to remain viable going forward.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

SeaKingTacco said:


> I doubt it. We will inevitably have systems with US IP inside of them.
> 
> However, where ever we can avoid having to deal with the US State Department, we should.


Told the State Department that I felt so much safer that they restricted the Chinese and AQ from getting their hands onto grip screws for a Sig pistol and that the Chinese thank them for removing the US from the market. ITAR got utterly stupid there for awhile. They dialed back a bit but still...
I get it for radars and the like, but not for small arms.


----------



## Underway

reveng said:


> Perhaps a naval engineer can weigh in - but once you start changing the radar fit, one would think there might be additional design changes needed to account for weight differences & power requirements? I suppose as long as it's lighter and less power hungry system it should be less of a challenge?


As soon as you change any equipment you change the connected equipment.  Changing a radar changes the emissions, which can change the entire integrated topside design (where to you try to stop interference between all your transmitters and recievers).  It changes the weight up high (1 ton added up high could mean 4 tons of ballast which is wasted tonnage), the power requirements, cooling requirements (weight changes up high again), CMS requirements, different equipment in rooms which changes HVAC, and how pipes/electrical move around or through that space.  It could also change your physical/electronic security requirements which change how your doors/hatches/bulkheads are built.

Change costs money. Lots of money.  And sometimes it's better to eat the "good enough" so you don't waste time and money on the "perfect".


Kirkhill said:


> Could the CSC be completely non-ITAR?



No.  All the cryptographic units are ITAR therefore anything that uses them will be subject to it.  So that's LINK, IFF, and other communication devices.  Essentially there probably isn't a NATO ship that exists that doesn't have ITAR on it somewhere due to LINK and IFF.

I'm confident that the CSC is looking at performance-based equipment selection.  If it's not ITAR then that's a bonus.  We'll deal with ITAR when we have to. Canada has lots of experience doing that.


----------



## blacktriangle

Underway said:


> As soon as you change any equipment you change the connected equipment.  Changing a radar changes the emissions, which can change the entire integrated topside design (where to you try to stop interference between all your transmitters and recievers).  It changes the weight up high (1 ton added up high could mean 4 tons of ballast which is wasted tonnage), the power requirements, cooling requirements (weight changes up high again), CMS requirements, different equipment in rooms which changes HVAC, and how pipes/electrical move around or through that space.  It could also change your physical/electronic security requirements which change how your doors/hatches/bulkheads are built.
> 
> Change costs money. Lots of money.  And sometimes it's better to eat the "good enough" so you don't waste time and money on the "perfect".


Very informative - thanks!


----------



## suffolkowner

It seems to me as a casual observer that ease of system integration has been a strong driver of equipment choice.  Lockheed Martin's involvement may bias the selection as well.

So you have LM Spy-7 over Thales APAR or Raytheon
Ultra over Thales or General Dynamic Mission Systems
or even abandoning DRS Technologies SHINCOM?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Once Canada has built at least one CSC, we could work out design alterations for selected alternative equipment for Radar and weapon systems, that we could offer to other nations. They get a short list of design options that would work. That might be marketable and competitive.


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> It seems to me as a casual observer that ease of system integration has been a strong driver of equipment choice.  Lockheed Martin's involvement may bias the selection as well.
> 
> So you have LM Spy-7 over Thales APAR or Raytheon
> Ultra over Thales or General Dynamic Mission Systems
> or even abandoning DRS Technologies SHINCOM?



Well APAR, Thales, and SHINCOM were all in on the Alion bid.  Which lost the competition.  

So any time you hear complaints about that then you can just insert who lost and who won and decide for yourself whether there are sour grapes or an attempt to get some of that sweet CSC cash as a motivator.


----------



## dapaterson

Colin Parkinson said:


> Once Canada has built at least one CSC, we could work out design alterations for selected alternative equipment for Radar and weapon systems, that we could offer to other nations. They get a short list of design options that would work. That might be marketable and competitive.



System integration is costly, with no promise of return on investment.  Should the prime contractor desire to do so, let them do it at their own expense.


----------



## MilEME09

HMS Glasgow: First Look At Type 26's Complete Scale
					

The front and rear blocks have been joined to show off the full size of the ship, for the first time.




					www.forces.net
				




Meanwhile the first Type 26 in the UK HMS Glasgow has had its two hull sections merged.


----------



## Underway

That's more than two hull sections!  Thats the two halves of the whole ship!  Damn that's impressive.


----------



## Gorgo

Now if only WE can be as fast in building those ships!


----------



## CBH99

I totally agree as a general principle 😅👍🏻

I am glad they are building theirs first, and Irving has a team of folks monitoring the build to observe efficiencies, possible problems, etc etc so they learn from the experience of the Brits first.

Just looking at that hull, these ships are going to be cool looking


----------



## Swampbuggy

I wonder if their assessment of timeline still holds true for a 2023 delivery. I'm guessing that RN sea trials happen post delivery, but there will be a series of builders trials first? If so, 2 years doesn't seem like a lot of time for the fitting out of the first ship of the class.


----------



## calculus

*I believe the delivery to the RN is 2025, with IOC in 2027. *


Swampbuggy said:


> I wonder if their assessment of timeline still holds true for a 2023 delivery. I'm guessing that RN sea trials happen post delivery, but there will be a series of builders trials first? If so, 2 years doesn't seem like a lot of time for the fitting out of the first ship of the class.


----------



## Uzlu

> TIMOTHY CHOI: WHAT CAN WE EXPECT FROM THE NEW CANADIAN SURFACE COMBATANT?
> 
> *What is the current status of the CSC procurement project?*
> 
> Lockheed Martin and BAE won the contract last year with a design based on the British Type 26 global combat ship. Our version will be significantly more capable because it will be performing both anti-submarine warfare, which the British version does, as well as robust anti-air warfare, which the British leave to their Type 45 destroyers. When the CSC project began, initially the plan was to equip the Canadian Navy with three air defence destroyers, which would replace the three Iroquois class destroyers that were or would soon be decommissioned. The remaining vessels would have been built as general-purpose frigates that wouldn’t have been as capable in a high-end warfare scenario.
> 
> In Canada we have two fleets that can’t be shared, being split between the Atlantic and Pacific. If we have fifteen ships that means eight on one coast and seven on the other. That creates a problem if only three of those are air defence destroyers because one of those coasts is going to have only one destroyer. If that destroyer goes in for its regular maintenance, then that coast is going to have no air defence vessels at all. So, the idea is—build all 15 of these ships to an identical standard in terms of both air defence and anti-submarine warfare so that they’re all interchangeable. If any of [them] become unavailable, then you have other options with the same capability to perform missions across the entire spectrum of naval warfare and maritime security.
> 
> CSC is currently in the design phase, which includes reconciling design requirements. We have to integrate Canadian supply chains, meet our ITB (Industrial and Technological Benefits) requirements to ensure that there’s substantial Canadian involvement, and ensure that all these [elements] contribute towards a sustainable Canadian shipbuilding industry. The multistage process of the design phase is illustrated by the fact that several key components of the ship’s systems have already been contracted for, such as the primary radar, sonars, and main gun. These show the confidence that the design and procurement teams have in the progress to date on integrating the various requirements into the ship.
> 
> *What new capabilities will Canada’s frigate replacements have, and what capabilities do they need to operate in an age of climate change and renewed great power competition?*
> 
> The CSC can be more accurately described as a destroyer replacement, rather than simply a frigate replacement. If it goes according to plan, we’ll be replacing our entire fleet of frigates with capabilities that go beyond what our original destroyers had, in terms of air defence, anti-submarine warfare and surface warfare. The CSCs could potentially have the long-range air defence capabilities that are enabled by the latest radars available, as well as 32 Mark 41 vertical launch system cells (Mk 41 VLS). A few months ago, the Navy finally released details regarding how it wants to fill those vertical launch system cells.
> 
> The first of these is the Evolved Sea Sparrow missile (ESSM), which we are using right now in our Halifax class frigates. They’re the standard defensive anti-air missiles used by NATO and other Western/Allied navies, but they’ll be available in much higher numbers because in the Mark 41 system, you can actually fit four of them in a single cell. That is a tremendous increase in self-defence capacity for our Navy vessels. The main new thing these ships will bring to bear in terms of anti-air warfare is that they’ll now be able to use the Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) in the Block IIIC variant, and that’s the newest version of the standard American area air defence missile. We lost that long-range anti-air capability when the Iroquois class was decommissioned, so it’s a pretty important capability to not only bring back but extend to the rest of the fleet in the CSC.
> 
> We’ll also be using the British Sea Ceptor missile for the ships’ close-in defence system, which have a range similar to the Evolved Sea Sparrow (ESSM). They can turn very quickly right after launch to meet incoming missiles at a longer range. This provides the ability to shoot down future hypersonic and supersonic cruise missiles, which are becoming all the rage in this age of great power competition. The 24 Sea Ceptors, quad-packed into six cells, are being used in place of traditional gun-based defence systems like the current Phalanx due to the latter’s lack of ability to reliably destroy high-speed targets before their wreckage can cause damage to the ship.
> 
> Regarding anti-small boat capabilities, there will be a pair of 30-millimeter guns, just above the hangar to deal with minor small surface threats. There is also a 5”/64 gun on the bow that will be manufactured by Leonardo and can fire rocket-assisted guided shells to provide naval gunfire support. What’s surprising is the provision of Tomahawk cruise missiles—a robust capability and probably somewhat unexpected for most of us who have been watching this [play out] not least, because it could be potentially politically sensitive. It’s a fairly offensive weapon and not used purely for defensive purposes (though the latest Tomahawks could certainly be used defensively to destroy ships and shore-based anti-ship missile launchers, or, as we saw in Libya, surface-to-air missiles that might threaten friendly aircraft). As the 1980s protests American cruise missile testing in Canada showed, the potential for public resistance is higher for long-range land-attack weapons than for other weapon types. Regardless, the Mark-41 cells containing the Tomahawks are the full-length version, so they can accommodate future missiles that become developed between now and the time that the ships are retired.
> 
> It’s one way of future proofing our frigates in terms of future combat capability. We’re not artificially restraining ourselves to smaller missiles out of a need for cost-savings. Of course, we should view this as more of a wish list. A lot of weapons could fill these missile cells, but it is uncertain whether all these missile types are included in the ammunition portion of the current CSC budget – so far only the SM-2 Blk IIICs are known to have been earmarked at a maximum of $500 million USD for 100 rounds, while a contract for an unspecified number of Sea Ceptors has also been signed. The CSC project is of course a political issue, and we don’t know if future governments would really approve additional weapon purchases, especially the Tomahawk, which Canadians may not be so receptive to in the RCN inventory.
> 
> Navies don’t really operate in a wartime situation for most of their life. These weapon fits are great for high-end conflict scenarios and worst-case emergencies, but most of the time, they’ll be engaged in basic maritime security. The Type 26 is equipped with a dedicated mission bay that can be configured to have extra boats to bring supplies to shore, conduct rescue operations, and inspect suspicious vessels, or it can be fitted with containers for medical supplies and various ‘soft security’ capabilities. This is important considering Canada currently has no plans for a dedicated amphibious lift vessel.
> 
> *What radar system is being considered for the new frigates? What are the political and military implications?*
> 
> Lockheed has promised a SPY-7 active electronically scanned array radar (AESA) on board the Canadian Surface Combatant. It’s meant to use the same subarray transmitters that have been installed in the Long-Range Discrimination Radar (LRDR) that the Americans are bringing online at Clear Air Force Base in Alaska, and which is used for ballistic missile defence. This tells us a few things—firstly, it’s basically proven to be cold-weather-proof due to LRDR being in Alaska. I’m also told that the sub-arrays have been designed from the very start to be adapted for naval application and thus to some extent already salt water-proof. Secondly, because the hardware is essentially identical, Canada can rest assured that long-term maintenance and support for its radars will exist so long as the Americans continue to rely on the LRDR itself – there is less of a worry that we’re buying a technology that will no longer be supported just a few years after its acquisition.
> 
> The SPY-7 technology allows for a smaller antenna than legacy options, while having the same range as the US Navy’s current AEGIS radars on their destroyers and cruisers, but with an increased sensitivity. Canada is going to have a fleet of 15 Aegis frigates, which is something I don’t think anybody would have imagined 10 – 15 years ago. For every single SPY-7 antenna, it’ll be paired with an X-band illumination radar to help direct certain missiles while taking some load off of the main SPY-7 arrays. This is especially useful when there’re more targets that are around and you don’t want to reduce the SPY-7’s volume search capability to focus on directing missiles. Having both the SPY-7 and the X-band radars mean the ships can search, track, and illuminate targets at the same time—none needs to be sacrificed because we have a radar for each one of those things. It’s a pretty robust capability that we’re installing and MDA in Richmond, BC, has an incredibly large role in ensuring this comes to pass as they are on deck to build the X-band illumination radars.
> 
> *What is the status of the government’s efforts to develop a new icebreaker? Will climate change in the Arctic impact the CCG icebreaker program?*
> 
> On May 6, 2021, the Trudeau government made the surprising announcement that Canada will now buy two Polar icebreakers. Additionally, instead of building them both in the same yard after a competition, they will each be built at Seaspan Vancouver Shipyards and Davie Shipbuilding in Quebec.
> 
> For the last decade or so since the National Shipbuilding Strategy was established, the formal goal was to build only one Polar icebreaker to replace the current heavy icebreaker, CCGS Louis St. Laurent. The corollary implication has thus been that the new Polar would operate similarly to the St. Laurent – that is, for most of the year but not really sailing in the worst winter periods, which would be when it needs to go into maintenance. Having two Polars solves the maintenance issue by allowing one ship to be present while the other is south for maintenance, enabling year-round presence in the Arctic. While winter sea traffic in the Canadian Arctic is nearly non-existent, having the ability to operate north in winter allows important science missions to be carried out that, until now, would not have been possible. Northern communities would also have greater flexibility and reliability for the delivery of their goods and cargo, which may help drive down the currently enormous cost of living.
> 
> The fact that one Polar will go to each of the heretofore competing yards was likely for politically expedient reasons. While the government states that building both in the same yard would mean the second ship would take too long to enter service, this ignores that much of modern shipbuilding takes place with significant overlaps between construction schedules. For example, while our Arctic and Offshore Patrol Vessels take four to five years from start to finish, they are still being delivered roughly once per year because the yard doesn’t wait until the first vessel is completely done before starting the second. Similarly, if both Polars were built at the same yard, I wouldn’t expect much more than two or three years between the first and second ship, which is within the scheduling uncertainties of having two different shipyards each with their own list of projects and somewhat different construction methods.
> 
> Nonetheless, in Canadian procurement, it’s all the steps leading up to construction that’s the major cause of delay: once things get rolling, delays aren’t as significant. So, if ordering from both yards precludes one or the other from trying to protest the award to the other yard or politicians trying to curry favour from one province versus another with associated delays, that would ensure we can proceed to construction as soon as possible. It may not be the most efficient way of building ships, but if it commits the government to actually get them built without even more delays or, worse, cancellations, then I wish them the best.
> 
> As for whether climate change will reduce the need for the new icebreakers, I would say no. Polar sea ice is not like ice cubes in a glass of water: they don’t melt uniformly and aren’t made identically. There are parts that are weaker and parts that are tougher. As global warming takes its toll on the ice, the weaker ice melts first, freeing the harder multiyear ice to float along with the currents. Sadly, for Canada, the combination of those currents and the myriad islands that make up our Arctic means that all of the hard ice gets jammed in the Northwest Passages and fjords. So even though the polar sea ice gets weakened every year, Canada still gets stuck with a lot of the worst ice, and heavy icebreakers are still necessary. This contrasts with the Russian side of the Arctic, which has much fewer islands and the currents actually help carry sea ice away from the Northern Sea Route, making it a more realistic shipping route for a greater part of the year.
> 
> _Timothy Choi is completing his Ph.D. at the University of Calgary’s Centre for Military, Security and Strategic Studies, where his dissertation is entitled, “Maritime Strategies of the North: The Seapower of Smaller Maritime Forces in an Era of Broadened Security.” It asks how the Danish, Norwegian, and Canadian maritime forces developed in response to the adoption and legitimization of the 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone, and whether smaller forces have generalizable differences in such responses compared to larger ones. This has seen him sailing with Danish and Norwegian patrol vessels to gain deeper insights into the tactical level of peacetime naval activities. He is a former Smith Richardson Predoctoral Fellow at Yale University’s International Security Studies, where he worked with Professor Paul Kennedy, and is also a Research Fellow at Dalhousie University’s Centre for the Study of Security and Development and a Fellow with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. He serves on the editorial board of and is the photo editor at the Canadian Naval Review, and is currently a consultant on naval affairs for the British American Security Information Council._


_





						Timothy Choi: What can we Expect from the New Canadian Surface Combatant? | CDA Institute
					






					cdainstitute.ca
				



_


----------



## CBH99

I know Tim personally, and have for a few years now.  Great guy, smart, switched on, and actually digs deep in his research on defence matters.  He’s a solid guy


----------



## MilEME09

So the government is in negotiations now fir the first flight of the CSC which is expected to be only 3 ships. Contracts is expected to be signed by 2023. I would anticipate first ship completed and in trials by 2028 hopefully. Timeline still seems slow but I'm not an expert.


----------



## Underway

@MilEME09 do you have a ref for that?  Not a challenge, just want to read it myself.

Not a surprise, we all here expected a block build which is pretty common for these sorts of long projects.  The ship will take 7 years to build. 

Acceptance is going to be around 2030-31.  Australia is on a similar timeline with the Hunter class starting 2022 with acceptance 2029. 

The UK isn't that much faster as they started the build of Type 26 in 2017 and just recently started the merger of the two halves.  4ish years on and they haven't even started the cable pulling yet.  At least another two years to get all the systems integrated and checked. And their ship is simpler in combat systems design than ours and they have experienced yards.


----------



## Uzlu

> Military to build $65M facility at Hartlen Point to test new warship systems
> 
> *Centre will be the only one of its kind in Canada, military officials say*
> 
> What do you do when you want to test your new warship's systems, but the ship hasn't been built?  You install the systems on land.
> 
> The military plans to build a $64-million facility on the shores of Hartlen Point, N.S. The site is a small Halifax-area peninsula already owned by the Department of National Defence.
> 
> The new facility will be used to test the combat, navigation and communication systems for the upcoming Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships.
> 
> The final design of those ships has not been confirmed, but they will be heavier and longer than the Arctic and Offshore Patrol Ships that have come off the assembly line at the Irving Shipbuilding yard in Halifax.
> 
> Funding for the testing site has already been included as part of the multibillion-dollar federal shipbuilding procurement process.
> 
> *Why not wait until the boats are built?*
> 
> The new facility will act as a type of simulator — for crew members certainly, but mainly for the ship's systems themselves.
> 
> "Due to the complexity of the CSC combat systems, these systems must be integrated and commissioned to ensure the systems function correctly before they're installed on the ships," said an emailed statement from the Department of National Defence.
> 
> "As there are no existing facilities capable of supporting this type of testing for CSC in Canada, we will deliver a new, land-based testing facility to house, test, and evaluate the combat systems of an operational ship as part of the CSC's rigorous tests and trials program," the statement continued.
> 
> *Location meets many requirements, military says*
> 
> Building the test facility at this spot has its benefits, military officials say.
> 
> The land is already owned by the military, the site meets security requirements and there is lots of space available for buildings and equipment.
> 
> Hartlen Point also has a unique feature. It "allows 130-degree live transmission of emitters out over the ocean, which is essential for the CSC testing requirements," said an emailed statement from the Department of National Defence.
> 
> Part of the testing process will be to assess how new systems get along with the older ones on current ships. Equally important, it will assess how well the systems will work with ships belonging to Canada's allies.
> 
> Placing the testing centre close to the coast could, in theory, allow Canadian or allied ships to sail past and perform drills to check those new systems.
> 
> As for environmental concerns, the government put out a general notice of its plans earlier this year, and solicited feedback from the public.
> 
> The government has published a document online seeking contractors to help design the facility. Once the blueprints are drawn up, construction could begin in 2023.





			https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/warship-systems-test-facility-hartlen-point-1.6058990


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Sounds like the ultimate "Stone Frigate"


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Sounds like the ultimate "Stone Frigate"


Haha, I almost posted that myself but as a previous member of a true "Stone Frigate" with an HMCS attached to it I thought that it might not meet the technical definition. 

More like a souped-up version of S82.  Likely there will be classrooms at some point, though I doubt the school will have control, just use the facilities for specific coursing.


----------



## CBH99

Uzlu said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/warship-systems-test-facility-hartlen-point-1.6058990


Is that absolutely necessary though?

obviously we want the systems tested and reliable before being installed onto a ship.  But doesn’t the US have similar facilities already that we could capitalize on, and would benefit us both since many of these systems will also be on American ships?

And doesn’t some of these manufacturers already have these weapons and other systems functional with other navies already?


I get the purpose of the facility.  Absolutely makes sense.  I just don’t want us to spend that kind of money on a facility which - after the project is over - will just be closed down or abandoned.


----------



## Good2Golf

I’d see the facility used throughout the life of the ships. Ongoing operational test and evaluation as well as recursion testing for future software maintenance/upgrades, etc. would keep the facility busy and a good use of money invested. We do the same with many of the electronic-heavy airborne systems as well. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## Navy_Pete

CBH99 said:


> Is that absolutely necessary though?
> 
> obviously we want the systems tested and reliable before being installed onto a ship.  But doesn’t the US have similar facilities already that we could capitalize on, and would benefit us both since many of these systems will also be on American ships?
> 
> And doesn’t some of these manufacturers already have these weapons and other systems functional with other navies already?
> 
> 
> I get the purpose of the facility.  Absolutely makes sense.  I just don’t want us to spend that kind of money on a facility which - after the project is over - will just be closed down or abandoned.


Even if the USN facility had the exact same CCS/interface setups (which they don't) this saves us having to do a two week trip every single time we want to do any functional test, so will probably pay for itself in fuel savings alone.

Normally you set these up though so you can duplicate your exact system and do full integration testing everytime you upgrade the software, add a new widget etc so they are used through life, and not just during the initial build. That saves a massive amount of time and effort, as having to come back to downgrade your software because you find a critical bug after the fact is a nightmare. Usually have something similar for the IPMS system for the same reason.

 Sounds like this one may also have features that will allow us to work with it from the a ship to do a lot of the initial acceptance trials, but also to test how it functions with CPFs (before we actually get a CSC in the water). That's huge, as we'll have effectively nearly an entire career's worth of a mixed fleet.

All for the price of about 1/1000th of the total budget; sounds like a good deal to me. We'll probably spend that much on o-rings and gasket material across the ships.


----------



## dapaterson

CBH99 said:


> Is that absolutely necessary though?
> 
> obviously we want the systems tested and reliable before being installed onto a ship.  But doesn’t the US have similar facilities already that we could capitalize on, and would benefit us both since many of these systems will also be on American ships?
> 
> And doesn’t some of these manufacturers already have these weapons and other systems functional with other navies already?
> 
> 
> I get the purpose of the facility.  Absolutely makes sense.  I just don’t want us to spend that kind of money on a facility which - after the project is over - will just be closed down or abandoned.



So, we can close AETE then?


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:


> Is that absolutely necessary though?


Yes it is.  This is the place where all of the dry side testing and training will be for all of the ships equipment.  It's the new Building S82 for those who've been to Stadaconna.  That building has radars, comms gear etc... attached a fake mast and on the roof of the building for the technical school.

I've seen a 3D model of what the facility will look like from the outside.  It's Canada's take on the "cruiser in a cornfield". (note this image is the cruiser in a cornfield, not the Canadian facility).



This is important because you can add or move antenna around to make sure that they don't interfere with one another.  You can train people on land in the near-identical situation to how it is on the ship. You can have exercises simulating various things.  With its location you can track air and sea contacts in real-time to test various programs, and train staff on the minutiae of the system. 

This sort of structure is super useful.  And it makes Canada independent of relying on others for what it provides.


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> Yes it is.  This is the place where all of the dry side testing and training will be for all of the ships equipment.  It's the new Building S82 for those who've been to Stadaconna.  That building has radars, comms gear etc... attached a fake mast and on the roof of the building for the technical school.
> 
> I've seen a 3D model of what the facility will look like from the outside.  It's Canada's take on the "cruiser in a cornfield". (note this image is the cruiser in a cornfield, not the Canadian facility).
> 
> View attachment 65421
> 
> This is important because you can add or move antenna around to make sure that they don't interfere with one another.  You can train people on land in the near-identical situation to how it is on the ship. You can have exercises simulating various things.  With its location you can track air and sea contacts in real-time to test various programs, and train staff on the minutiae of the system.
> 
> This sort of structure is super useful.  And it makes Canada independent of relying on others for what it provides.


Gotcha.  Not just from this post (although super helpful in understanding just how useful it is) - but other posts above also.

Mind changed.  Thanks!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Yes it is.  This is the place where all of the dry side testing and training will be for all of the ships equipment.  It's the new Building S82 for those who've been to Stadaconna.  That building has radars, comms gear etc... attached a fake mast and on the roof of the building for the technical school.
> 
> I've seen a 3D model of what the facility will look like from the outside.  It's Canada's take on the "cruiser in a cornfield". (note this image is the cruiser in a cornfield, not the Canadian facility).
> 
> View attachment 65421
> 
> This is important because you can add or move antenna around to make sure that they don't interfere with one another.  You can train people on land in the near-identical situation to how it is on the ship. You can have exercises simulating various things.  With its location you can track air and sea contacts in real-time to test various programs, and train staff on the minutiae of the system.
> 
> This sort of structure is super useful.  And it makes Canada independent of relying on others for what it provides.


That would be awesome, in fact you can add in more of the structure for other training as well, now if there was a gunnery range beside it....


----------



## CBH99

dapaterson said:


> So, we can close AETE then?


I'm assuming the answer is a solid "No" -- even though I don't really know what AETE does.  (From various discussions on here over the years, it seems important.  I don't actually know the details of what it does specifically though.)

My initial concern was the perception I had from the article.  We would spend $64 million on a building to test various systems, only to shut it down after the build is over.  My initial thoughts were "Well if some of these systems are already operational with allies, and other systems will be used by the USN - is that money we should be spending?"


Navy_Pete's & Underway's posts above clarified things for me.  I get the idea now -- was viewing it from an odd angle before.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> This sort of structure is super useful.  And it makes Canada independent of relying on others for what it provides.


And at the same time, makes us part of a relatively small, exclusive AEGIS/SPY-7 group... 👍🏼


----------



## RedFive

Made the mistake of reading some of the comments under the article... the disconnect most Canadians have from the real world and the reasons we need such facilities, the equipment they test and the ships that equipment will be installed on is astounding.

I am now dumber for having done so.

Although I should have seen it coming, it is a CBC article after all.


----------



## CBH99

I made the mistake of reading the comments section of a CBC article a few times, before VOWING TO MYSELF to never put myself through such a mind imploding experience again.

The average commenter is dumb as hell...


----------



## cavalryman

CBH99 said:


> The average commenter is dumb as hell...


And he or she votes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Meanwhile the UK starts on the third hull of their Type 26 build









						Construction starts on third Type 26 Frigate HMS Belfast
					

Prince William today started construction on the UK's third of eight Type 26 Frigate, HMS Belfast.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin Parkinson said:


> Meanwhile the UK starts on the third hull of their Type 26 build
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Construction starts on third Type 26 Frigate HMS Belfast
> 
> 
> Prince William today started construction on the UK's third of eight Type 26 Frigate, HMS Belfast.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ukdefencejournal.org.uk


I wonder if there is a chance that we can start on the first CSC after the 6th AOPS instead of waiting for the 2 CCG


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A possibility, not sure how keen the CCG is on the Civy AOP's


----------



## Underway

No chance.  Design work still needs to be finished.  There are too many risks to the project to head to build early. Better to take your time and set up for success with as thorough and complete design as possible.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:


> No chance.  Design work still needs to be finished.  There are too many risks to the project to head to build early. Better to take your time and set up for success with as thorough and complete design as possible.


So
_Frédérick Rolette_ 2021
_Robert Hampton Gray 2022
CCGAOPS1 2023
CCGAOPS2 2024

CSC1 2025?_


----------



## Uzlu

suffolkowner said:


> So
> _Frédérick Rolette_ 2021
> _Robert Hampton Gray 2022
> CCGAOPS1 2023
> CCGAOPS2 2024
> 
> CSC1 2025?_


"The construction of the first CSC vessel is expected to begin in 2023/2024."


----------



## MarkOttawa

Dave Perry moderates CGAI podcast on CSC program with current ADM (Mat) and Alan Williams:



> In this new episode of Defence Deconstructed, David Perry is joined by Troy Crosby and Alan Williams to explore the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project in details.
> 
> Defence Deconstructed is brought to you by Irving Shipbuilding. A strategic partner of the federal government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, providing skilled, well-paying jobs that support Canada’s economic recovery.
> 
> Defence Deconstructed is also brought to you by Boeing
> 
> __
> https://soundcloud.com/user-609485369%2Fdefence-deconstructed-deep-dive-on-the-canadian-surface-combatant


Rather different perspectives.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## FJAG

"This podcast is brought to you by Irving Shipbuilding"

Good one!


----------



## FJAG

Interesting podcast. Williams sounds a bit shrill to me. He may have some valid points as to the beginnings of this project and a few other issues, but some of the counterpoints he brings just don't tie together and his suggested way ahead doesn't sound like it will make matters better for the Navy.

I think we're too far down the rabbit hole on this one to turn around now.

🍻


----------



## CBH99

I agree.

Is there a design out there that we could select that may end up being a bit cheaper?  Perhaps, at first anyway.  Sure as heck not now.

But we are also getting a pretty badass ship (on paper anyway, since none are in service.  Which is odd since that was one of the main requirements - but screw it)

Lots of missiles.  Extremely versatile in the type of operations it performs.  Brings us into the fold of modern warfare capabilities in so many ways we don’t have now.  Makes us the 2nd largest AEGIS fleet outside of the USN.  Allows us to be a capable partner in BMD without having to wait for morons to debate it for years.

I’m excited for the Canadian Type-26 to hit the water!  Genuinely


----------



## Gorgo

Personally, so am I.  I just wish that the government would do something about getting more shipyards involved so we could get hulls into the water faster; not just the Type 26s but the AOPS, the JSS and everything else.


----------



## Underway

Gorgo said:


> Personally, so am I.  I just wish that the government would do something about getting more shipyards involved so we could get hulls into the water faster; not just the Type 26s but the AOPS, the JSS and everything else.


I understand the feeling but short-term pain for long-term gain here.

Brining both Vancouver Shipyards and Irving up from basically zero to where they are now was (and continues to be) a huge challenge for them, the government, and the PMO's.  Also, the RCN can only handle accepting so many ships at a time and needs to build out the infrastructure to do so.  An example is A and B jetty revitalization, ammo jetty replacement on the West Coast, and NJ jetty on the East Coast.

The other issue is the sustainability of the yards.  A consistent build schedule will keep the shipyards building.  It's interesting to note that as of right now the RCN has as many yards building ships for the RCN as the US does for their surface fleet.


----------



## CBH99

Gorgo said:


> Personally, so am I.  I just wish that the government would do something about getting more shipyards involved so we could get hulls into the water faster; not just the Type 26s but the AOPS, the JSS and everything else.


There needs to be a balance between getting ships to the fleet, and stable work for a decade or two on each coast.  

If we throw all of our resources at the projects, we could probably get them in the water a bit faster.  And yes that would be beneficial in some ways.

But then what?  We’d have a fleet of fancy new ships and be pretty awesome.  But without the stable work, the yards would atrophy and the skills would disappear.  And we would have to do this all over again in 20-30 years.

I very much hear you!  But, long term gain here


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:


> I understand the feeling but short-term pain for long-term gain here.
> 
> Brining both Vancouver Shipyards and Irving up from basically zero to where they are now was (and continues to be) a huge challenge for them, the government, and the PMO's.  Also, the RCN can only handle accepting so many ships at a time and needs to build out the infrastructure to do so.  An example is A and B jetty revitalization, ammo jetty replacement on the West Coast, and NJ jetty on the East Coast.
> 
> The other issue is the sustainability of the yards.  A consistent build schedule will keep the shipyards building.  It's interesting to note that as of right now the RCN has as many yards building ships for the RCN as the US does for their surface fleet.



I agree with Underway. Let's all remember that the AIM of this process had little to do with warships or the RCN. It was, still is, all about restoring and maintaining a useful, effective, profitable shipbuilding Industry in Canada. The team of DMs who thought this up advocated a long, relatively slow, process of building ships, one-after-another, in batches of three or four, each batch being a slight upgrade from the first. The reason we are building for the RCN and the Coast Guard is that international trade law (the WTO/GATT and all that really, really important stuff (unlike the defence of Canada) allows us to subsidize projects for national security reasons. We could not put this kind of taxpayers' money in to Davie, Irving and Seaspan if they were building commercial ships ~ other countries would be allowed to impose huge sanctions on Canadian trade in retaliation.

In a perfect world ~ as seen by those senior bureaucrats ~ the RCN would get one new major combatant a year for three years, then a year long gap, then three more in batch two, and so on until 15 major warships had been built. Then the first would go into mid-life refit. Ditto for a bunch of Coast Guard ships and so on. Meanwhile the companies (Davie, Irving and Seaspan ~ would be using their government funded upgrades to compete for and win business on the global, commercial (and government) market.


----------



## Uzlu

CBH99 said:


> There needs to be a balance between getting ships to the fleet, and stable work for a decade or two on each coast.


Twenty years of continuous shipbuilding for Irving and Seaspan is not good enough.  The government of Canada and all the major political parties should already have a plan for long-term shipbuilding—e.g., twenty-five-year plans for Irving, Seaspan, and Davie and another group of three twenty-five-year plans to immediately follow the first group.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Uzlu said:


> Twenty years of continuous shipbuilding for Irving and Seaspan is not good enough.  The government of Canada and all the major political parties should already have a plan for long-term shipbuilding—e.g., twenty-five-year plans for Irving, Seaspan, and Davie and another group of three twenty-five-year plans to immediately follow the first group.


For context, took about 12 years of slow lobbying to get the current NSS plan approved (with a big push for the last 3-4 years). We almost have to start as the CSCs are cutting steel to get approval to keep going with NSS in time to have more ship projects approved in time to do all the design etc required (and might have already missed the window).

I think everyone involved in getting NSS approved is now retired so need a new champion to keep that going, but don't think anyone is interested in picking up that gauntlet, given the general lack of political support for anything between now and the next election.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Edward Campbell said:


> I agree with Underway. Let's all remember that the AIM of this process had little to do with warships or the RCN. It was, still is, all about restoring and maintaining a useful, effective, profitable shipbuilding Industry in Canada. The team of DMs who thought this up advocated a long, relatively slow, process of building ships, one-after-another, in batches of three or four, each batch being a slight upgrade from the first. The reason we are building for the RCN and the Coast Guard is that international trade law (the WTO/GATT and all that really, really important stuff (unlike the defence of Canada) allows us to subsidize projects for national security reasons. We could not put this kind of taxpayers' money in to Davie, Irving and Seaspan if they were building commercial ships ~ other countries would be allowed to impose huge sanctions on Canadian trade in retaliation.
> 
> In a perfect world ~ as seen by those senior bureaucrats ~ the RCN would get one new major combatant a year for three years, then a year long gap, then three more in batch two, and so on until 15 major warships had been built. Then the first would go into mid-life refit. Ditto for a bunch of Coast Guard ships and so on. Meanwhile the companies (Davie, Irving and Seaspan ~ would be using their government funded upgrades to compete for and win business on the global, commercial (and government) market.


I would argue against the mid-life refit part. Once a warship gets past 20-25 years, the maintenance curve goes through the roof.

replace them at that point with new build and either deconstruct the old hull or sell it on the secondary market.


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:


> I would argue against the mid-life refit part. Once a warship gets past 20-25 years, the maintenance curve goes through the roof.
> 
> replace them at that point with new build and either deconstruct the old hull or sell it on the secondary market.


With the project lifespan we could almost just slow down the drumbeat of delivery and have them keep building new blocks of CSCs.

FELEX was really only about the sexy combat systems and didn't do any baseline mechanical systems; it's killing us on the primary and auxiliary mechanical systems, and we have thousands of obsolete items that are trying to be processed for replacement, with very little LCMM/procurement resources.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:


> With the project lifespan we could almost just slow down the drumbeat of delivery and have them keep building new blocks of CSCs.
> 
> FELEX was really only about the sexy combat systems and didn't do any baseline mechanical systems; it's killing us on the primary and auxiliary mechanical systems, and we have thousands of obsolete items that are trying to be processed for replacement, with very little LCMM/procurement resources.


I know. Boy, do I know.


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:


> With the project lifespan we could almost just slow down the drumbeat of delivery and have them keep building new blocks of CSCs.
> 
> FELEX was really only about the sexy combat systems and didn't do any baseline mechanical systems; it's killing us on the primary and auxiliary mechanical systems, and we have thousands of obsolete items that are trying to be processed for replacement, with very little LCMM/procurement resources.


Chatting with the former Winnipeg XO the other day. She had some horror stories on the physical and mechanical condition of that ship. I’m sure others have similar stories.


----------



## Edward Campbell

FSTO said:


> Chatting with the former Winnipeg XO the other day. She had some horror stories on the physical and mechanical condition of that ship. I’m sure others have similar stories.



Well, they are already between 25 and 30 years old and they will need to last for what: another 10+ years?

Given our history with the _St Laurent ~ Restigouche ~ Mackenzie ~ Annapolis_ and now _Halifax_ class ships it looks like 40 years is the expected service life of a Canadian warship. Maybe mid-life refits need to be part of the initial design/development scheme.


----------



## YZT580

Is it possible to maintain the same hull design and continue updating the bits that make it a war vessel so that we have a constant intake of new hulls every 20 to 25 years and each block of 3 or 4 is state of the art compared to the predecessor block?  Then we would never have to do this again


----------



## Navy_Pete

Edward Campbell said:


> Well, they are already between 25 and 30 years old and they will need to last for what: another 10+ years?
> 
> Given our history with the _St Laurent ~ Restigouche ~ Mackenzie ~ Annapolis_ and now _Halifax_ class ships it looks like 40 years is the expected service life of a Canadian warship. Maybe mid-life refits need to be part of the initial design/development scheme.


Previously we used to do baseline refits; which meant that they would systematically go and just replace sections of piping, valves etc in whole sections. Meant that you would be replacing equipment that still had service life left, but also meant that you wouldn't be afraid of poking a section of piping in case you went through the paint. The replacements was staggered over a number of refits, so you would do something like a third of the firemain (for example) and replace all of it over 3 refits (or about 15 years).

We stopped doing that with the 280s at TRUMP and switched over to conditioned based docking work periods, so basically you do surveys but don't replace anything unless you find out it's messed up. If you do substantial enough surveys it works fine, but as you can imagine you'll miss things, but also coincided with a lot of spending cuts, which reduced the depth of our surveys, as well as not taking on work during DWPs (leaving it to the crews to hopefully fix).

When they retired, the 280s had sections of firemain that were at most about 25 years old (with some large chunks being less then 20). Similarly the old steamers also had the old refit philosophy and had a lot of stuff in relatively good repair, plus large engineering departments to keep up with PM (280s were about 70-80 MSED).

The CPFs started out as condition based, and we've really only started doing in depth surveys in the last 5-8 years, so there is a lot of things that have piled up. With the shortage in staffing, pretty typical to have small crews during the post DWP reactivation (20-30) now, which isn't enough to keep up with just standard PM (preventative maintenance), let alone the repairs. It's pretty usual on some systems that the FMF goes in to do a simple 4 hour PM routine that turns into a few weeks of repairs because the systems are so degraded. And all that missed PM usually leads to something breaking, increasing the repair load and takes away from doing more PM.... (continues ad naseum). Long story short is that the CPFs are in worse mechanical shape now in a lot of areas then the 280s were at retirement.

Ships can do 40 years if you treat them well and maintain them properly; still have a lot of obsolescence issues but you can handle that if you aren't overrun by things being broken and trying to figure out what to do for some kind of bandaid solution. We're beating on the CPFs like rentals, hoping nothing goes bad, and coughing and humming a tune through the safety inspections hoping no one looks to closely. Pretty nuts.

At this point just keeping my fingers cross that when something does go wrong no one gets hurt/killed before we start enforcing our own safety policies. Not really a lot to ask, as they are built around basic commercial requirements, but we're deploying ships to HR missions that might not be allowed to leave port under commercial rules, so I don't really know. Boggles my mind that we never took our foot off the pedal through COVID, despite having major impacts on our ability to fix things, and really no one cared what we were doing anyway.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Navy_Pete said:


> Previously we used to do baseline refits; which meant that they would systematically go and just replace sections of piping, valves etc in whole sections. Meant that you would be replacing equipment that still had service life left, but also meant that you wouldn't be afraid of poking a section of piping in case you went through the paint. The replacements was staggered over a number of refits, so you would do something like a third of the firemain (for example) and replace all of it over 3 refits (or about 15 years).
> 
> We stopped doing that with the 280s at TRUMP and switched over to conditioned based docking work periods, so basically you do surveys but don't replace anything unless you find out it's messed up. If you do substantial enough surveys it works fine, but as you can imagine you'll miss things, but also coincided with a lot of spending cuts, which reduced the depth of our surveys, as well as not taking on work during DWPs (leaving it to the crews to hopefully fix).
> 
> When they retired, the 280s had sections of firemain that were at most about 25 years old (with some large chunks being less then 20). Similarly the old steamers also had the old refit philosophy and had a lot of stuff in relatively good repair, plus large engineering departments to keep up with PM (280s were about 70-80 MSED).
> 
> The CPFs started out as condition based, and we've really only started doing in depth surveys in the last 5-8 years, so there is a lot of things that have piled up. With the shortage in staffing, pretty typical to have small crews during the post DWP reactivation (20-30) now, which isn't enough to keep up with just standard PM (preventative maintenance), let alone the repairs. It's pretty usual on some systems that the FMF goes in to do a simple 4 hour PM routine that turns into a few weeks of repairs because the systems are so degraded. And all that missed PM usually leads to something breaking, increasing the repair load and takes away from doing more PM.... (continues ad naseum). Long story short is that the CPFs are in worse mechanical shape now in a lot of areas then the 280s were at retirement.
> 
> Ships can do 40 years if you treat them well and maintain them properly; still have a lot of obsolescence issues but you can handle that if you aren't overrun by things being broken and trying to figure out what to do for some kind of bandaid solution. We're beating on the CPFs like rentals, hoping nothing goes bad, and coughing and humming a tune through the safety inspections hoping no one looks to closely. Pretty nuts.
> 
> At this point just keeping my fingers cross that when something does go wrong no one gets hurt/killed before we start enforcing our own safety policies. Not really a lot to ask, as they are built around basic commercial requirements, but we're deploying ships to HR missions that might not be allowed to leave port under commercial rules, so I don't really know. Boggles my mind that we never took our foot off the pedal through COVID, despite having major impacts on our ability to fix things, and really no one cared what we were doing anyway.



Thanks for that; it helps a lot to understand what the RCN is doing. I was in the office of the Chief of Engineering and Maintenance (CEM ~ RAdm Ed Healey) in the mid-1980s when the CPF and CF-18s and TCCS were all major projects. I had (35 years ago) a good, but broad (big hand/small map) overview of what we wanted to do, then, but I've been retired for nearly 25 years. Hearing what we are (and aren't) doing is very helpful, albeit not always reassuring.


----------



## Underway

There is a reason that they added Davie to the list for DWP's.  The Irving drydock can only do a single ship at a time.  Adding Davie does two things, increases the drumbeat for ships able to undergo DWP's where they can get much needed repairs and gets the gov't votes.

This is also why the CSC program is going ahead come hell or high water.  We can afford NOT to have that project work.  There is no plan B.  The ships will fall apart by then.  When CSC 12 is built the frigate it will replace will be 40ish years old.

In other news there was a conference on Digital Fires not too long ago (Army folks suddenly start paying attention to navy thread).  There were reps from various stakeholders and CSC was one of them.  They were there to explain TLAM and 127mm capabilities as well as make connections so that when a FOO calls in Naval Gunfire support its ready to go with no hicups.


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> Previously we used to do baseline refits; which meant that they would systematically go and just replace sections of piping, valves etc in whole sections. Meant that you would be replacing equipment that still had service life left, but also meant that you wouldn't be afraid of poking a section of piping in case you went through the paint. The replacements was staggered over a number of refits, so you would do something like a third of the firemain (for example) and replace all of it over 3 refits (or about 15 years).
> 
> We stopped doing that with the 280s at TRUMP and switched over to conditioned based docking work periods, so basically you do surveys but don't replace anything unless you find out it's messed up. If you do substantial enough surveys it works fine, but as you can imagine you'll miss things, but also coincided with a lot of spending cuts, which reduced the depth of our surveys, as well as not taking on work during DWPs (leaving it to the crews to hopefully fix).
> 
> When they retired, the 280s had sections of firemain that were at most about 25 years old (with some large chunks being less then 20). Similarly the old steamers also had the old refit philosophy and had a lot of stuff in relatively good repair, plus large engineering departments to keep up with PM (280s were about 70-80 MSED).
> 
> The CPFs started out as condition based, and we've really only started doing in depth surveys in the last 5-8 years, so there is a lot of things that have piled up. With the shortage in staffing, pretty typical to have small crews during the post DWP reactivation (20-30) now, which isn't enough to keep up with just standard PM (preventative maintenance), let alone the repairs. It's pretty usual on some systems that the FMF goes in to do a simple 4 hour PM routine that turns into a few weeks of repairs because the systems are so degraded. And all that missed PM usually leads to something breaking, increasing the repair load and takes away from doing more PM.... (continues ad naseum). Long story short is that the CPFs are in worse mechanical shape now in a lot of areas then the 280s were at retirement.
> 
> Ships can do 40 years if you treat them well and maintain them properly; still have a lot of obsolescence issues but you can handle that if you aren't overrun by things being broken and trying to figure out what to do for some kind of bandaid solution. We're beating on the CPFs like rentals, hoping nothing goes bad, and coughing and humming a tune through the safety inspections hoping no one looks to closely. Pretty nuts.
> 
> At this point just keeping my fingers cross that when something does go wrong no one gets hurt/killed before we start enforcing our own safety policies. Not really a lot to ask, as they are built around basic commercial requirements, but we're deploying ships to HR missions that might not be allowed to leave port under commercial rules, so I don't really know. Boggles my mind that we never took our foot off the pedal through COVID, despite having major impacts on our ability to fix things, and really no one cared what we were doing anyway.


The 280s (and steamers) had a big enough MSE department that PM rarely slacked off or had a chance to snowball.  It helped that the (Esquimalt based) 280s had a fairly strong return spring.....I've known guys that have done a full career from OD to CPO2 on a combination of HUR and ALG.  The WENG dept for the most part had the same privilege and if you weren't at sea, you were posted to the School teaching systems and equipment you'd just been maintaining.  The end result was you had a department that was extremely familiar with their equipment and systems and the pride of being able (again, the numbers had a lot to do with it) to maintain them....up to changing out cruise gas turbines with next-to-no shore side support.

Just a personal observation from my (limited) time on CPFs.  in October 2002, ALG returned from Op APOLLO with fully functional engines and generators.  We'd been gone for 7 months less a week and were in better material condition than when we left.  A few months later, I was carrying out a diesel inspection on WIN who trailed us back from the gulf.  The overall mechanical condition was shambolic.  Considering the ship was less than 10 years old at that point, it did shine a light on how lean a frigate's MSE department was.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Grimey said:


> The 280s (and steamers) had a big enough MSE department that PM rarely slacked off or had a chance to snowball.  It helped that the (Esquimalt based) 280s had a fairly strong return spring.....I've known guys that have done a full career from OD to CPO2 on a combination of HUR and ALG.  The WENG dept for the most part had the same privilege and if you weren't at sea, you were posted to the School teaching systems and equipment you'd just been maintaining.  The end result was you had a department that was extremely familiar with their equipment and systems and the pride of being able (again, the numbers had a lot to do with it) to maintain them....up to changing out cruise gas turbines with next-to-no shore side support.
> 
> Just a personal observation from my (limited) time on CPFs.  in October 2002, ALG returned from Op APOLLO with fully functional engines and generators.  We'd been gone for 7 months less a week and were in better material condition than when we left.  A few months later, I was carrying out a diesel inspection on WIN who trailed us back from the gulf.  The overall mechanical condition was shambolic.  Considering the ship was less than 10 years old at that point, it did shine a light on how lean a frigate's MSE department was.


For sure, switching from the 280s to the CPFs was eye opening. The east coast was similar, and there were a few people that were posted to the same ship for over a decade (with some breaks for career courses).

The other big change is the level of training and experience. Previously people were overtrained to an extent, but we had guys trained up to the same standard as FSRs to be able to do OEM level maintenance on the ship (which was a really good thing, as we kept running those cruise engines after the OEM stopped supporting them). Now it's pretty hit or miss. Got really luck and our deployed crew included a red seal diesel mechanic and a few diesel inspectors, plus some 280 pers with GT experience, so we actually got up to having all four of the old DGs running, but the black water system, hot water and all the other domestic systems were a running guerilla war of attrition against weird failures, and the crews are now getting promoted faster due to lack of people, so the more senior folks in the department don't have the same experience to mentor the new folks or otherwise have already dealt with whatever fault came up. The hot water system is particularly insane, and still can't believe it doesn't have an automatic temperature control (you instead have to manually tune the electric coils with a really touchy rheostat, which goes from cold to burning people in a fraction of a turn).


----------



## Underway

So I haven't posted CSC info in a while, here's the latest virtual water cooler talk (as I'm still on WFH... discussion for another thread).

CSC is being built in Flights or batches.  There are off-ramps built into the contract to modify the design, deal with obsolescence issues and new technology growth.

_-Underway Editorial Section follows - _

This makes complete sense to me.  The program is a 20-year-ish build.  Some of the technologies on the ship (things as mundane as administrative computer networks, wifi and printers) have 2-3 year technology turnover.   There will be new warfighting technologies that should be integrated and old ones that don't apply anymore.

An example of this could be the slow trend of removal of FC illuminators from ships.  Air warfare missiles are gradually moving to active from semi-active homing.  European navies like the French and British have been using Active homing missiles for decades, and their ships are generally not outfitted with fire control illuminators.  New US missiles like ESSM2 and SM6 have active homing modes.  

We know that CSC is going to have an FC illuminator built by MDA If all missiles have active homing then there is no need for a fire control illuminator anymore.  That would free up space and weight higher in the ship (and topside space so critical) for new technologies.  If the CSC later Flights don't need an illuminator anymore take them out.


----------



## FSTO

^^
Batches of 3?


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> ^^
> Batches of 3?


My supposition is that the first batch is actually 4 "ships". It includes the tests and trials stone frigate to be built in Dartmouth.  But then the next batches will be 4 actually floating ships.  But maybe 5 batches of 3.

_Side note on terminology for those non-naval types:
Batches - the number of ships ordered/built at a time.
Flights - this a different version of the design,  (aka v1.0 is a different flight than v2.0)
So for example you can have a Flight I build that is in two batches.  And then a Flight II ship that is built in three batches etc._


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If we were really smart by the time we are finishing the last CSC, we should have the design to start building a replacement for the first batch. My guess is we won't be that smart.


----------



## Kirkhill

*For Reference - Initial delivery "early 2030s"   You know! Plus or minus.  Somewhere round about then. Ish.*​​Canadian Surface Combatant​What's new
Project Type​Project Replace

Objective​To recapitalize the Royal Canadian Navy's surface combatant fleet by replacing and updating the capabilities found in both the Iroquois Class destroyers and the multi-role Halifax Class frigates and provide the necessary ammunition, training, support and infrastructure. The new Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) will ensure that Canada can continue to monitor and defend its waters and make significant contributions to international naval operations.

Requirements​15 Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) ships. These ships will be Canada’s major surface component of maritime combat power. With its effective warfare capability and versatility, it can be deployed rapidly anywhere in the world, either independently or as part of a Canadian or international coalition. The CSC will be able to deploy for many months with a limited logistic footprint. The CSC will be able to conduct a broad range of tasks, in various scenarios, including:


the provision of decisive combat power at sea and support during land operations
counter-piracy, counter terrorism, interdiction and embargo operations for medium intensity operations
the delivery of humanitarian aid, search and rescue, law and sovereignty enforcement for regional engagements
The project budget is $56-$60 billion with a Definition Contract of $185M awarded to Irving Shipbuilding under the National Shipbuilding Strategy in February 2019 for the design of the ship. The Definition Contract value will increase as design work progresses.

Visit the project website

Funding Range​Greater than $5 billion

Anticipated Timeline (Fiscal Year)​
*Completed* Start Options Analysis
*Completed* Start Definition
*2021/2022* Start Implementation
*Early 2030s* Initial Delivery
*To be determined* Final Delivery


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> My supposition is that the first batch is actually 4 "ships". It includes the tests and trials stone frigate to be built in Dartmouth.  But then the next batches will be 4 actually floating ships.  But maybe 5 batches of 3.
> 
> _Side note on terminology for those non-naval types:
> Batches - the number of ships ordered/built at a time.
> Flights - this a different version of the design,  (aka v1.0 is a different flight than v2.0)
> So for example you can have a Flight I build that is in two batches.  And then a Flight II ship that is built in three batches etc._


I think at any one point they will have 4 different ships undergoing some kind of construction/trials, so there will be a lag between any design changes and the flow through into the planning/scheduling process. Minor tweaks to things that are done in the module stage (like where a pipe bracket goes) are relatively easy, but would take a while to actually get implemented in the build because of far ahead some of that is done. I think by the time we figure out some of the issues on the first of class while on trials, it will already exist on 3-4 more that are in production, and if they are major issues it will take a while to engineer the fix.

So even if we do the contracting in batches, actual changes may not flow through like that.

Bit different than the older method of building from the keel up, where you were basically working on one ship at a time (and maybe starting some of the preliminary work on forming/cutting the plate for the hull). Modular building should give you much better consistency between ships, but also means that you get the same defects passed through (consistently) and there is a bigger impact when you want to make changes, because you have a lot of concurrent activities on the go that affects multiple hulls.

For example, flagging issues on HDW right now, but they are also on MGB, and at least two other of the in construction AOPs. The solution may make it  into the sixth ship baseline design, and hopefully implemented on 4 and 5 as design changes before delivery, but probably will have at least 3 ships with the same first of class issue. If it's a docking dependent repair, they run like that for the full 5 year op cycle. Don't worry though, the original design was approved by a class society, so there won't be problems.... 

Pretty funny to see DND defer to class society opinions over our own SMEs, despite the fact that some of the surveyors have no specific expertise, and some of our people have decades of it. 🤷‍♂️


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If it's any consolation, commercial operators pushed for Class certification in lieu of Federal Ship Safety Inspectors. last I heard, the private Class inspectors cost more and take longer to get to an inspection than the Feds did.


----------



## Weinie

Navy_Pete said:


> I think at any one point they will have 4 different ships undergoing some kind of construction/trials, so there will be a lag between any design changes and the flow through into the planning/scheduling process. Minor tweaks to things that are done in the module stage (like where a pipe bracket goes) are relatively easy, but would take a while to actually get implemented in the build because of far ahead some of that is done. I think by the time we figure out some of the issues on the first of class while on trials, it will already exist on 3-4 more that are in production, and if they are major issues it will take a while to engineer the fix.
> 
> So even if we do the contracting in batches, actual changes may not flow through like that.
> 
> Bit different than the older method of building from the keel up, where you were basically working on one ship at a time (and maybe starting some of the preliminary work on forming/cutting the plate for the hull). Modular building should give you much better consistency between ships, but also means that you get the same defects passed through (consistently) and there is a bigger impact when you want to make changes, because you have a lot of concurrent activities on the go that affects multiple hulls.
> 
> For example, flagging issues on HDW right now, but they are also on MGB, and at least two other of the in construction AOPs. The solution may make it  into the sixth ship baseline design, and hopefully implemented on 4 and 5 as design changes before delivery, but probably will have at least 3 ships with the same first of class issue. If it's a docking dependent repair, they run like that for the full 5 year op cycle. Don't worry though, the original design was approved by a class society, so there won't be problems....
> 
> Pretty funny to see DND defer to class society opinions over our own SMEs, despite the fact that some of the surveyors have no specific expertise, and some of our people have decades of it. 🤷‍♂️


Are there that many differences between the first of the Halifax’s and the later ships?


----------



## dapaterson

Halifax class, I am lead to believe, also differ depending on which yard built them.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Weinie said:


> Are there that many differences between the first of the Halifax’s and the later ships?


A lot of minor things, like trunking and wiring runs in slightly different locations, but normally only really an issue when you are trying to install things years later. Some of those details are left to the installers discretion on the build drawings, but things like plumbing runs for the sinks can vary depending on who was setting it up. Usually there are tolerances on all the measurements as well, but sometimes the individual +/- 5 mm can add up to everything being shifted over a foot when you use relative positions on the drawings.

There are a few equipment design differences; like the fuel main has two setups (ring main vice normal distribution), plus 3 different versions of the steering system. Not really sure about the background on the first one, but on the 2nd one was because the manufacturer went out of business or something during the build. Most people have never see that though, so really only matters for the technicians. In general, if you know how to get from A to B on one CPF, you can do it on the others.

They drift apart over the years as well, but with a few known exceptions for some compartment layouts, it's still effectively the same ship. Takes a lot of work to make sure all the safety equipment is kept in the same spots and things like that, but that's all part of the configuration management program (and that includes ship specific particularization of the drawings as required).


----------



## Kirkhill

What would happen to pricing and delivery if the average weight of the fleet was dropped?  I understand that part of the estimation inflation is based on 15 ships originally estimated at Light Ship Weights of about 5700 tonnes to which, in the Canadian case something like 4000 tonnes of deadweight has been added.   Most of that has been added above the waterline from my understanding, in the form of weapons and sensors.

Rather than 15 identical heavy weight ships what would happen if the fleet were reconsidered as, for example, 4x Air Warfare Destroyers (Aegis and Strike Standards),  4x Command and Support ships adhering to the original light ship weight standards configured to emphasise a multi-role, dock accessible mission bay,  and 7 GP/Strike ships fitted with strike length Mk41 VLS but armed with ESSM quads?

Is there real money to be saved or is it just the estimate that would be changed?

Also how would the RCN manage a Task Force centred on an AWD, a C&S ship and a pair of GP/Strike ships?  I am thinking the C&S would have multi-role utility in terms of boats, UAVs, USVs and UUVs, SeaCans, Accommodations and Vehicles and Engineering plant as well as Non Combatants.


----------



## Uzlu

Kirkhill said:


> Rather than 15 identical heavy weight ships what would happen if the fleet were reconsidered as, for example, 4x Air Warfare Destroyers (Aegis and Strike Standards),  4x Command and Support ships adhering to the original light ship weight standards configured to emphasise a multi-role, dock accessible mission bay,  and 7 GP/Strike ships fitted with strike length Mk41 VLS but armed with ESSM quads?



From this link:


> The department also categorically ruled out scrapping the program or going with another design.
> 
> "This is not an option we will be pursuing," the statement said. "Selecting a new design at this stage in the project would lead to significant economic loss for Canada's marine industry and those employed in it.
> 
> "It would have major operational impacts for the [Royal Canadian Navy], due to associated project delays and life-extension requirements, as well as increasing the costs to operate and maintain more than one class of ships in the future."


----------



## Kirkhill

I think the point is though, what is a class, what is a batch, what is a flight, what is simply a different ship with a different load out?

If Irving builds the same hulls with the same power plants and the same bridges, with the same wireways, ducts and pipes, but not all of those conduits are filled identically because they are supporting different weapons, sensors and comms,  do the costs of the boats change?  

The estimates should say they will because the weight of the ships will drop.  But the amount of work to build the hulls is probably identical.  As is the amount of steel.

The project costs may drop, because fewer missiles will be needed and acquired, fewer high end radars and other sensors.

But if we put a 32 cell Strike Length Mk41 VLS on board, but don't fill it with Tomahawks or SM-6s, how much money do we save on the build?

I'm just curious.



On the other hand there is the Multi-Role Support Ship and the Type 31/32 frigates being considered by the RN (8+5+5).

Sometimes I wonder how the RN manages to do it.  So many ships of so many types in so many places delivered so fast.


----------



## suffolkowner

Kirkhill said:


> I think the point is though, what is a class, what is a batch, what is a flight, what is simply a different ship with a different load out?
> 
> If Irving builds the same hulls with the same power plants and the same bridges, with the same wireways, ducts and pipes, but not all of those conduits are filled identically because they are supporting different weapons, sensors and comms,  do the costs of the boats change?
> 
> The estimates should say they will because the weight of the ships will drop.  But the amount of work to build the hulls is probably identical.  As is the amount of steel.
> 
> The project costs may drop, because fewer missiles will be needed and acquired, fewer high end radars and other sensors.
> 
> But if we put a 32 cell Strike Length Mk41 VLS on board, but don't fill it with Tomahawks or SM-6s, how much money do we save on the build?
> 
> I'm just curious.
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand there is the Multi-Role Support Ship and the Type 31/32 frigates being considered by the RN (8+5+5).
> 
> Sometimes I wonder how the RN manages to do it.  So many ships of so many types in so many places delivered so fast.


Personally I think the RN has way too many ship designs on the go but I guess the continual design and build keeps everyone fresh

River Class
Type 23
Type 26 
Type 45
Type 31
Type 32
Type 83

but it seems the same for their Army too


----------



## dapaterson

As I understand, the hulls and sensor suites will be fixed, weapons modular, with incremental improvements between flights, which in turn can be integrated into prior flights during the regularly scheduled extended docking periods.

The battlespace integration between platforms means you could have HMCS Whatever firing HMCS Wherever's SM2 missiles to intercept an attack against HMCS Whenever.


----------



## Kirkhill

Uzlu said:


> From this link:











						Building Ships - Seaspan
					






					nss.seaspan.com
				




The interesting bits are between minutes 20 and 25 (plus or minus a couple)

Looking over the SeaSpan Multi-Purpose Vessel offer  I see two or three things.

First off it is a long build,  Comparable to the CSC build.  16 vessels over 20 years or so.

Secondly the base build looks an awful like the AOPS's original mother concept - The Norwegian Coast Guard's Svalbard - complete with the Svalbard's original power train and the ability to break 1st year ice (0.9m ice+ 0.3m snow)

99.9 m by 6.2m by 19.5m displacing 8200 tonnes full load and 6200 tonnes light.  50 Crew

Same ball park as the AOPS, as the Svalbard and the CSC.

Thirdly the vessel is to replace three different vessels so the 16 vessels will be built in three flights

6 to replace the HEMTVs
6 to replace the MEMTVs
4 to replace the OPVs

There is room to rethink the design after every flight.  There is an intention to rethink the power plant in the third flight in the initial planning - leaning towards hydrogen.  The Norwegians are favouring Natural Gas these days. They, and BC, have a lot available and they think it is clean.

So, on one hand we have the RCN betting the farm on a single spec  for 15 ships while the Coast Guard is working with room for three specs over 16 ships.   Both ships are of similar size and displacement.


----------



## Kirkhill

suffolkowner said:


> Personally I think the RN has way too many ship designs on the go but I guess the continual design and build keeps everyone fresh
> 
> River Class
> Type 23
> Type 26
> Type 45
> Type 31
> Type 32
> Type 83
> 
> but it seems the same for their Army too



River Class has been in service since 2003 and there are no additional vessels planned.  It will be replaced by Type 31s and/or Type 32s.  

Type 23 has been in service since 1987 and is being withdrawn from service now to be replaced by the Type 26s post 2027 or there abouts

Type 45 has been in service since 2003 with the last delivery in 2010.  The Type 83 is in the planning stages as the Type 45 replacement from the early 2030s.

Type 31 is building now as a replacement for the Rivers which seem to be something of a stop gap.  The Rivers are likely to work in concert with the three Bay Class LSDAs acting as interim Multi-Role Support ships (Previously known as Littoral Strike Ships).  The Type 31s will likely start their working life with the LSDAs and then move on to supporting the MRSSs when they are introduced in the early 30s.  By that time the 32s will be defined and scheduled.

The point seems to be that the RN will not have a large batch of obsolescent ships in their fleet, nor will they have a lot of different designs.  What they will have is a fleet made up of smaller batches of vessels matched to the most current shipbuilding technologies, weapons and adversaries.  And that can work in support of their more long-lived capital ships like their CVs, SSBNs and LPDs.

Circa 2032, when the first Cdn Type 26 is commissioning the RN will be operating a fleet of 4 SSBNs, 7 SSNs, 2 CVs, 2 LPDs, 6-8 MRSSs, 6 Type 45s with their Type 83 replacements building, 5 Type 26s with 3 more building, 5 Type 31s with 5 more Type 32s building. There may be one or two Rivers or Type 23s still in service.


----------



## Kirkhill

I meant to include the MPV design details and image - This is the 6 ship Flight One proposal to replace the existing HEMTVs.


----------



## Kirkhill

AOPS Original







  AOPS Revised


----------



## Kirkhill

Or, looking at another way, Canada is going to end up with 24 Svalbard variants in her fleet.  8 built by Irving and 16 by SeaSpan.  6 operated by the Navy and 18 by the Coast Guard.

Here's a thought.  Give the Coast Guard the third AOPS as soon as she completes trials to play with for a while.  Let them figure out what they can make do with and what they really need and then pass the word back to Irving and SeaSpan before final designs are drawn up.


LOA​BOA​Draught​Displacement​Heavy​Thrusters​Engines​Svalbard​103.7​19.1​6.5​6300​2x 5 MW​13 MW​AOPS 2008​109.6​18.2​7​6940​2x 7.5 MW​18 MW​AOPS 2012​98​19​5.75​5874​2x 4.5 MW​13.2 MW​AOPS ISY​103.6​19​5200​HdW RCN​103​19​6440​2x 4.5 MW​14.4 MW​MPV​99.919.5​6.2​6200​8200​2x 3.5 MW​10 MW​


----------



## Uzlu

Kirkhill said:


> If Irving builds the same hulls with the same power plants and the same bridges, with the same wireways, ducts and pipes, but not all of those conduits are filled identically because they are supporting different weapons, sensors and comms,  do the costs of the boats change?


Yes.  Inflation in building warships is greater than the general rate of inflation.


Kirkhill said:


> The estimates should say they will because the weight of the ships will drop.


Why should displacement drop?  Displacement usually increases.  Since the Second World War, displacements of frigates and destroyers have been on a steady upward trend.


Kirkhill said:


> But the amount of work to build the hulls is probably identical.  As is the amount of steel.


But how about the amount of work to redesign the ships?  


Kirkhill said:


> The project costs may drop, because fewer missiles will be needed and acquired, fewer high end radars and other sensors.


I doubt the project costs will drop.  Because you have to add increased costs for redesigns, you have to add increased costs for spare parts, you have to add increased costs for repairs, you have to add increased costs for maintenance, you have to add increased costs for refits, and you have to add increased costs for training.  

So the Royal Canadian Navy ends up paying more money for less capable frigates.  The original plan was to build two classes of frigates.  This plan was rejected for the reasons above.  These fifteen frigates, however, will probably be built in batches—gradual improvements in later batches.


Kirkhill said:


> Sometimes I wonder how the RN manages to do it.  So many ships of so many types in so many places delivered so fast.


This is why a constant-build strategy is important.  More money also helps.


----------



## Kirkhill

Uzlu said:


> Yes.  Inflation in building warships is greater than the general rate of inflation.
> 
> Why should displacement drop?  Displacement usually increases.  Since the Second World War, displacements of frigates and destroyers have been on a steady upward trend.
> 
> But how about the amount of work to redesign the ships?
> 
> I doubt the project costs will drop.  Because you have to add increased costs for redesigns, you have to add increased costs for spare parts, you have to add increased costs for repairs, you have to add increased costs for maintenance, you have to add increased costs for refits, and you have to add increased costs for training.
> 
> So the Royal Canadian Navy ends up paying more money for less capable frigates.  The original plan was to build two classes of frigates.  This plan was rejected for the reasons above.  These fifteen frigates, however, will probably be built in batches—gradual improvements in later batches.
> 
> This is why a constant-build strategy is important.  More money also helps.



My thought was running along the lines of tossing deadweight (capabilities) overboard and by definition lightening ship.

My interest is in how valid the estimation process based on ship's weight is.  A fully loaded ship of 9400 tonnes, with fuel and munitions is estimated to cost a given amount.  How much is saved by building a ship fitted for but not with?  Lets say you reduce the weight to light ship weight.  5700 tonnes.  Which is the valid weight for estimating the cost of the ship?

If we build 15 ships at 5700 tonnes each that are perfectly functional but have an additional few thousand tonnes of disposable tonnage.  Tonnage that can be converted into capabilities when the need evolves.

Is the full load estimate or the light ship estimate the right one?

As to changing designs at this stage, I am fully aware of how much engineering firms enjoy Engineering Changes.  But there again we have cut no steel and we are almost a decade away from first delivery.  We might have a bit of time to consider the situation.


----------



## Uzlu

Kirkhill said:


> My thought was running along the lines of tossing deadweight (capabilities) overboard and by definition lightening ship.
> 
> My interest is in how valid the estimation process based on ship's weight is.  A fully loaded ship of 9400 tonnes, with fuel and munitions is estimated to cost a given amount.  How much is saved by building a ship fitted for but not with?  Lets say you reduce the weight to light ship weight.  5700 tonnes.  Which is the valid weight for estimating the cost of the ship?
> 
> If we build 15 ships at 5700 tonnes each that are perfectly functional but have an additional few thousand tonnes of disposable tonnage.  Tonnage that can be converted into capabilities when the need evolves.
> 
> Is the full load estimate or the light ship estimate the right one?
> 
> As to changing designs at this stage, I am fully aware of how much engineering firms enjoy Engineering Changes.  But there again we have cut no steel and we are almost a decade away from first delivery.  We might have a bit of time to consider the situation.


Are you proposing that the Royal Canadian Navy operates fifteen offshore patrol vessels based on the Type 26 and using AN/SPY-7(V)1 and  the Aegis Combat System?  If a shooting war begins, how long do you think it will take to convert these offshore patrol vessels to frigates?  Will foreign countries supply Canada with the equipment?  

Do you think the Americans and Europeans will supply us with munitions?  Will the Americans and our other NATO allies be happy with the idea of Canada operating fifteen offshore patrol vessels instead of fifteen frigates?  What about our promise to the Americans to bolster our armed forces by spending a minimum of 2% of our gross domestic product on our armed forces?


----------



## Kirkhill

Uzlu said:


> Are you proposing that the Royal Canadian Navy operates fifteen offshore patrol vessels based on the Type 26 and using AN/SPY-7(V)1 and  the Aegis Combat System?  If a shooting war begins, how long do you think it will take to convert these offshore patrol vessels to frigates?  Will foreign countries supply Canada with the equipment?
> 
> Do you think the Americans and Europeans will supply us with munitions?  Will the Americans and our other NATO allies be happy with the idea of Canada operating fifteen offshore patrol vessels instead of fifteen frigates?  What about our promise to the Americans to bolster our armed forces by spending a minimum of 2% of our gross domestic product on our armed forces?



I am not proposing so much as wondering.

Our 280s were launched in 1972 and served to 2017.  45 years.
The CPFs were commissioned between 1992 and 1996.  They are now 25 to 30 years old.  They will be 35 to 40 years old before their first replacement joins them.  At a build rate of one a year they will be 50 to 60 years old before the last one is replaced sometime round about 2050.

The capabilities that you are suggesting will not, in my opinion, transform the fleet.  There will be no surge in new capabilities.  They will leak into the fleet.  And while they are leaking into the fleet the nature of the enemy, the fight and our allies are likely to be changing.  

My sense is that we are picking a point on the horizon and setting a 30 year course.   I am trying to get a sense of how we are managing that journey and trying to compare it to others facing the same situation.

And wondering if a high end / low end mix  that can easily be converted and upgraded with updates every decade or so is a viable alternate.


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Are there that many differences between the first of the Halifax’s and the later ships?



The ships are old enough and have had enough refits that there are only a few things that go back to the initial build.  They are generally structural or marine system related.  To add to NP's comment  (below) there are also two variants in how the Emerg Fuel Tank works.  VDQ quarterdeck is 2 feet lower than the other ships and needed to have a "raised" deck patch so that the CANTASS could fit.  That was a change that was not communicated to Davie by St. John's and thus when the spool was installed it didn't fit.  So a patch was installed.



Navy_Pete said:


> A lot of minor things, like trunking and wiring runs in slightly different locations, but normally only really an issue when you are trying to install things years later. Some of those details are left to the installers discretion on the build drawings, but things like plumbing runs for the sinks can vary depending on who was setting it up. Usually there are tolerances on all the measurements as well, but sometimes the individual +/- 5 mm can add up to everything being shifted over a foot when you use relative positions on the drawings.
> 
> There are a few equipment design differences; like the fuel main has two setups (ring main vice normal distribution), plus 3 different versions of the steering system. Not really sure about the background on the first one, but on the 2nd one was because the manufacturer went out of business or something during the build. Most people have never see that though, so really only matters for the technicians. In general, if you know how to get from A to B on one CPF, you can do it on the others.
> 
> They drift apart over the years as well, but with a few known exceptions for some compartment layouts, it's still effectively the same ship. Takes a lot of work to make sure all the safety equipment is kept in the same spots and things like that, but that's all part of the configuration management program (and that includes ship specific particularization of the drawings as required).



Configuration management is brutal.  I agree that ships drift apart in various ways.  Not every ship has a gym right now either but the refits are working on that.

CSE systems are generally aligned between ships however software configurations are not.  There are incremental improvements that happen when a ship goes into a docking work period.  Not all ships currently have 3 MASS launchers but eventually will.  Not all ships currently have NRWS but eventually will.  The IT architecture for each ship is mostly aligned but that's always in flux.  Software versions are never aligned for various systems as sometimes you need hardware improvements.


----------



## Underway

A far as the ability to change things as we go I can tell you that during the design process you can often identify areas that need to be changed or are suboptimal.

At some point, you run out of time, money, or even long lead purchases box you into a solution space that isn't ideal.  You can't change the design anymore.  So building in a Flight is a good way to mitigate that.  You build the first three ships, when the final design is approved you can immediately switch over to design changes for the next four or so.  This is particularly important for any computer-related assets.  Software and hardware have short cycles and you can look at improvements almost immediately.  Heck, the first ship's Wifi will probably be delivered already obsolete as the lead times for equipment purchases is likely 3-4 years.


----------



## Uzlu

Kirkhill said:


> And wondering if a high end / low end mix  that can easily be converted and upgraded with updates every decade or so is a viable alternate.


The Royal Canadian Navy also thought about the idea of a high-low mix of warships—high-end air defence and lower-end general purpose.


> By Captain Christopher Nucci, Royal Canadian Navy
> 
> Canada is pursuing a single class of 15 surface combatants for the Royal Canadian Navy (RCN), unlike some of its allies who are building multiple classes of more specialized ships. A single variant Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) is better than the project’s original vision of two variants based on a common hull (the first a task group command/air-defense version, the other a more general-purpose/antisubmarine warfare version). While all naval force structure is essentially driven by national strategic defense and security interests, a single-class solution is based on three principal factors. First, it fits best for Canada’s unique naval requirements shaped by its geography, modest fleet size, and the RCN’s operational needs. Second, it optimizes effectiveness now and into the future, while responsibly seeking maximum cost efficiencies. Finally, it is an innovative approach that has only recently become both practical and advantageous because of recent technological developments, such as convergence and digitization.
> 
> *The General Purpose Warship Moment*
> 
> Naval force planning decisions must coexist in harmony with decisions regarding a navy’s overall fleet mix of capital ships, “high-end” surface combatants, “low-end” combatants, and submarines—and the roles of each type.1 In particular, surface combatants have historically fulfilled one or two warfare roles, such as antiair and antisubmarine warfare. Until recently, fielding an affordable “general purpose warship” was too difficult to achieve. The technological limitations of the latter half of the 20th century and into the first decade of the 21st imposed inescapable constraints stemming from the necessary physical size and power requirements of electronics and equipment, along with the expensive and challenging integration of the various single-purpose weapons, sensors, communications, and command-and-control arrangements (as well as the operations and maintenance personnel) required for each role. These limitations could only be surmounted by increasing space, weight, crew size, and the commensurate complexity. As a result, many navies introduced multiple classes of surface combatants to handle the different warfare roles, as well as low-end ships (at less cost) to have sufficient numbers of ships available to respond to contingencies.
> 
> For the RCN, with a small force of submarines and no capital ships, the approach until now followed this pattern, with the _Iroquois_-class destroyers focused until their divestment on task group command and area air defense and the more numerous _Halifax_-class frigates acting as more general-purpose/antisubmarine warfare platforms. Canada’s allies have had to confront similar considerations. For example, in the United Kingdom, the number of hulls and capabilities of the Type 26 (the CSC’s parent design, known as the Global Combat Ship) are directly connected to the planned acquisition of less-capable Type 31 frigates, the existence of Type 45 antiair-warfare destroyers, a larger submarine fleet, and the importance of capital ships, such as Royal Navy aircraft carriers. For Australia (which is also acquiring the Type 26/GCS-derived _Hunter_-class), the requirement to protect amphibious ships, more submarines in the fleet, and a separate class of air-warfare destroyers are key factors. Different requirements ultimately lead to different priorities and trade-off decisions, and Canada’s circumstances are unlike any others.
> 
> *Canada’s Geography, Fleet Size, and Operational Requirements*
> 
> Aside from the overall fleet mix, the other considerations for any state’s naval force structure are the geographic factors, overall fleet size, and operational requirements. In Canada’s case, unique geography includes the bicoastal nature of the RCN’s homeports in Victoria, British Columbia, and Halifax, Nova Scotia, and the tricoastal areas of responsibility in the Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic. Each area is very distant from the others, and therefore any timely maritime response generally must come from the closest base. In other words, when you need a ship from the opposite coast for any unexpected reason, it is a long way to go. So, it is best if all ships are equally capable and allocated more or less evenly among homeports. Similarly, the RCN must consider the long-range nature of its ship deployments—even domestic ones—because of the significant distances to anticipated theaters of operation.
> 
> A single combatant class that can perform a wide range of tasks while remaining deployed best meets this challenge and provides more options to government when far away from homeport. For example, a CSC operating in the Asia-Pacific region as an air-defense platform for an allied amphibious task group can quickly respond to a requirement to hunt an adversary’s submarine, if needed. Similarly, assembling a national naval task group of several multirole CSCs in response to a crisis is much more achievable when the RCN can draw from the whole surface combatant fleet to assign ships at the necessary readiness levels. The alternative may not guarantee a sufficient number of specialized variants needed for the task when the call comes. In other words, if any one ship becomes unavailable to perform a task for any reason, there is more depth available in the fleet to fill the gap and complete the mission. Consequently, having more ships of similar capabilities ensures a higher rate of _operational availability_, which is especially important with the RCN’s relatively modest fleet size. For small fleets, a “high/low” mix of warships or multiple classes of more specialized combatants actually constrains operational availability.
> 
> *Cost-Saving Value*
> 
> While increasing complexity would ordinarily imply increasing cost, a single class of ships can actually present opportunities to increase cost efficiency. First, a single class of ships eliminates duplication of fixed program costs such as design and engineering and, during ship construction, further eliminates additional costs derived from retooling and pausing work in the shipyard between the construction of different classes, while achieving better learning curves and lowering overall costs per unit compared with two shorter construction runs. As each ship enters service, a single ship class in sufficient numbers has dedicated supply chains and more efficiency and equipment availability from the provision of common parts (especially given that two allies are procuring additional ships based on the common Type 26/GCS design.) Higher cost efficiencies in maintenance from labor specialization also can be expected, as well as the ability for more efficient repair training and use of required ship repair facilities and equipment. Furthermore, training costs associated with a single class are reduced through the ability to deliver common training modules to a larger student cohort, while simultaneously allowing for deeper knowledge and specialist personnel development among a larger pool of available crew with common qualifications.
> 
> This latter point cannot be overstated—crew availability is a key requirement for operational availability, and the efficiencies made possible with a single set of common qualifications and training enables a larger pool of available personnel to deploy and more flexibility for sustained operations at the unit level. It includes Royal Canadian Air Force maritime helicopter crews and embarked unmanned systems specialists, as well as Army, special operations forces, and even Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel in a law enforcement mission who would require no additional conversion training between classes once familiar with the CSC’s modular mission bay arrangement or boat launching procedures.
> 
> *An Opportunity Enabled by Modern Technology*
> 
> Compared with a few decades ago, several recent technological developments are making multirole ships much more practical. Information-age innovation is, in essence, enabling all the potential advantages a single class of surface combatants while minimizing the traditional disadvantages. For example, any operations room or bridge display can now easily show video or data feeds from any sensor, weapon, or software support system—_convergence_. Likewise, instead of several stand-alone unmanned systems controllers, consoles that can control any of the ship’s unmanned air, surface, or subsurface system are becoming available. Widespread _digitization_ has reduced space requirements, while increasing system capability, flexibility, and power and cooling efficiency. This miniaturization allows for smaller components that can fit into smaller spaces.
> 
> _Multifunctionality_ can now be found in all kinds of components. For example, a single digital beam-forming radar can replace multiple traditional radars, software-defined radios can support different communications requirements on the fly, programmable multipurpose weapons can engage more than one kind of target but be fired from a common vertical launcher, and decoy launchers can now deploy a variety of defensive munitions. Multifunctionality even extends beyond individual systems to encompass features like the CSC’s modular mission bay—a reconfigurable space able to accommodate and integrate any containerized payload imaginable. With an air-transportable, container-based set of payloads, embarking additional specialized equipment or capabilities into a deployed ship during an overseas port visit can be done in just a few days. These developments enable a single ship to rapidly transition to and execute many naval roles while defending itself against a myriad of threats.
> 
> Although a ship’s overall _capacity_ (e.g., the desired number of crew accommodated, missiles embarked, unmanned systems carried, endurance and seakeeping performance, etc.) will still be constrained by its size, a single ship class can have a full range of _capabilities_. The CSC balances multirole capabilities with a modest amount of capacity. For example, it has one main gun and 32 vertical-launch cells, one helicopter, one mission bay, one multifunction radar, and the ability to embark approximately 204 personnel for crew and mission personnel.
> 
> Further technological development and additional advantages will accrue from operating a single ship class, such as those from software development and data analytics. For example, the analysis of detailed technical data, such as system-error codes, from across the entire class in near-real time enables the efficient updating of control software to improve cyber security. Or, consider the ability to perform virtual research and development work on a digital twin of a physical system, such as a gas turbine, to examine performance limitations without risking the equipment itself. Data analytics performed on the same system when a part fails can help determine which sensors are critical and what patterns are early indicators of impending failure. This will allow the crew to perform preventive maintenance before the system fails catastrophically and should prevent failures in the other ships of the class. In a connected world, it is even possible to rapidly and remotely inject operational capability enhancements to deployed ships. Ultimately, the relative ease with which the software elements of a combat system can be changed will allow ships of the same class a greater capability to act and react with agility, the most efficient way to maximize potential for a relatively small fleet.
> 
> Acknowledging the unique Canadian geographical and operational requirements, the imposed limitations on naval force structure, and the need to maximize the RCN’s effectiveness while seeking cost efficiencies calls for a single class of surface combatant—the current CSC project. Canada will benefit from this innovative solution for decades. The RCN is well-positioned to make the most of this new platform and the inherent flexibility and multirole capabilities it will bring. The Canadian government’s decision to move forward with the CSC program as a single surface combatant class is not only eminently feasible, but also the most sensible for the situation we face.











						The Future Canadian Surface Combatant
					

SD Québec est un portail ralliant les entreprises de l’industrie de la Sécurité et Défense d'ici et d'ailleurs. Découvrez les opportunités de votre secteur.




					sdquebec.ca


----------



## Kirkhill

Uzlu said:


> The Royal Canadian Navy also thought about the idea of a high-low mix of warships—high-end air defence and lower-end general purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Future Canadian Surface Combatant
> 
> 
> SD Québec est un portail ralliant les entreprises de l’industrie de la Sécurité et Défense d'ici et d'ailleurs. Découvrez les opportunités de votre secteur.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sdquebec.ca



Uzlu, I am a civilian with an interest.  

I am sure other people with more knowledge and a fuller understanding have answers to why certain things are done.  I thank you for the information.

Cheers.


----------



## Underway

So who wants to see the updated design for the CSC?  LMC has released the new renderings on their website and there is plenty to compare and contrast. 






Compare to the older plan here:






Of note is the reduction in VLS numbers from 32+6 to 24+6 (based on the factsheet released).  The mast structure is much more robust with many more sensors placed up high.   Also, the main gun is now the 127/64 LW.  The various domes have been moved around and the large comms antenna aft has been removed as well.

Another image of the new design, different angle.


----------



## Underway

Before the insanity starts, I suspect that the VLS change was due to two things.  First, that mast is much more significant than the previous version. That has to cut into design margin.

Second, the addition of the VLS amidships is also high on the ship.  The CAMM missiles may have also eaten into that margin.

This all being said, its still 24 CAMM and 96 ESSM II for self defence.  Or likely 16 SM families, 32 ESSM II, and 24 CAMM.  That's a ridiculous improvement over HFX class.

As for how heavy the armament is, that would be an odd discussion. 
The UK version has 24 Mk41VLS with no AAW missiles to place in them.  It will also have 48 individual CAMM launchers.  I suspect that cruise missiles are slated for those VLS, either anti-ship or land attack.  Perhaps the UK is future-proofing as well


----------



## suffolkowner

Is this the beginning of the cost cutting-going from 32 to 24 VLS? There was already lots of criticism on this in comparison to the Arleigh Burke

I see you kinda answered above

But still concerns about weight management?


----------



## MTShaw

suffolkowner said:


> Is this the beginning of the cost cutting-going from 32 to 24 VLS? There was already lots of criticism on this in comparison to the Arleigh Burke
> 
> I see you kinda answered above
> 
> But still concerns about weight management?


None of the computer renderings have had 32VLS


----------



## suffolkowner

MTShaw said:


> None of the computer renderings have had 32VLS


It was on the RCN factsheet


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> Is this the beginning of the cost cutting-going from 32 to 24 VLS? There was already lots of criticism on this in comparison to the Arleigh Burke
> 
> I see you kinda answered above
> 
> But still concerns about weight management?


I don't know about the weight but going from the Australian program where it was published that they were mostly done design and had only 270ish reserve tons for the hull form.  That is very tight.  All other things being equal Canada has a heavier helicopter which would after stability calculations make that reserve weight much smaller.

We might not have been willing to take a risk with having that kind of weight reserve, which after all is a calculation.  There is also the consideration of speed which is critical for a number of tasks, stability, and future growth.

Given that our mast is different and we have the ExLS up high there just might not have been the weight available for 8 more VLS.

Too many variables.


----------



## MTShaw

suffolkowner said:


> It was on the RCN factsheet


I was thinking of all the marine coloured CSC.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> Before the insanity starts, I suspect that the VLS change was due to two things.  First, that mast is much more significant than the previous version. That has to cut into design margin.
> 
> Second, the addition of the VLS amidships is also high on the ship.  The CAMM missiles may have also eaten into that margin.
> 
> This all being said, its still 24 CAMM and 96 ESSM II for self defence.  Or likely 16 SM families, 32 ESSM II, and 24 CAMM.  That's a ridiculous improvement over HFX class.
> 
> As for how heavy the armament is, that would be an odd discussion.
> The UK version has 24 Mk41VLS with no AAW missiles to place in them.  It will also have 48 individual CAMM launchers.  I suspect that cruise missiles are slated for those VLS, either anti-ship or land attack.  Perhaps the UK is future-proofing as well


While a major leap over CPF capability, it's down a bit in over all area defense compared to a 280, in terms of SM family birds. I guess this is somewhat offset by the radar and engagement suite being more accurate and responsive, but it still seems like a let down. Having a 32 cell vls would've allowed a single CSC to carry 26 standard missiles, 24 ESSM and 24 CAMM. Having 24 cells in an Australian or UK T-26 is not as big a deal given they have dedicated AAD vessels. As it stands now, the new US CONSTELLATION class frigates will be outfitted with a 32 cell VLS, giving them more flexibility then our major surface combatant.


----------



## calculus

Underway said:


> I don't know about the weight but going from the Australian program where it was published that they were mostly done design and had only 270ish reserve tons for the hull form.  That is very tight.  All other things being equal Canada has a heavier helicopter which would after stability calculations make that reserve weight much smaller.
> 
> We might not have been willing to take a risk with having that kind of weight reserve, which after all is a calculation.  There is also the consideration of speed which is critical for a number of tasks, stability, and future growth.
> 
> Given that our mast is different and we have the ExLS up high there just might not have been the weight available for 8 more VLS.
> 
> Too many variables.


Do we know for certain they have reduced the number of VLS? Is a drawing enough to make this conclusion?


----------



## Underway

I'm going off the drawing they released.  So I expect that its likely true.  LMC updated it recently on their website and I expect they waited until after the election was over for a reason.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Makes me think that we're trying to do too much with one hull and arguably should have gone with a class of 5 AWD ships and then a seperate class of 10 GP. I understand there's a benefit to having all 15 ships the same, but it certainly seems like there's a significant drawback in this case.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Would we even be able to afford to fill all those cells as it is, assume half the fleet at sea at once?


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> Would we even be able to afford to fill all those cells as it is, assume half the fleet at sea at once?


The cost of the munitions etc, is fairly insignificant in the grande scheme.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> While a major leap over CPF capability, it's down a bit in over all area defense compared to a 280, in terms of SM family birds. I guess this is somewhat offset by the radar and engagement suite being more accurate and responsive, but it still seems like a let down. Having a 32 cell vls would've allowed a single CSC to carry 26 standard missiles, 24 ESSM and 24 CAMM. Having 24 cells in an Australian or UK T-26 is not as big a deal given they have dedicated AAD vessels. As it stands now, the new US CONSTELLATION class frigates will be outfitted with a 32 cell VLS, giving them more flexibility then our major surface combatant.


I agree with a bit of a letdown.  I'm a glass-half-full guy, but this one kinda stung.

With the elimination of 8 VLS from expected, we went from the most heavily armed T26 variant to the least (by 2 VLS).  However, I think as a naval warfare community we overrate the number of "guns" and underrate sensors/EW.  Also, we have a tendency, like in sports, to underrate the team and overrate the player. 

When you consider the CSC was designed with a TG in mind the overall CSC TG missile defense is significantly improved from the 280 TG perspective.  A TG of three CSC with an assumed loadout of 16 SM2, 32 ESSM2, 24 CAMM each would have 16 more SM2, 48 more ESSM2 and 72 
CAMM than the traditional 280 + 2 Frigate TG.

You can also 3*127mm over a 76mm and 2*57mm.  And an extra 8 Anti-ship missiles.

So the TG got much much more deadly and survivable overall.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Would we even be able to afford to fill all those cells as it is, assume half the fleet at sea at once?


VLS likely would be loaded with the mission in mind. Ships currently sail without ESSM or Harpoons for various reasons all the time.  Mk41 VLS will give some crazy flexibility we didn't have before.  There will likely be a minimum loadout of ESSM (say 24) and CAMM (24).  The rest are flex spots.


----------



## calculus

If this VLS reduction is a design issue related to the new mast, I'll be curious to see if the Hunter class is similarly affected. The mast on that thing is a monstrosity, and presumably even heavier, if size is an indication of weight.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> I agree with a bit of a letdown.  I'm a glass-half-full guy, but this one kinda stung.
> 
> With the elimination of 8 VLS from expected, we went from the most heavily armed T26 variant to the least (by 2 VLS).  However, I think as a naval warfare community we overrate the number of "guns" and underrate sensors/EW.  Also, we have a tendency, like in sports, to underrate the team and overrate the player.
> 
> When you consider the CSC was designed with a TG in mind the overall CSC TG missile defense is significantly improved from the 280 TG perspective.  A TG of three CSC with an assumed loadout of 16 SM2, 32 ESSM2, 24 CAMM each would have 16 more SM2, 48 more ESSM2 and 72
> CAMM than the traditional 280 + 2 Frigate TG.
> 
> You can also 3*127mm over a 76mm and 2*57mm.  And an extra 8 Anti-ship missiles.
> 
> So the TG got much much more deadly and survivable overall.


I completely agree with how the TG would negate a good deal of the drawbacks of a single ship. I do find myself wondering how frequently a 3 ship TG will deploy as a whole. Given maintenance, training and workups, not to mention only 2 Oilers, I feel like a single ship deployment happens more frequently than a TG. But, again, it's still more pop than a HALIFAX and we've been doing single ship deployments with those continually. Still grinds my gears, tho...


----------



## Czech_pivo

A bit off topic - but the French-Greeks announced a new naval deal.  The timelines to deliver the first ship by the French are aggressive to say the least - and completely light-speed by our standards.  

"The $5bn deal will provide Athens with three state-of-the-art Belharra frigates and three Gowind corvettes, with an option for one more of each."
"According to local reports, the ships would be delivered by 2026, with the first frigate arriving as early as 2024."









						Greece, France tout European defence autonomy with warships deal
					

New pact comes as a relief to France after the AUKUS fallout and against the backdrop of shaky relations with Turkey.




					www.aljazeera.com


----------



## Good2Golf

calculus said:


> If this VLS reduction is a design issue related to the new mast, I'll be curious to see if the Hunter class is similarly affected. The mast on that thing is a monstrosity, and presumably even heavier, if size is an indication of weight.


Size may not linearly indicate weight increase.  Besides, the revised mast appears to put IRST up much higher, for a much farther optical horizon, and the capabilities of a full-blown SPY-7/AEGIS fitment is pretty hard to ignore (especially compared to the 280’s SPQ-501 and SPQ-502 AD radars).


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> If this VLS reduction is a design issue related to the new mast, I'll be curious to see if the Hunter class is similarly affected. The mast on that thing is a monstrosity, and presumably even heavier, if size is an indication of weight.


Is it a reduction though?  Or just a reduction from what they published earlier.



Good2Golf said:


> Size may not linearly indicate weight increase.  Besides, the revised mast appears to put IRST up much higher, for a much farther optical horizon, and the capabilities of a full-blown SPY-7/AEGIS fitment is pretty hard to ignore (especially compared to the 280’s SPQ-501 and SPQ-502 AD radars).



Agree with everything said.  Size and weight are not necessarily related.  Australian masts are odd because the CEAFAR/MOUNT configurations need particular angles.  This might mean just a large geometric shape with empty space inside.  Ours might have equipment and cooling in there. 

There may be other considerations we don't know about.  Really speculation at this point.   Perhaps the RCN wants armored plating around the ExLS so small arms can't penetrate.  Perhaps the gap shown between each group of 8 VLS is a heavy firebreak to avoid the German Sanchen class incident where a single restrained firing of a missile caused the writeoff of the entire 32 VLS.

Survivability is one of the key features of RCN ship design.  There may be tradeoffs for things we can't see.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

KevinB said:


> The cost of the munitions etc, is fairly insignificant in the grande scheme.


I would not be surprised if most of the smaller navies can't afford to have all their ships loaded out and have no reloads. At a million a pop for some of the missiles, they be hard to justify large stocks that have to be rotated.


----------



## calculus

It's still curious, this VLS thing. I checked the weight of an 8-cell _strike length_ module, and  it's ~15,000 Kg. An SM2 3C plus Mk13 canister is ~1400 Kg. Eight SM2 3Cs and eight Mk13 cannister would weigh ~11,200 Kg, so the total weight of the 8-cell module + missiles/canisters is ~26,200 Kg (26 tons). 26 tons is not inconsequential, but on a ship of this size hardly seems like enough of a difference to make a difference.


----------



## Good2Golf

calculus said:


> It's still curious, this VLS thing. I checked the weight of an 8-cell _strike length_ module, and  it's ~15,000 Kg. An SM2 3C plus Mk13 canister is ~1400 Kg. Eight SM2 3Cs and eight Mk13 cannister would weigh ~11,200 Kg, so the total weight of the 8-cell module + missiles/canisters is ~26,200 Kg (26 tons). 26 tons is not inconsequential, but on a ship of this size hardly seems like enough of a difference to make a difference.


And would it be any more top-heavy than the 280s? (either TRUMP or original bunny-ears)


----------



## MTShaw

Good2Golf said:


> And would it be any more top-heavy than the 280s? (either TRUMP or original bunny-ears)


I’m partial to the data sheet. Why would the gov’t release specific specs only to have that change permanently again in a Lockheed rendering.?


----------



## MTShaw

Other than that, that is a really cool ship.


----------



## Good2Golf

MTShaw said:


> I’m partial to the data sheet. Why would the gov’t release specific specs only to have that change permanently again in a Lockheed rendering.?


Fair enough, although methinks things are moving fast enough now that configuration control of publicly-released material may also be an issue.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> I’m partial to the data sheet. Why would the gov’t release specific specs only to have that change permanently again in a Lockheed rendering.?


That datasheet came out right about when the PBO was releasing its evaluation of the project cost, including the other options that might have been available and their costs.

When you realize that suddenly everything makes more sense.

To spell it out I suspect the following.  They weren't ready to release the design, but in defence of the project, they were basically forced to release what they had. This was in order to ensure the public (read government backbenchers) was informed of how their money was being spent.  As the design was in flux there was potential for some change or inaccuracies, but that was deemed secondary to requirements.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

If there are any frameable posters of the CSC we would love to have one for our Cadet hall.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> That datasheet came out right about when the PBO was releasing its evaluation of the project cost, including the other options that might have been available and their costs.
> 
> When you realize that suddenly everything makes more sense.
> 
> To spell it out I suspect the following.  They weren't ready to release the design, but in defence of the project, they were basically forced to release what they had. This was in order to ensure the public (read government backbenchers) was informed of how their money was being spent.  As the design was in flux there was potential for some change or inaccuracies, but that was deemed secondary to requirements.


The cost of any design would be prohibive. It’d be cheaper now to ride around with an empty 8 pack than design it out. Also, like the FFCP, HMG is simply out of time.


----------



## MapleForce

Hi everyone, new member here. I'm not a CAF service member or vet, but I've had a keen interest in our military for quite a while and I enjoy keeping up with procurement programs, as disappointing as they may be at times. I've been closely following the CSC program and I just came here to say that I think people are getting carried away with the VLS thing.

Lockheed Martin 3D models have always shown 24 cells, even after 32 VLS cells were confirmed on the factsheet (which btw also appears to depict 24 cells if you look closely). It seems this new model is only meant to show off the new mast design that will be housing LM's very own SPY-7 AESA. As you can see below, 24 cells is status quo for LM's 3D designs, so don't read to much into it.


----------



## Kirkhill

So lots of places to stow lots of stuff, varying to suit the situation, but keeping in mind the need to keep the Plimsoll line clear of the water?


----------



## Underway

MapleForce said:


> Hi everyone, new member here. I'm not a CAF service member or vet, but I've had a keen interest in our military for quite a while and I enjoy keeping up with procurement programs, as disappointing as they may be at times. I've been closely following the CSC program and I just came here to say that I think people are getting carried away with the VLS thing.
> 
> Lockheed Martin 3D models have always shown 24 cells, even after 32 VLS cells were confirmed on the factsheet (which btw also appears to depict 24 cells if you look closely). It seems this new model is only meant to show off the new mast design that will be housing LM's very own SPY-7 AESA. As you can see below, 24 cells is status quo for LM's 3D designs, so don't read to much into it.



This is true. But if we didn't read into it this thread would be only 27 pages and way more boring!!!  

 The actual 3DM made of wood and plastic at shows had both 32 and 24VLS.  I think the issue is we are extrapolating to the mission set and trying to see if this is a problem or not.   I personally would like more VLS but I understand that the CMS is actually what fights the ship, and if that, the sensors and then the effectors are all aligned you won't need those extra 8 cells as much.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Either way this ship will be a significant leap forward from the CFP's for the RCN. I suspect that we get a lot of requests to take part in Task forces and the biggest challenge is not burning out the crews. Hopefully the accommodations also improve making life at sea better for the sailor, while respecting Damage Control needs.


----------



## Good2Golf

As (many) others have said, it is highly likely that qualified personnel levels will be the LIMFAC for this fleet for much of its life…


----------



## MTShaw

I found this on Lockheed Martin’s Twitter page. It looks like 4x8 vls but with them turned sideways On the wall art


----------



## calculus

Might be the DEFSEC Atlantic 2021 display. Funny how the model still has 32 cells, and the big poster sized graphic shows 24. I imagine this will generate some interesting discussion at the conference.


----------



## Underway

The physical model is the old version.  The image on the wall is the updated version with the mast having all the equipment after a preliminary Integrated Topside Design.  I expect Lockheed will confirm the 24 VLS should they be asked.  

Mast space is so premium.  I also expect that there will be fore and aft navigation radars as that mast blocks nav radar LoS forward.  JSS has four nav radars to get around the mast/stack LoS issues. 

An example of how the physical models don't change is that the AOPS one doesn't have that particular gun and the mast arrangement is very different regarding antenna placement.


----------



## Kirkhill

That mast.  Is that part of the Thales Integrated Mast family?









						Integrated Mast
					

The Thales Integrated Mast consists of a housing that accommodates all major radars, sensors and antennas of a naval vessel. It will change the appearance of naval vessels. Gone are the dozens of antennas and sensors found on practically every flat topside surface of a modern naval vessel. The...




					www.thalesgroup.com
				






> The radars in the Integrated Mast are non-rotating, four-faced active phased array radars, which in itself is a major performance enhancement. As the four faces operate simultaneously, the radars achieve four times the time on target achieved by a rotating radar. The surface surveillance radar (Seastar) was developed especially for this purpose and it is capable of detecting and tracking small objects (e.g. divers' head) between the waves, contributing enormously to situational awareness in littoral environments.
> 
> All systems are installed in the Mast by Thales in Hengelo. Subsequently the Mast is tested as one system. Not before it fully complies with the customer's specifications is it transported to the shipyard. There, the Integrated Mast is simply bolted or welded to the ship, hooked up to the power supply, coolant system and data transmission and is operational in only two or three weeks time. Compared to the one year that is necessary to install, integrate and test all the separate systems, this is a huge time and money saver, for Navy as well as shipyard.
> 
> A further aspect that reduces costs is the decrease of maintenance. Not only do non-rotating radars require far less maintenance, but the little maintenance that is required can be performed in the protected, sheltered environment of the Mast, meaning that it is no longer necessary to wait for repairs until weather conditions are safe enough.
> 
> The Integrated Mast is not just one product. It is a series of Masts of various sizes, each one intended for a different class of naval vessel. Introduced in December 2007, the I-Mast 400 is the first member of the I-Mast family. This system will be installed on the Patrol Ships for the Royal Netherlands Navy that are presently being built The first one is scheduled to be operational late 2010. The I-Mast 100, introduced in September 2009, is the second member of the I-Mast family. This system is designed for smaller, corvette-sized vessels.
> 
> The type of systems in the Mast is completely up to the customer. Although the Integrated Mast for the Holland class OPVs for the Royal Netherlands Navy contains mostly Thales systems, it will be possible to use customer-furnished or third party systems in a Thales Integrated Mast.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:


> That mast.  Is that part of the Thales Integrated Mast family?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Integrated Mast
> 
> 
> The Thales Integrated Mast consists of a housing that accommodates all major radars, sensors and antennas of a naval vessel. It will change the appearance of naval vessels. Gone are the dozens of antennas and sensors found on practically every flat topside surface of a modern naval vessel. The...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thalesgroup.com


Nope.  Not a single Thales product is on that mast.  Thales was involved with the Alion bid.

The main things on that mast are the SPY-7 AESA (LMC),  AESA illuminator (MBDA),  RAVEN ECM (LMC), EOIR and IRST (L3), ESM (MBDA and Electronica).


----------



## Kirkhill

None of the sensors are Thales.  Understood.  

On the other hand the design, assembly and construction appear to the untutored eye to incorporate a lot of the same design concepts and elements.

Are other companies building bolt on integrated modular masts?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Similar design problems, result in similar solutions I suspect.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo

How many of those model ship can we buy? Fill up the Theodore Tugboat set with them and intimidate the world with imagery of our might!


MTShaw said:


> I found this on Lockheed Martin’s Twitter page. It looks like 4x8 vls but with them turned sideways On the wall art
> 
> View attachment 66721


How many of those model ships can we buy? Film them in the Theodore Tugboat set and publish the imagery to impress the world with our might! 

I will show myself out of the thread.


----------



## Underway

TangoTwoBravo said:


> How many of those model ship can we buy? Fill up the Theodore Tugboat set with them and intimidate the world with imagery of our might!
> 
> How many of those model ships can we buy? Film them in the Theodore Tugboat set and publish the imagery to impress the world with our might!
> 
> I will show myself out of the thread.


If they are to appear in Theodore they need a face, which means LMC will charge probably about a cool million for the engineering design change.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:


> None of the sensors are Thales.  Understood.
> 
> On the other hand the design, assembly and construction appear to the untutored eye to incorporate a lot of the same design concepts and elements.
> 
> Are other companies building bolt on integrated modular masts?


Most modern masts all look like each other if you want an AESA radar in them.  It limits your design space significantly.  The reason US masts for example look different is that they don't have the SPY radar on the mast, it's part of the superstructure.

As far as bolt on integrated I don't know.  Thales really only sold that mast to the Netherlands and no one else.  An integrated mast is great for the sensors that it comes with.  As you can see from the CSC its got multiple sensors and effectors that needed to be integrated into it.  This means a custom job is a much better solution.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> If they are to appear in Theodore they need a face, which means LMC will charge probably about a cool million for the engineering design change.


only a million for a design change?

Consider yourself very, very lucky…


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> only a million for a design change?
> 
> Consider yourself very, very lucky…


Flashback to LockMart and Herc upgrades... where a new toilet costs $25k, but the airworthiness instruction sheet to install it costs north of a million...


----------



## OceanBonfire

Closer look of the current scale model:








__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446097694422978561

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446066899167633415


----------



## calculus

OceanBonfire said:


> Closer look of the current scale model:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446097694422978561
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1446066899167633415


Interesting. Wrong main gun (still showing the Mk 45), wrong mast, and showing a Phalanx on the port side midships (presumably there's one to Starboard as well). I think that's a pretty old model. It does have 24 VLS though...


----------



## KevinB

calculus said:


> Interesting. Wrong main gun (still showing the Mk 45), wrong mast, and showing a Phalanx on the port side midships (presumably there's one to Starboard as well). I think that's a pretty old model. It does have 24 VLS though...


The models probably won't be updated, unless the CF commissions one, or until the first ship is launched and Irving wants to market it beyond the RCN.
    It's not cheap - and for the purposes of a trade show it's close enough.


----------



## Maxman1

calculus said:


> Interesting. Wrong main gun (still showing the Mk 45), wrong mast, and showing a Phalanx on the port side midships (presumably there's one to Starboard as well). I think that's a pretty old model. It does have 24 VLS though...


----------



## FJAG

So. Just curious.

The US Marines have been landing F 35Bs on Japanese light aircraft carriers designed for helicopter ASW escort work. 



> Japan is converting its 2 biggest warships into aircraft carriers, and US Marines are helping it train to use them
> 
> 
> This month, US Marine Corps F-35Bs became the first fixed-wing aircraft to operate on a Japanese aircraft carrier in 75 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.businessinsider.com



Makes me wonder whether a frigate, like our current and upcoming ones, could handle that as well with the significantly smaller deck and hanger space.


----------



## Underway

FJAG said:


> So. Just curious.
> 
> The US Marines have been landing F 35Bs on Japanese light aircraft carriers designed for helicopter ASW escort work.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes me wonder whether a frigate, like our current and upcoming ones, could handle that as well with the significantly smaller deck and hanger space.


Nope.  Wind over deck is totally wrong.  Deck isn't able to handle the heat and I'm sure a host of other things and Airforce person could tell us that would make that sort of thing suicidal.


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> Nope.  Wind over deck is totally wrong.  Deck isn't able to handle the heat and I'm sure a host of other things and Airforce person could tell us that would make that sort of thing suicidal.


So obviously there will soon be a CSC change order submitted so that they are equipped for, but not with F-35B landing capability elements.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> Nope.  Wind over deck is totally wrong.  Deck isn't able to handle the heat and I'm sure a host of other things and Airforce person could tell us that would make that sort of thing suicidal.


Pretty much what Underway said.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Underway and SKT basically stated the technical reasons that prevent such landings on a destroyer/frigate helicopter deck (though, I am sure in case of flying emergency, a F-35B pilot would probably prefer to attempt it rather than ditch in the water). But they did not address the tactical reasons, which come down to: While a frigate with a tail and a helicopter makes a powerful ASW weapon, what useful thing could a frigate carrying a single F-35B do, i.e. how much of a threat to any one would it constitute. You would need to use in concerted effort a fleet of forty destroyers and frigates to give yourself the projection/warfighting power of a single aircraft carrier (and I am not talking US super-carriers here but the more modest European/Japanese/Indian ones). Much easier and cheaper to have a carrier strike group.


----------



## Kirkhill

While I agree with you OGBD I think your estimate underplays the value of the F35.  It may have more in common with the Sea King than the Hornet in some regards.

The sensor suite and its value as an ISR asset seems to mean that it is more frequently deployed in one and two aircraft sorties rather than squadron and wing operations.  Witness the Royal Marines bragging about their STA types working with their own personal F35s.  Also the 2 small squadrons of 10 on the QE and the deployment to the Japanese Carrier which would be smaller than the old Invincible.

Having said that, I still agree with you.  Tactically F-35s on CSCs seems a little too far out even for me.


----------



## FJAG

It's a bit of pushing the envelope on my part.

I was thinking of the fact that the US has these monstrous ships with thousands of crew and dozens of supporting vessels which are hard to hide and, in the face of long range strike missiles, is putting all of your eggs in one basket.

The Japanese heli-carriers are smaller and cheaper albeit they too would need a fair bit of a security screen.

That got my mind to wandering to just how small a vessel and how stealthy or disguised could it be and still serve as a carrier for a small number of F-35s together with a small fleet of wingman-like drones that would allow you to spread your assets in a wide web for a much more reasonable amount of investment and, perhaps, greater redundancy and survivability. In essence you create mass through a variety of dispersed assets concentrating their firepower through coordination.

To this point much of the carrier's size is dependent on the flight deck needed for takeoffs and landings. The F-35B changes that equation a bit.

The Marines have started to think differently. Maybe the Navy should, too.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I think I just got a woody from this model


----------



## YZT580

FJAG said:


> It's a bit of pushing the envelope on my part.
> 
> I was thinking of the fact that the US has these monstrous ships with thousands of crew and dozens of supporting vessels which are hard to hide and, in the face of long range strike missiles, is putting all of your eggs in one basket.
> 
> The Japanese heli-carriers are smaller and cheaper albeit they too would need a fair bit of a security screen.
> 
> That got my mind to wandering to just how small a vessel and how stealthy or disguised could it be and still serve as a carrier for a small number of F-35s together with a small fleet of wingman-like drones that would allow you to spread your assets in a wide web for a much more reasonable amount of investment and, perhaps, greater redundancy and survivability. In essence you create mass through a variety of dispersed assets concentrating their firepower through coordination.
> 
> To this point much of the carrier's size is dependent on the flight deck needed for takeoffs and landings. The F-35B changes that equation a bit.
> 
> The Marines have started to think differently. Maybe the Navy should, too.
> 
> 🍻


My mind seems to recall the Brits using alternative ships to transport harriers to the Falklands but if it is the sensor suite you wish to deploy why not equip a cyclone sized helicopter and use it as a node to coordinate fleet operations without the need for a carrier?


----------



## Maxman1

Maybe we could revisit the idea of buying or building _Mistral_ class amphibious assault ships, and strengthen the deck for F-35Bs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maxman1 said:


> Maybe we could revisit the idea of buying or building _Mistral_ class amphibious assault ships, and strengthen the deck for F-35Bs.


It also requires that the elevators and hangers can handle the aircraft, for the F35b , the Mistrals not be my first choice, I would go with a vessel based on the  San Juan 1/Canberra Class giving some aviation and amphibious benefits as well. However to fit into our current budget and crewing realities, the Mistrals with helicopters are a far better fit for Canada. I would give up a AOP's and a CSC for them.


----------



## Kirkhill

YZT580 said:


> My mind seems to recall the Brits using alternative ships to transport harriers to the Falklands but if it is the sensor suite you wish to deploy why not equip a cyclone sized helicopter and use it as a node to coordinate fleet operations without the need for a carrier?



Or Valors with the F35s Distributed Aperture Sensors?  









						Lockheed Tests Game-Changing F-35-Like X-Ray Vision System On Bell's V-280 Valor
					

Pilots can use the system to their jobs more efficiently and safely, and it could be a step toward even more revolutionary capabilities in the future.




					www.thedrive.com
				




The interesting part is that if the Marines are operating off the Hyugas they are operating without benefit of the Ski Jump to assist their take-off.  And the carrier is in the same tonnage range as the Dutch Rotterdam.






Atlantic Conveyor.






The key elements seem to be, due to the hot wash, a suitable protective pad and the right load bearing capacity.


----------



## Underway

Kirkhill said:


> The key elements seem to be, due to the hot wash, a suitable protective pad and the right load bearing capacity.


I'm telling you right now there is no way in hell that modern pilots take that sort of risk.  The RCAF won't take a non-operational risk like that (outside of test flying), It is just not in their DNA.

Can't even get a helicopter to land on a ship without a proper flight deck management system now. The cyclones are not as bouncy as the Sea Kings apparently.  

*in no way was this intended as disparaging to my airforce brethren.  I save the good stuff for the mess.


----------



## lenaitch

Not a pilot but I would think those seacan walls would create some interesting ground effect vortices.


----------



## Maxman1

I assume they're only in that area for transport and they would take off and land on the pad near the bow.


----------



## Underway

The sea cans were there to protect the army airframes from the nastiness of the ocean.


----------



## Kirkhill

Sea Harrier Emergency Landing on Cargo Ship
					

Remarkable news footage on the recovery of Sea Harrier ZA176 and Sub-Lt Ian Watson after the Alraigo docked in Santa Cruz, Tenerife, June 1983.




					www.military.com


----------



## Kirkhill

A couple of ancillary tales.



> Interesting story... the plane was saved and went on to fly until 2003.  It takes a little research but the pilot was initially sent off to desk duty until it was determined it was equipment failures and that the pilot was sent out on a training mission after only completing about 75% of his required training.  The pilot later went on to fly about 2000hrs in Harriers and about 900 in F-18s before he retired after about 25yrs total service.





> The young man went on to have a successful career in the RN, albeit with a really good bar story to tell!  His No.1 (formation leader) that day made the comment later that "Soapy did exceptionally well for his experience".  It later emerged that his navigation equipment had misaligned on the carrier deck and he had not noticed the misalignment - that again, the formation leader noted, was not surprising given his state of training.  Some years later, a more experienced pilot had to eject (safely) in similar circumstances, off the Scottish coast (I think...memory fades).





> The young officer was known to his squadron colleagues as 'Sudsy' (as in 'son of soapy') as there was another 'Soapy', Lt M Watson RN, who had flown during the Falklands Conflict as wingman to Commander 'Sharkey' Ward.
> 
> As to 'Soapy'....apparently, long ago there was a band of soap issued to the Fleet manufactured by a company called 'Watsons'.








						Sub Lt. Ian "Soapy" Watson
					

Sub Lt. Ian "Soapy" Watson



					captalk.net
				








						Sub Lt. Ian "Soapy" Watson
					

Sub Lt. Ian "Soapy" Watson



					captalk.net


----------



## Kirkhill

Underway said:


> I'm telling you right now there is no way in hell that modern pilots take that sort of risk.  The RCAF won't take a non-operational risk like that (outside of test flying), It is just not in their DNA.
> 
> Can't even get a helicopter to land on a ship without a proper flight deck management system now. The cyclones are not as bouncy as the Sea Kings apparently.
> 
> *in no way was this intended as disparaging to my airforce brethren.  I save the good stuff for the mess.



It's kind of funny though.  The reason the Harrier was invented and adopted by the RAF/RNAS and the USMC was because of its ability to operate without infrastructure, like a helicopter. Yes, it can certainly demonstrate improved efficiencies with infrastructure, like the ski-jump to reduce fuel consumption on take-off and thus increase range and payload,  but it doesn't "need" it.


----------



## CBH99

Maxman1 said:


> Maybe we could revisit the idea of buying or building _Mistral_ class amphibious assault ships, and strengthen the deck for F-35Bs.


Realistically, it’s a non starter.  

The shipyards are full with NSS orders, and will be for several years.  

The Navy wouldn’t be able to crew the ship with our current numbers without having to tie up a CPF alongside. 

Nor will the government want to pay that kind of money to operate and maintain such a niche, yet powerful capability.  

F-35’s aren’t cheap, amphibious assault ship’s are definitely not cheap (especially if they are built here in Canada), and we have to streamline recruiting before crewing anything else that floats.  


Respectfully, I would take that money and crew, and put it towards a submarine replacement instead.   

0.02


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> I'm telling you right now there is no way in hell that modern pilots take that sort of risk.  The RCAF won't take a non-operational risk like that (outside of test flying), It is just not in their DNA.
> 
> Can't even get a helicopter to land on a ship without a proper flight deck management system now. The cyclones are not as bouncy as the Sea Kings apparently.
> 
> *in no way was this intended as disparaging to my airforce brethren.  I save the good stuff for the mess.


🤔

I see your broad brush would stop at grey helicopters.  Even with MH, I assume there is a risk assessment & management process (RAMP), so I take your ‘risk isn’t in their DNA’ as tongue-in-cheek, as I would expect a sailor to take a pigeon’s assertion that the Navy is risk-averse, over-bearing and under-appreciative of its personnel and severely constrained by an attitude based on ‘hundreds of years of tradition, unimpeded by social or technological progress.’

There certainly are established risk assessment & management processes for other air operators consistent with RCAF or other Commands’ procedures.  You sound as though you might even be surprised that some non-grey helos know what MPP-02 Vol 1(H) is and what it means to RCN, RCAF and others…

Point being, that modern day analogues of the RN/RAF use of MV Atlantic Conveyor back in 1982, are used today, including appropriate use of RAMPs to get on with the business, particularly when limited capital assets aren’t available to support all the demands being placed in them.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> 🤔
> 
> I see your broad brush would stop at grey helicopters.  Even with MH, I assume there is a risk assessment & management process (RAMP), so I take your ‘risk isn’t in their DNA’ as tongue-in-cheek, as I would expect a sailor to take a pigeon’s assertion that the Navy is risk-averse, over-bearing and under-appreciative of its personnel and severely constrained by an attitude based on ‘hundreds of years of tradition, unimpeded by social or technological progress.’
> 
> There certainly are established risk assessment & management processes for other air operators consistent with RCAF or other Commands’ procedures.  You sound as though you might even be surprised that some non-grey helos know what MPP-02 Vol 1(H) is and what it means to RCN, RCAF and others…
> 
> Point being, that modern day analogues of the RN/RAF use of MV Atlantic Conveyor back in 1982, are used today, including appropriate use of RAMPs to get on with the business, particularly when limited capital assets aren’t available to support all the demands being placed in them.
> 
> Regards
> G2G


I had a more expansive,  "outside of operational imperatives, they are very safe" type post with all the wording to soothe potential hurt feelings taken into account, examples of risk taken by MH I have seen in some crazy situations, and even more, examples taken by the green helos in Afghanistan.  But I cut it for the cheeky footnote, partially to elicit a response from someone like yourself and partially because I talk too much about my experiences and it starts to sound like bragging.   🍻

Any misinterpretation or insult, real or imagined is on me.

Of note, the Altantic Conveyor was considered a necessary operational risk by the standards of the day.


----------



## Good2Golf

All good, I see you didn’t take offense at the tradition piece, either. 😆


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> I'm telling you right now there is no way in hell that modern pilots take that sort of risk.  The RCAF won't take a non-operational risk like that (outside of test flying), It is just not in their DNA.
> 
> Can't even get a helicopter to land on a ship without a proper flight deck management system now. The cyclones are not as bouncy as the Sea Kings apparently.
> 
> *in no way was this intended as disparaging to my airforce brethren.  I save the good stuff for the mess.


No offence taken, but I would note that, having lived through more than my fair quota of shipboard fires and other scary shit, the RCN could stand to have a risk assessment culture and actual follow its own rules on seaworthiness…


----------



## Maxman1

CBH99 said:


> Realistically, it’s a non starter.
> 
> The shipyards are full with NSS orders, and will be for several years.
> 
> The Navy wouldn’t be able to crew the ship with our current numbers without having to tie up a CPF alongside.
> 
> Nor will the government want to pay that kind of money to operate and maintain such a niche, yet powerful capability.
> 
> F-35’s aren’t cheap, amphibious assault ship’s are definitely not cheap (especially if they are built here in Canada), and we have to streamline recruiting before crewing anything else that floats.
> 
> 
> Respectfully, I would take that money and crew, and put it towards a submarine replacement instead.
> 
> 0.02



Building one or two in Canada is a pipe dream at this point, but ordering it from France is always an option. And the _Mistrals_ have a shockingly low core crew requirement for the capability they provide, only 160 (Wikipedia breaks it down as "20 officers, 80 petty officers, 60 quartermasters").

But the ships themselves can't accommodate the F-35, and besides, we don't have F-35s currently and the government's official stance is we will never buy F-35s.


----------



## CBH99

Maxman1 said:


> Building one or two in Canada is a pipe dream at this point, but ordering it from France is always an option. And the _Mistrals_ have a shockingly low core crew requirement for the capability they provide, only 160 (Wikipedia breaks it down as "20 officers, 80 petty officers, 60 quartermasters").
> 
> But the ships themselves can't accommodate the F-35, and besides, we don't have F-35s currently and the government's official stance is we will never buy F-35s.


All true.  The Mistrals are extremely favourable in terms of crew requirements - ideal for a country like us.  

I wouldn’t put a ton of weight behind our government’s official stance on anything.  

Things can change pretty dramatically depending on what month it is on the astrology calendar.


----------



## Maxman1

Also, the JSS will have a crew of 239. So if we can't crew one _Mistral_, how can we crew two JSS?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Maxman1 said:


> Also, the JSS will have a crew of 239. So if we can't crew one _Mistral_, how can we crew two JSS?


How do we crew 3 JSS that we really need....


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> No offence taken, but I would note that, having lived through more than my fair quota of shipboard fires and other scary shit, the RCN could stand to have a risk assessment culture and actual follow its own rules on seaworthiness…


I had a rant about that somewhere else so you'll get no argument from me!  Switching to engineering from Operations has been a real eye opener for me.  That being said sometimes we are way over safe.  Ammo, Radhaz, and Laser policies are way too restrictive based on the current science.


----------



## Underway

Maxman1 said:


> Also, the JSS will have a crew of 239. So if we can't crew one _Mistral_, how can we crew two JSS?


The maximum crew of 239.  The actual crew is in the 190's somewhere.  Positions are still being locked down.  Those extra bunks are for when two Air Det's are embarked.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> I had a rant about that somewhere else so you'll get no argument from me!  Switching to engineering from Operations has been a real eye opener for me.  That being said sometimes we are way over safe.  Ammo, Radhaz, and Laser policies are way too restrictive based on the current science.


I'm always amazing at the way the CF (and not just the CF) implements certain "Safety" measures - and often overlooks the platform that is often the biggest issue.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> I had a rant about that somewhere else so you'll get no argument from me!  Switching to engineering from Operations has been a real eye opener for me.  That being said sometimes we are way over safe.  Ammo, Radhaz, and Laser policies are way too restrictive based on the current science.


Not sure RADHAZ is too restrictive, Underway…I’ve operated in and around RCN vessels that swore on a stack of bibles that they were [insert pusser  term for not transmitting], and my RWR went ballistic every time the SR swept me.  A follow-up hail “Are you sure you’re not transmitting? I’m getting a periodic hit in E/F-band that looks suspiciously timed to that big antenna on your bridge…”   Silence, followed by the E/F-band UNK disappearing… 😆


----------



## Maxman1

Czech_pivo said:


> How do we crew 3 JSS that we really need....





Underway said:


> The maximum crew of 239.  The actual crew is in the 190's somewhere.  Positions are still being locked down.  Those extra bunks are for when two Air Det's are embarked.



We'll shake it out on the march.


----------



## NavyShooter

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure RADHAZ is too restrictive, Underway…I’ve operated in and around RCN vessels that swore on a stack of bibles that they were [insert pusser  term for not transmitting], and my RWR went ballistic every time the SR swept me.  A follow-up hail “Are you sure you’re not transmitting? I’m getting a periodic hit in E/F-band that looks suspiciously timed to that big antenna on your bridge…”   Silence, followed by the E/F-band UNK disappearing… 😆


As a guy who was fairly well trained in the RADHAZ area, I'll observe that the RCN has had a learning curve on this...over the life of our Halifax Class ships anyhow.

When I was on the Gatineau, I was once standing on the bridge-top, manning a pair of binoculars that were linked to the gunnery system for manual fire control direction and firing.  I was told in no uncertain terms "Do not press the red button" and myself and the other lookout were up there standing with the OOW about 15 -20 feet ahead of the fire control director that was linked to the gun - ever hear of side-lobe radiation?  Yeah...I've been radiated. 

Working on the bridge of a Halifax class ship and you hear the buzz of the VHF radios every time the SPS-49 swept...good times...keep those bridge wing doors open because it's 'safe'...right?

Watching the operators lock up a seagull and turn on the CWI....birdie went "splash" very quickly.  

The new rules had a 50X safety factor built into them.  So effectively, if there was dangerous radiation being emitted at a distance of 2 cm, you had to be 1m away from that transmitter. 

The out of bounds areas are now to be clearly marked, and it's surprising just how much of the ships is placed out of bounds when you're transmitting on an active jammer system.  Or on a 1000W HF transmit system.

Things may seem hard-over on RADHAZ safety, but having buried several friends to Cancer...including a buddy who 'coincidentally' spent a 6 month deployment building a model ship on a work-bench while at sea during a deployment...that was within a matter of feet of the Cobalt-60 source in the SPS-49...well...yeah....that big brain tumor that killed him was purely a coincidence...

My personal thoughts are that because of the lack of training, and lack of a visual 'danger' cue, there needs to be more care taken.  Add some automated lights to the danger/hazard areas indicating no-go zones.


----------



## Good2Golf

NavyShooter, yeah…most people’s “what you can’t see, can’t hurt you” attitude has never meshed well with the latent EW dude deep within…earlier RWRs were even cooler because you could hear the IF of the raw signal and even guess the radar mode from the PRF. 🤓

Where it comes to HPRF (and associated radiators), I like Ronald Reagan’s words about the Soviets, re: Star Wars: “Trust, but verify!” 😉


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:


> As a guy who was fairly well trained in the RADHAZ area, I'll observe that the RCN has had a learning curve on this...over the life of our Halifax Class ships anyhow.
> 
> When I was on the Gatineau, I was once standing on the bridge-top, manning a pair of binoculars that were linked to the gunnery system for manual fire control direction and firing.  I was told in no uncertain terms "Do not press the red button" and myself and the other lookout were up there standing with the OOW about 15 -20 feet ahead of the fire control director that was linked to the gun - ever hear of side-lobe radiation?  Yeah...I've been radiated.
> 
> Working on the bridge of a Halifax class ship and you hear the buzz of the VHF radios every time the SPS-49 swept...good times...keep those bridge wing doors open because it's 'safe'...right?
> 
> Watching the operators lock up a seagull and turn on the CWI....birdie went "splash" very quickly.
> 
> The new rules had a 50X safety factor built into them.  So effectively, if there was dangerous radiation being emitted at a distance of 2 cm, you had to be 1m away from that transmitter.
> 
> The out of bounds areas are now to be clearly marked, and it's surprising just how much of the ships is placed out of bounds when you're transmitting on an active jammer system.  Or on a 1000W HF transmit system.
> 
> Things may seem hard-over on RADHAZ safety, but having buried several friends to Cancer...including a buddy who 'coincidentally' spent a 6 month deployment building a model ship on a work-bench while at sea during a deployment...that was within a matter of feet of the Cobalt-60 source in the SPS-49...well...yeah....that big brain tumor that killed him was purely a coincidence...
> 
> My personal thoughts are that because of the lack of training, and lack of a visual 'danger' cue, there needs to be more care taken.  Add some automated lights to the danger/hazard areas indicating no-go zones.



Few minor nerdy quibbles.  The safety factor is actually 100x. We take the agency numbers which are doubled and then multiply by 50.  So in your example, the HERP number is 2cm then multiplied by 50, it's actually 1cm doubled (for safety from the rating agency).  Then RCN gets it and applies a 50x safety factor.

IMHO that's far too restrictive when the actual chance for getting burns is when you are touching the antenna.  This is the same mentality for turning off cell phones when transferring ammunition.  There is no way a cell phone is ever going to affect ammunition inside its coffin/canister.  If that were the case the army would never be able to fire any of their rounds due to the plethora of EM fields in their vehicles.

Secondly, you can't get cancer from non-ionizing radiation (*some research shows that consistent long-term exposure might increase the chances of cancer).  It's a very common misunderstanding, you get cooked/burned like in a microwave instead.

But I completely understand the pendulum swing.  There is a reason that they do EM survey's now to find out where and what the hot zones are going to be.  There are certain emitters that you don't want to be anywhere near when they are transmitting.  And of course, the effects on other equipment (like cranes) or ammunition are different than people.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> NavyShooter, yeah…most people’s “what you can’t see, can’t hurt you” attitude has never meshed well with the latent EW dude deep within…earlier RWRs were even cooler because you could hear the IF of the raw signal and even guess the radar mode from the PRF. 🤓
> 
> Where it comes to HPRF (and associated radiators), I like Ronald Reagan’s words about the Soviets, re: Star Wars: “Trust, but verify!” 😉


I’ve been in the Delta Hover Astern, waiting to land on a Ticonderoga Class cruiser that assured me they were Radhaz safe. Fun fact: the screen on my tacnav computer was pulsing in time with the SPS-49 radar they used to have above the SPY-1, so I call BS.

Another fun fact: if you put the radar on the old Sea King into standby and there was a SPY-1 radar anywhere within your EM horizon, you would get a bearing strobe. Poor man’s ESM!

As to Underway’s point and Cdn Radhaz rules: they are good in principle (I do not want to ever stand In front of a fire control radar or hug a HF antenna), but the rules around fueling and moving ammo are just ridiculous.


----------



## NavyShooter

Note I referenced the Cancer with respect to a Cobalt 60 source within the SPS-49 inside Radar 2, not the non-ionizing coming from the antennaes or passing through the waveguides.


----------



## calculus

Looks like some progress on the Aussie Hunter class, with the first test block having been built. VIDEO: BAE Systems rolls out 1st Hunter-class frigate program unit - Naval Today

Interesting is the mention of having *24 *MK41 VLS, which, if true, is a change for the Hunters as well, these having been "advertised" as having 32. Also interesting is mention of a vertical launch silo for Sea Ceptor, which would be a pretty significant change.


----------



## Underway

Sea Ceptor would be a completely new capability for the Aussies from their initial proposal.  I think that they might have gotten the RN or RCN ship capabilities mixed up in there somehow.  But given the weight restriction issues maybe they same to the same conclusion that Canada did and was unable to fit in the extra VLS.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> That article also mentions the Sea Ceptor silo.  Which would be a completely new capability for the Aussies from their initial proposal.  I think that they might have gotten the RN or RCN ship capabilities mixed up in there somehow.


Or the Aussies have suddenly decided to move in that direction.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> Or the Aussies have suddenly decided to move in that direction.


I edited my post to reflect that thought before I realized you posted.  That's a distinct possibility.


----------



## suffolkowner

I haven't caught anything yet, seems strange, and doesn't look like there's been any official update





__





						Hunter Class FFG | Royal Australian Navy
					

Royal Australian Navy




					www.navy.gov.au
				




chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/viewer.html?pdfurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.navy.gov.au%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fdocuments%2FHunter_Class_Fact_Sheet.pdf&clen=3353118&chunk=true


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> I edited my post to reflect that thought before I realized you posted.  That's a distinct possibility.


It makes me wonder if they want to save the Mk41 VLS cells for something other than ESSM?


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> It makes me wonder if they want to save the Mk41 VLS cells for something other than ESSM?


That's the best thing about VLS.  They are so flexible.   

If they have Sea Ceptor then any launcher that takes away from the VLS (the 8 missing VLS) are really only replacing launchers that would have held ESSM instead.

So basically it would be awash in self defence missile numbers.   There are other possible reasons for this, including less design change from the original version.  🤔


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> That's the best thing about VLS.  They are so flexible.
> 
> If they have Sea Ceptor then any launcher that takes away from the VLS (the 8 missing VLS) are really only replacing launchers that would have held ESSM instead.
> 
> So basically it would be awash in self defence missile numbers.   There are other possible reasons for this, including less design change from the original version.  🤔


I am confused now. I thought Sea Ceptor went in dedicated cells amidship. If the Aussies are adding Sea Ceptor, it means the could potentially carry fewer ESSM in the Mk41 (although quadpacking only nets you one cell for every 4 ESSM missiles that you trade in, so it is an expensive trade).

BTW, are we now certain we are officially down to 24 Mk 41 in our CSC?


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> I am confused now. I thought Sea Ceptor went in dedicated cells amidship. If the Aussies are adding Sea Ceptor, it means the could potentially carry fewer ESSM in the Mk41 (although quadpacking only nets you one cell for every 4 ESSM missiles that you trade in, so it is an expensive trade).
> 
> BTW, are we now certain we are officially down to 24 Mk 41 in our CSC?


On the T26 there are 24Mk 41VLS and 24 Sea Ceptor individual cells all together on the focsle. 







The UK will also have Sea Ceptor Launcher amidships.  The image below is the best one I could find which shows all the missile locations.  Whether the Sea Ceptor on the T26 is going to be a mushroom farm setup or something else I can't say.






The CSC and Hunter programs want to replace the forward Sea Ceptor location with 8 more strike-length VLS.  CSC may have walked this back to 24 VLS forward.

My inference was that if Australia removed the 8VLS from forward and went with a Sea Ceptor solution it would look like the T26 images above.  Thus a one for one ESSM->Sea Ceptor.  Or they could use the amidships launch location shown above as well (which appears to be the CSC solution, image below).


----------



## MTShaw

Hello everyone. I found another image here:



			https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/photo/spy-7/Aegis_Ships_Japan_Spain_Canada_AAJ.jpg
		


It was to large to upload.


----------



## Spencer100

MTShaw said:


> Hello everyone. I found another image here:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/rms/photo/spy-7/Aegis_Ships_Japan_Spain_Canada_AAJ.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> It was to large to upload.


The Japanese ship is a beast.  looks like 64 VLS in front and 16VLS? in the rear. 2 CIWS and 8 Harpoon or other ASM?

Question is the Spy7 coming in different sizes?  The JS panel looks much bigger than in the CSC. (could be just the pic)


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> The Japanese ship is a beast.  looks like 64 VLS in front and 16VLS? in the rear. 2 CIWS and 8 Harpoon or other ASM?
> 
> Question is the Spy7 coming in different sizes?  The JS panel looks much bigger than in the CSC. (could be just the pic)


The Japanese platform concept is a much bigger ship than the CSC, the CSC seems to be a Destroyer/Frigate Hybrid - while the JSDFN is a full out Aegis Cruiser - like the Tico's.
  The CIWS placement on the Japanese concept is odd though - both the fore and aft will have restricted arc that will leave dead spots - unless the rear gun has a near 320 degree arc, also very limited depression to engage surface or low flying contacts in close


----------



## Kirkhill

I believe the Japanese decided on their ship as an alternative to the AEGIS Ashore systems they were contemplating.  The ships are more expensive and less effective but more politically acceptable.


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> I believe the Japanese decided on their ship as an alternative to the AEGIS Ashore systems they were contemplating.  The ships are more expensive and less effective but more politically acceptable.


That ship in the pic is not the AEGIS Ashore replacement.   They are building that ship.  I think the they are looking at using the AEGIS Ashore system (Spy 6 not 7) in a new hull.  I think the debate is do they go full multifunction DDG or a special 2 hull AEGIS system ship.


----------



## Kirkhill

So the Japanese are thinking really big these days.  Wow.  Thanks for making that clear.

I wonder how many launch cells they will be able to put to sea when they are all finished.

Even at 24 cells and 15 ships we could launch 360 SM-3 ABMs, or SM-6 Multi-Functionals, or even 360 Tomahawks (not that that would be likely).

But it would be kind of neat to wargame 360-480 SM-6s along with the 360 CAMMs and 120 NSMs.


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:


> Question is the Spy7 coming in different sizes?  The JS panel looks much bigger than in the CSC. (could be just the pic)


Yes.  Its scalable which is one of the reasons CSC chose it.



KevinB said:


> The Japanese platform concept is a much bigger ship than the CSC, the CSC seems to be a Destroyer/Frigate Hybrid - while the JSDFN is a full out Aegis Cruiser - like the Tico's.
> The CIWS placement on the Japanese concept is odd though - both the fore and aft will have restricted arc that will leave dead spots - unless the rear gun has a near 320 degree arc, also very limited depression to engage surface or low flying contacts in close



I wouldn't read too much into the Japanese concept art.  They are still a ways away from actually deciding on a ship design, though given their previous designs something that looks like that is likely.  They basically have a modified Arleigh Burke there.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Anyone know when the next phase/milestone on the CSC progression might be coming out?  It seems like we're due for a bit of news on where the project is at in terms of delivery milestones.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> Anyone know when the next phase/milestone on the CSC progression might be coming out?  It seems like we're due for a bit of news on where the project is at in terms of delivery milestones.


First delivery to the RCN in 2031, with 2 years of trials for final acceptance.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> First delivery to the RCN in 2031, with 2 years of trials for final acceptance.


Wow! 
That's brutally long from now, 2033 before the first ship replaces the oldest Halifax class.
That means the oldest Halifax will be 41yrs old when its replaced and with all 12 of them coming online between 1992-96 it should be crystal clear that we will not have 12 combat capable ships on the books by the late 2030's.  

Question, will we be able to meet our NATO and NORAD stated commitments during the late 2030's, early 2040's based on this?

I really don't see how they will be able to continue with the existing stated timeline of delivering the CSC's at the pace that they've been talking about. If they deliver 1 CSC per year starting in 2031, that means the 12th  CSC will be delivered, not operational, in 2043, when the last of the 12 Halifax's will 47yrs old! I'd like to point out that none of the Iroquois class made it that long. 

Also, that means that Irving will deliver over the next 9-10yrs 4 more RCN AOPS and 2 CCGS AOPS between now and before 2031 when they will deliver the first CSC in 2031.  Anyone else see that as close to impossible given Irving's current track record over the last 7-8yrs?  

I think that its going to have to be the following cases below  in order to deliver the first CSC in 2031:
1) The 2 CCGS  AOPS's are either not built or are built by Davie, allowing Irving to start building the first CSC in 2026-7
2) The delivery of the first CSC in 2031 is not going to happen
3) Davie is brought in to build 3-5 of the CSC's over the early, mid 2030's (along with possibly building the 2 CCGS AOPS)
4) A Christmas Miracle occurs and all 6 RCN AOPS and 2 CCGS AOPS are delivered before 2031 and the first CSC is delivered on time in 2031

I realise that what is being attempted is completing re-building an entire industry again from scrap - but this should NOT be a 40+yr process/timeline as that is what is occurring. Its farcical to think that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We have two allied nations currently building their first hulls, I hope by god we have teams going there and learning from them, what mistakes they made, what they have learned. Along with the "dry" ship we are planning for the electronics and combat suite, we should be planning out and cutting steel for our first test module soon. Cancel the two CCG AOP's they were always filler and use that space to build the modules that are already configured and not likely to change, such as the bow and stern sections.


----------



## KevinB

Czech_pivo said:


> Wow!
> That's brutally long from now, 2033 before the first ship replaces the oldest Halifax class.
> That means the oldest Halifax will be 41yrs old when its replaced and with all 12 of them coming online between 1992-96 it should be crystal clear that we will not have 12 combat capable ships on the books by the late 2030's.


I don't see 12 mission capable CFC's by the end of the 2020's.
    Even if the CF starts trying to keep them out of the North Atlantic - they have had a tough life.   Looking at the deployment schedules for RCN ships, they don't seem to get the same rest as other NATO vessels, and significantly notable differences in major refit times in dry dock.

  I'm no SME on the Navy - but I see 1) Rough Environment 2) Little Rest 3) No Rework as a major issue




Czech_pivo said:


> Question, will we be able to meet our NATO and NORAD stated commitments during the late 2030's, early 2040's based on this?


I think it will be impossible before 2030.


Czech_pivo said:


> I really don't see how they will be able to continue with the existing stated timeline of delivering the CSC's at the pace that they've been talking about. If they deliver 1 CSC per year starting in 2031, that means the 12th  CSC will be delivered, not operational, in 2043, when the last of the 12 Halifax's will 47yrs old! I'd like to point out that none of the Iroquois class made it that long.
> 
> Also, that means that Irving will deliver over the next 9-10yrs 4 more RCN AOPS and 2 CCGS AOPS between now and before 2031 when they will deliver the first CSC in 2031.  Anyone else see that as close to impossible given Irving's current track record over the last 7-8yrs?


Also isn't the CCG Ice Breaker supposed to get built too?



Czech_pivo said:


> I think that its going to have to be the following cases below  in order to deliver the first CSC in 2031:
> 1) The 2 CCGS  AOPS's are either not built or are built by Davie, allowing Irving to start building the first CSC in 2026-7
> 2) The delivery of the first CSC in 2031 is not going to happen
> 3) Davie is brought in to build 3-5 of the CSC's over the early, mid 2030's (along with possibly building the 2 CCGS AOPS)
> 4) A Christmas Miracle occurs and all 6 RCN AOPS and 2 CCGS AOPS are delivered before 2031 and the first CSC is delivered on time in 2031


CCG John G. Diefenbaker is supposed to fit (as I mentioned above) and Davie is needing to work on several CCG ships and some conversions as well to keep the CCG in the Ice Game until the JGD comes online.


Czech_pivo said:


> I realise that what is being attempted is completing re-building an entire industry again from scrap - but this should NOT be a 40+yr process/timeline as that is what is occurring. Its farcical to think that.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:


> I think that its going to have to be the following cases below  in order to deliver the first CSC in 2031:
> 1) The 2 CCGS  AOPS's are either not built or are built by Davie, allowing Irving to start building the first CSC in 2026-7


If you want the first surface combatant to be delivered as quickly as possible, why start building it in 2026 or 2027?  Why not start building it, as currently planned, in 2023 or 2024?  Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca


----------



## KevinB

Uzlu said:


> If you want the first surface combatant to be delivered as quickly as possible, why start building it in 2026 or 2027?  Why not start building it, as currently planned, in 2023 or 2024?  Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca


That is an absolutely unrealistic timeline - look at the projects that are up to be run.


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> We have two allied nations currently building their first hulls, I hope by god we have teams going there and learning from them, what mistakes they made, what they have learned. Along with the "dry" ship we are planning for the electronics and combat suite, we should be planning out and cutting steel for our first test module soon. Cancel the two CCG AOP's they were always filler and use that space to build the modules that are already configured and not likely to change, such as the bow and stern sections.


The CCG Harry Dewolf class were never ordered. They’re planned. That’s a huge difference. COVID 19 also slowed down the progress of the AOPS so there is that.









						Harry DeWolf-class offshore patrol vessel - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## KevinB

Correct me if I am wrong:

Irving:
4 AOPS
2 JSS
1 CCG Polar 2 (John G. Diefenbaker) 

Davie:
Refit of LSL Ice Breaker (due to delay in JDG which was pushed back to do the JSS)
Refit of 4 other Ice Breakers to be make up for delays in the JDG) 
 - potential of 1 CCG Polar 2 (yet to be named twin for the JDG - given the fact the JDG almost doubled in price I highly doubt the would go ahead - but on never knows) ) 

All of which have promise dates before the CSC.




You can't get blood from a stone - and you can't push out ships from a dockyard faster than they can be built...


----------



## MTShaw

KevinB said:


> I don't see 12 mission capable CFC's by the end of the 2020's.
> Even if the CF starts trying to keep them out of the North Atlantic - they have had a tough life.   Looking at the deployment schedules for RCN ships, they don't seem to get the same rest as other NATO vessels, and significantly notable differences in major refit times in dry dock.
> 
> I'm no SME on the Navy - but I see 1) Rough Environment 2) Little Rest 3) No Rework as a major issue
> 
> 
> 
> I think it will be impossible before 2030.
> 
> Also isn't the CCG Ice Breaker supposed to get built too?
> 
> 
> CCG John G. Diefenbaker is supposed to fit (as I mentioned above) and Davie is needing to work on several CCG ships and some conversions as well to keep the CCG in the Ice Game until the JGD comes online.


Our frigates are fine. They’re ridden hard but less so than the American or British. They receive regular maintenance, including dry dock. They just look like crap. Ferries ride through horrifying seas for fifty years and don’t have their keels weaken.


----------



## dapaterson

Shipyard capacity in Halifax. Availability of long lead items. Lack of finalized design.

Take your pick as a reason not to start in '23.


----------



## MTShaw

KevinB said:


> Correct me if I am wrong:
> 
> Irving:
> 4 AOPS
> 2 JSS
> 1 CCG Polar 2 (John G. Diefenbaker)
> 
> Davie:
> Refit of LSL Ice Breaker (due to delay in JDG which was pushed back to do the JSS)
> Refit of 4 other Ice Breakers to be make up for delays in the JDG)
> - potential of 1 CCG Polar 2 (yet to be named twin for the JDG - given the fact the JDG almost doubled in price I highly doubt the would go ahead - but on never knows) )
> 
> All of which have promise dates before the CSC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't get blood from a stone - and you can't push out ships from a dockyard faster than they can be built...


Ice breaker and JSS are Seaspan projects.


----------



## Kirkhill

Colin Parkinson said:


> We have two allied nations currently building their first hulls, I hope by god we have teams going there and learning from them, what mistakes they made, what they have learned. Along with the "dry" ship we are planning for the electronics and combat suite, we should be planning out and cutting steel for our first test module soon. Cancel the two CCG AOP's they were always filler and use that space to build the modules that are already configured and not likely to change, such as the bow and stern sections.



Please tell me that the "dry" ship is being built in sea-cans and on trailers so it can be transferred/duplicated for the RCA.


----------



## MTShaw

dapaterson said:


> Shipyard capacity in Halifax. Availability of long lead items. Lack of finalized design.
> 
> Take your pick as a reason not to start in '23.


I don’t know what they have or not have not ordered. They have ordered three canons from Leonardo .


----------



## Czech_pivo

MTShaw said:


> Our frigates are fine. They’re ridden hard but less so than the American or British. They receive regular maintenance, including dry dock. They just look like crap. Ferries ride through horrifying seas for fifty years and don’t have their keels weaken.


Our frigates are fine right now, yes, ok - but how fine will they be in 2036, 15yrs out when they all will be 40+yrs old and only about 3 will have been replaced?  Answer that question. The odds are not stacked in our favour at all - not at all - that we will have a viable frigate fleet available to honour our NATO/NORAD treaty commitments, as well as do any of the other required roles they have admirably performed over that last 25yrs by 2036-39 unless another shipyard becomes involved in the building process in the late 2020's.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MTShaw said:


> Our frigates are fine. They’re ridden hard but less so than the American or British. They receive regular maintenance, including dry dock. They just look like crap. Ferries ride through horrifying seas for fifty years and don’t have their keels weaken.


Regarding the British ships, from what I've learned here, the Brits rarely keep/use a non-capital ship (meaning anything bigger than a frigate/destroyer) longer than around 30yrs.  We will be adding another 12-15yrs beyond that.

For example (TYPE 23 frigate): 
HMS Argyll  was commissioned in 1991 and will be decommissioned in 2023  (had its mid-life upgrade in 2017)
HMS Lancaster was commissioned in 1992 and will be decommissioned in 2024 (had its mid-life upgrade in 2019)

Using our Halifax's as an example

HMCS Halifax was commissioned in 1992 and, if will follow the concept of 'first launched, first decommissioned', then it will be decommissioned in 2033
HMCS Vancouver was commissioned in 1993, decommissioned in 2035?


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> Correct me if I am wrong:
> 
> Irving:
> 4 AOPS
> 2 JSS
> 1 CCG Polar 2 (John G. Diefenbaker)
> 
> Davie:
> Refit of LSL Ice Breaker (due to delay in JDG which was pushed back to do the JSS)
> Refit of 4 other Ice Breakers to be make up for delays in the JDG)
> - potential of 1 CCG Polar 2 (yet to be named twin for the JDG - given the fact the JDG almost doubled in price I highly doubt the would go ahead - but on never knows) )
> 
> All of which have promise dates before the CSC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can't get blood from a stone - and you can't push out ships from a dockyard faster than they can be built...


Davie has the infrastructure (not saying that it has the experienced manpower) to build both the CCGS Polar and a CCGS AOPS at that sametime , as well as the refits of the existing icebreakers.  It's the largest shipyard in Canada and has the largest graving dock in Canada at 351m long.

I just don't see how Irving will be able to deliver to the RCN 4 more AOPS and 2 CCG AOPS as well as the first CSC by 2031 - deliver 7 ships of 6,000+ tons each in 10yrs.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> Wow!
> That's brutally long from now, 2033 before the first ship replaces the oldest Halifax class.
> That means the oldest Halifax will be 41yrs old when its replaced and with all 12 of them coming online between 1992-96 it should be crystal clear that we will not have 12 combat capable ships on the books by the late 2030's.
> 
> Question, will we be able to meet our NATO and NORAD stated commitments during the late 2030's, early 2040's based on this?
> 
> I really don't see how they will be able to continue with the existing stated timeline of delivering the CSC's at the pace that they've been talking about. If they deliver 1 CSC per year starting in 2031, that means the 12th  CSC will be delivered, not operational, in 2043, when the last of the 12 Halifax's will 47yrs old! I'd like to point out that none of the Iroquois class made it that long.
> 
> Also, that means that Irving will deliver over the next 9-10yrs 4 more RCN AOPS and 2 CCGS AOPS between now and before 2031 when they will deliver the first CSC in 2031.  Anyone else see that as close to impossible given Irving's current track record over the last 7-8yrs?
> 
> I think that its going to have to be the following cases below  in order to deliver the first CSC in 2031:
> 1) The 2 CCGS  AOPS's are either not built or are built by Davie, allowing Irving to start building the first CSC in 2026-7
> 2) The delivery of the first CSC in 2031 is not going to happen
> 3) Davie is brought in to build 3-5 of the CSC's over the early, mid 2030's (along with possibly building the 2 CCGS AOPS)
> 4) A Christmas Miracle occurs and all 6 RCN AOPS and 2 CCGS AOPS are delivered before 2031 and the first CSC is delivered on time in 2031
> 
> I realise that what is being attempted is completing re-building an entire industry again from scrap - but this should NOT be a 40+yr process/timeline as that is what is occurring. Its farcical to think that.


You're actually wrong, the last of the Halifax class will be around 51 years old. The fist half dozen after the first one will take around 18 months to build with the rest taking around a year a piece. Options to speed up the process was looked at however it would even add more cost to the project.
We have a whole organization in Ottawa to manage the life extension of the Halifax Class, ships will still go sea and do the business but at a cost.


----------



## dapaterson

Same folks who let an oiler go out, unfit sea, that burned.

You'll forgive me if I don't think RCN risk management is up to par


----------



## Stoker

dapaterson said:


> Same folks who let an oiler go out, unfit sea, that burned.
> 
> You'll forgive me if I don't think RCN risk management is up to par


No offence the oiler burned not because it was old, because of a accident and poor decision making on the timely activation of a fitted system. Risk assessments and mitigations are part of doing business in the RCN or any other Navy.


----------



## MTShaw

Czech_pivo said:


> Regarding the British ships, from what I've learned here, the Brits rarely keep/use a non-capital ship (meaning anything bigger than a frigate/destroyer) longer than around 30yrs.  We will be adding another 12-15yrs beyond that.
> 
> For example (TYPE 23 frigate):
> HMS Argyll  was commissioned in 1991 and will be decommissioned in 2023  (had its mid-life upgrade in 2017)
> HMS Lancaster was commissioned in 1992 and will be decommissioned in 2024 (had its mid-life upgrade in 2019)
> 
> Using our Halifax's as an example
> 
> HMCS Halifax was commissioned in 1992 and, if will follow the concept of 'first launched, first decommissioned', then it will be decommissioned in 2033
> HMCS Vancouver was commissioned in 1993, decommissioned in 2035?


Ferry runs every for 52 years through the high seas every day. Frigates don’tt do that. Structurally they fine The problem isn’t time but spare parts and hopefully not some piss poor fire procedures and training.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> Same folks who let an oiler go out, unfit sea, that burned.
> 
> You'll forgive me if I don't think RCN risk management is up to par


"Unfit sea"  is a medical term for people, not an engineering term.  The engineering term is "safe at sea" which PRO was. 

As stated above by @Stoker there was plenty that went into the PRO fire being so bad that had little to do with the state of the equipment.



Uzlu said:


> If you want the first surface combatant to be delivered as quickly as possible, why start building it in 2026 or 2027?  Why not start building it, as currently planned, in 2023 or 2024?  Canadian surface combatant - Canada.ca



I feel like we've talked about this before.  ISI is starting to build CSC in 2023.  It takes ~7 years to build the T26, and ~two years for trials.  With a new ship coming off the line every 12-18 months (the build for ship two would have started 2019 or so, 18 months after ship one). This timing is in line with both Australia and UK builds. 

HMS GLASGOW was laid down 2017 and is expected to the RN ~2023.  And their ship is much less complicated than ours from a combat systems perspective and BAE has recently built large warships.  Australia is expecting their ships to start 2022 and delivery to be 2031.  They just finished building a test block but that's really just a large steel box with nothing inside.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> I don’t know what they have or not have not ordered. They have ordered three canons from Leonardo .


Four I think (no reference on that).  One system for the training facility + 3 for the ships.


----------



## calculus

Underway said:


> Four I think (no reference on that).  One system for the training facility + 3 for the ships.


Totally correct. here is the reference: CSC: Canada buys OTO Melara/Leonardo 127mm/64 LW gun – Canadian Naval Review


----------



## Maxman1

Czech_pivo said:


> Anyone know when the next phase/milestone on the CSC progression might be coming out?  It seems like we're due for a bit of news on where the project is at in terms of delivery milestones.



This is starting to feel like the Dacia Sandero.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Stoker said:


> You're actually wrong, the last of the Halifax class will be around 51 years old. The fist half dozen after the first one will take around 18 months to build with the rest taking around a year a piece. Options to speed up the process was looked at however it would even add more cost to the project.
> We have a whole organization in Ottawa to manage the life extension of the Halifax Class, ships will still go sea and do the business but at a cost.


You without a doubt have substantially more experience than I ever will in this area Stoker, and I respect that but when you look at it detached and standing from afar I just don’t know how it will be accomplished.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> "Unfit sea"  is a medical term for people, not an engineering term.  The engineering term is "safe at sea" which PRO was.
> 
> As stated above by @Stoker there was plenty that went into the PRO fire being so bad that had little to do with the state of the equipment.
> 
> 
> 
> I feel like we've talked about this before.  ISI is starting to build CSC in 2023.  It takes ~7 years to build the T26, and ~two years for trials.  With a new ship coming off the line every 12-18 months (the build for ship two would have started 2019 or so, 18 months after ship one). This timing is in line with both Australia and UK builds.
> 
> HMS GLASGOW was laid down 2017 and is expected to the RN ~2023.  And their ship is much less complicated than ours from a combat systems perspective and BAE has recently built large warships.  Australia is expecting their ships to start 2022 and delivery to be 2031.  They just finished building a test block but that's really just a large steel box with nothing inside.


When looking at the link for HMS Glasgow, I’m trying to understand the timelines. Begun in 2017, to be delivered to RN before end of 2021 and operational in 2023, correct? If correct, 6yrs from beginning to commissioned in the RN.
Our potential timeline line is, potential beginning by ISI in 2023, delivered 8yrs later to RCN in 2031 and finally commissioned in 2033, 10yrs start to finish vs 6yrs from what I’ve read for HMS Glasgow.
So the extra complexity for ours adds 40% to the overall timeline? ISI will have built 6ish AOPS (6 for RCN and possibly 2 for CCG) that are about the same tonnage as the CSC, so they will be an experienced shipyard by this point.


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> When looking at the link for HMS Glasgow, I’m trying to understand the timelines. Begun in 2017, to be delivered to RN before end of 2021 and operational in 2023, correct? If correct, 6yrs from beginning to commissioned in the RN.
> Our potential timeline line is, potential beginning by ISI in 2023, delivered 8yrs later to RCN in 2031 and finally commissioned in 2033, 10yrs start to finish vs 6yrs from what I’ve read for HMS Glasgow.
> So the extra complexity for ours adds 40% to the overall timeline? ISI will have built 6ish AOPS (6 for RCN and possibly 2 for CCG) that are about the same tonnage as the CSC, so they will be an experienced shipyard by this point.


Building essentially a civilian standard AOPS and building a warship CSC are totally 2 different things.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Stoker said:


> No offence the oiler burned not because it was old, because of a accident and poor decision making on the timely activation of a fitted system. Risk assessments and mitigations are part of doing business in the RCN or any other Navy.


I have a fairly unique viewpoint on the PRO fire and the lead up to it. Lets just say I will agree to disagree with your opinion on RCN technical risk assessments.


----------



## Lumber

MTShaw said:


> Ferry runs every for 52 years through the high seas every day. Frigates don’tt do that. Structurally they fine The problem isn’t time but spare parts and hopefully not some piss poor fire procedures and training.


Uhhh I'm going to have to disagree. While spare parts are an issue, structure is also a huge issue, including both major auxillar/ancillary systems, as well as the hull itself.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> When looking at the link for HMS Glasgow, I’m trying to understand the timelines. Begun in 2017, to be delivered to RN before end of 2021 and operational in 2023, correct? If correct, 6yrs from beginning to commissioned in the RN.
> Our potential timeline line is, potential beginning by ISI in 2023, delivered 8yrs later to RCN in 2031 and finally commissioned in 2033, 10yrs start to finish vs 6yrs from what I’ve read for HMS Glasgow.
> So the extra complexity for ours adds 40% to the overall timeline? ISI will have built 6ish AOPS (6 for RCN and possibly 2 for CCG) that are about the same tonnage as the CSC, so they will be an experienced shipyard by this point.


I'm confident that they are not going to be delivering HMS Glasgow this year. Or perhaps even next year.  That's a pretty skeletal ship at this point, still needs all the cabling, equipment, lighting, hotel services.  Oh and a mast!

When a ship is commissioned is also different than delivery depending on the country.  HDW was accepted into the RCN before commissioning and before work was fully complete.

As for ours I expect about a year or two increase in the timeline due to complexity, winter working conditions (something the UK for the most part avoids), BAE being a more experienced yard, BAE using different yards to make blocks concurrently (ISI doesn't have the capacity to do this aside from the bow section).

I could be really wrong. I would have better odds betting in Vegas on the Sabers winning a cup this year.  However ~early 2030's is where the RCN expects the CSC to be a fully armed and operational battlestation warship.  That doesn't mean it can't do a bunch of jobs before that as it shakes down.  HDW is in that situation now, still some things to be worked out but they are for all intents and purposes operational.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> Four I think (no reference on that).  One system for the training facility + 3 for the ships.





Lumber said:


> Uhhh I'm going to have to disagree. While spare parts are an issue, structure is also a huge issue, including both major auxillar/ancillary systems, as well as the hull itself.


e can agree to disagree a I suppose.


----------



## MTShaw

MTShaw said:


> e can agree to disagree a I suppose.


About the hull itself. If there is significant corrosion in the hull, it was designed by monkeys, or built and maintained by untrained idiots. Having said that, I agree with you.


----------



## MTShaw

MTShaw said:


> About the hull itself. If there is significant corrosion in the hull, it was designed by monkeys, or built and maintained by untrained idiots. Having said that, I agree with you.


FYI, I’m a retired 1st class engineer (transport Canada), just so you know point of view, and I assume that most people aren’t idiots. And in the BC Ferry service we had a highly motivated, intelligent group.


----------



## Stoker

SeaKingTacco said:


> I have a fairly unique viewpoint on the PRO fire and the lead up to it. Lets just say I will agree to disagree with your opinion on RCN technical risk assessments.


I talked to plenty who were there and I was Sea Training at the time and read the BOI. Damage Control and Engineering is my bread and butter in my daily job. The AOR was old but it wasn't unsafe for sea, you can do all the risk assessments and mitigations in the world but accidents do happen even to new ships. Was there a risk assessment done on the particular item that failed no there wasn't, and why would it be needed?


----------



## NavyShooter

MTShaw said:


> Our frigates are fine. They’re ridden hard but less so than the American or British. They receive regular maintenance, including dry dock. They just look like crap. Ferries ride through horrifying seas for fifty years and don’t have their keels weaken.


"Our frigates are fine."  I'll simply agree to disagree.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> About the hull itself. If there is significant corrosion in the hull, it was designed by monkeys, or built and maintained by untrained idiots. Having said that, I agree with you.


I think you can do better than this, knowing that many of those who maintain the ships are on this forum.  We aren't reddit or twit-er so lets not behave like that here please.

There has been significant corrosion in the East Coast ships, West Coast are doing much better.  Some of that is due to climate, some of it is due to more salt being needed on the ship to keep from icing, therefore boots track in that stuff.  And some is that West Coast used seamless decks everywhere.  Some was due to having to charge hoses for fire exercises which then of course leak on the deck increasing corrosion rates.

Awareness and vigilance of this issue is pretty high ATM.  Things are constantly being cut out and replaced to fix problem areas.  The ship of Theseus indeed.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> I think you can do better than this, knowing that many of those who maintain the ships are on this forum.  We aren't reddit or twit-er so lets not behave like that here please.
> 
> There has been significant corrosion in the East Coast ships, West Coast are doing much better.  Some of that is due to climate, some of it is due to more salt being needed on the ship to keep from icing, therefore boots track in that stuff.  And some is that West Coast used seamless decks everywhere.  Some was due to having to charge hoses for fire exercises which then of course leak on the deck increasing corrosion rates.
> 
> Awareness and vigilance of this issue is pretty high ATM.  Things are constantly being cut out and replaced to fix problem areas.  The ship of Theseus indeed.


You’re right, that was uncalled for and I apologize unreservedly. And thank you for the missing piece of why ships are corroding to badly. Hopefully the CSC will take measures to mitigate this problem.


----------



## NavyShooter

MTShaw said:


> You’re right, that was uncalled for and I apologize unreservedly. And thank you for the missing piece of why ships are corroding to badly. Hopefully the CSC will take measures to mitigate this problem.


A slow steady progression of new ships coming 'online' over the span of 15 years will give the Navy a chance to look ahead past the CSC's and the AOPS and plan for the replacement of the MCDV's (if any) which will give more shipyards work, sustaining the life of the 'yards and their skillset, then replacing more CCG ships, and hopefully, by the time the last CSC rolls onto the launching ship, the Navy will have started looking at the generation of ships that needs to follow that to get them started.

Or maybe not, and we'll have poured our nation's treasure into building up our shipyards and a new fleet, only to have those shipyards die after the CSC's are finished because there isn't any more work coming for another decade after that.

From the perspective of someone who was able to look up into interior compartments from below a keel this year, there's metal work that needs to be done...and there's a lot of reasons for that.  I know some of them, and won't bother getting into the minutia here.  Suffice to say, there's a lot of metal-work that has needed doing for a long time, and the Navy had a lot of reasons to keep pushing the ships to perform on operations rather than taking the time to fix things properly.


----------



## OldSolduer

OK having read a lot of your posts, and being infatuated with red crayons, what, in your opinions are the best ship types the RCN should invest in?

MCDV? Frigate? Destroyer?


----------



## Dale Denton

Probably should discuss in another thread but i'll bite.

To start, something to move our military in? Everything the army has is useless if we can't move it to where the fight is. 


Extend the Protecteur Class by at least 3 more AORs
At least one Amphibious ship/ LPD/ LHD. A Mistral ideally, Karel Doorman, San Antonio-Class LPD Flight II, anything.
At least 6 SNNs and a submarine rescue capability
Become a partner in a 5Es XLUUV project
Naval UAS
Heavier-armed and armoured riverine vessels for the reserves to train with on the Great Lakes, use them on the amphib ships

This is of course pushing aside our: 

history,
procurement cycles,
procurement complexity,
recruitment and retainment strategy,
lack of public interest,
lack of cabinet interest,
lack of foreign policy to utilize the CF beyond smaller deployments


----------



## NavyShooter

It's a question of what the Navy needs to do...

If we're going to keep sending ships into harm's way, we need fully capable warships able to defend themselves, and that can integrate into multi-national fleets.

If the direction is to shift to a mere constabulary role, then our needs change from an independent expeditionary capability to much more...sedate...and less expensive capabilities.

From the public's point of view, we need grey ships, with guns, maybe self-defense missiles, some Radars, maybe a spot to land a helicopter too.  They don't understand the difference between an AOPS and a CPF.  

Both are painted the same colour.
Both have a gun up front.
Both have spinny Radars on top.
Both have a flight deck.
Both have a Canadian Flag on them.

_OOOHHHH....the new one can carry disaster supplies?  It can go up north?  It can do anti drug patrols?  Cool!

....then....why do we need those other expensive ones...?  Yeah, the ones with the missiles...?  Oh, so we can work with the US?  Um...ok, at least it's not the orange guy anymore, but, like, is that the only reason we need them?  Missiles are scary...do we need those for peace-keeping?

Hey, how about we just get some more of those patrol ships instead that carry disaster supplies?  Then we can HELP people! 

Yeah...no more missiles please._

That's about what the general public think of the Navy.  All of our missions are truly out of sight, and out of mind until we have Admirals getting in trouble.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Because we don't do anything to really change that perception. When i look at the excellent BBC series on building the QE and other ships, I get envious. We have an opportunity to do the same with the AOR's and CSC, even the later AOP's.


----------



## RedFive

Colin Parkinson said:


> Because we don't do anything to really change that perception. When i look at the excellent BBC series on building the QE and other ships, I get envious. We have an opportunity to do the same with the AOR's and CSC, even the later AOP's.


The Royal Navy has done an excellent job creating compelling TV following the RN, I've seen series on YouTube following HMS Dragon, the Perisher submarine commander's course, and at least one of their SSN's that has me wishing at times, in hindsight, I had gone to sea instead of what I actually did with my formative years.

The RCN could easily do the same, and if they spend enough time on the Naval Boarding Party and whatever they're calling the enhanced boarding party (Tactical Operations Group?) these days, attract young men such as myself away from the Army or Army Reserve and into the Navy, in addition to the usual people the Navy appeals to.


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:


> It's a question of what the Navy needs to do...
> 
> If we're going to keep sending ships into harm's way, we need fully capable warships able to defend themselves, and that can integrate into multi-national fleets.
> 
> If the direction is to shift to a mere constabulary role, then our needs change from an independent expeditionary capability to much more...sedate...and less expensive capabilities.
> 
> From the public's point of view, we need grey ships, with guns, maybe self-defense missiles, some Radars, maybe a spot to land a helicopter too.  They don't understand the difference between an AOPS and a CPF.
> 
> Both are painted the same colour.
> Both have a gun up front.
> Both have spinny Radars on top.
> Both have a flight deck.
> Both have a Canadian Flag on them.
> 
> _OOOHHHH....the new one can carry disaster supplies?  It can go up north?  It can do anti drug patrols?  Cool!
> 
> ....then....why do we need those other expensive ones...?  Yeah, the ones with the missiles...?  Oh, so we can work with the US?  Um...ok, at least it's not the orange guy anymore, but, like, is that the only reason we need them?  Missiles are scary...do we need those for peace-keeping?
> 
> Hey, how about we just get some more of those patrol ships instead that carry disaster supplies?  Then we can HELP people!
> 
> Yeah...no more missiles please._
> 
> That's about what the general public think of the Navy.  All of our missions are truly out of sight, and out of mind until we have Admirals getting in trouble.



This is the generally accepted idea of what the public think about the Navy outside of the few navy facing communities.

But to be devils advocate I don't think the public thinks this way about the Navy at all.  

I believe that they DON'T think about the navy.  I've lived and worked away from the coasts for much of my military career, originally as a reservist and then later with the recruiting group, worked with the army, and now in Ottawa doing Ottawa stuff.

When I have a conversation about the RCN people ask lots of questions.  Most often they've never met someone in the navy.  They have no idea how many ships, what the ships do, missions we go on, or what our job is like.  They short circuit to what they do understand US media on the military much of the time.  They are not even educated enough to make uninformed equation that fewer missiles = more humanitarian.  They just don't know anything.

The Canadian Joe/Jane Public is pretty ok with a good explanation of what a navy needs when you talk to them about it.  They might have other priorities, which is fine, but they aren't necessarily peaceniks.


----------



## suffolkowner

LoboCanada said:


> Probably should discuss in another thread but i'll bite.
> 
> To start, something to move our military in? Everything the army has is useless if we can't move it to where the fight is.
> 
> 
> Extend the Protecteur Class by at least 3 more AORs
> At least one Amphibious ship/ LPD/ LHD. A Mistral ideally, Karel Doorman, San Antonio-Class LPD Flight II, anything.
> At least 6 SNNs and a submarine rescue capability
> Become a partner in a 5Es XLUUV project
> Naval UAS
> Heavier-armed and armoured riverine vessels for the reserves to train with on the Great Lakes, use them on the amphib ships



I have slightly smaller dreams

1. The addition of HMCS Provider to the Protecteur Class AOR
2. While I always liked the Bay Class LPD Enforcer (ship design) - Wikipedia and there is its proposed replacement In focus: the BMT ELLIDA multi-role and logistics vessel concept | Navy Lookout but I wouldn't mind seeing something like the Point-class sealift ship - Wikipedia run through  Home - Desgagnés Transarctik Inc.. 
3. 6 SKK
4. yes to XLUUV to augment the manned submarine fleet and minehunting as well
5. yes to continuing with RPA/UAS/UCAV
6. CB90 or Jehu-class landing craft - Wikipedia
7. 6-8 ARA Bouchard (P-51) - Wikipedia type to replace the Kingston's and augment the AOPS


----------



## Colin Parkinson

HMS Glasgow under construction - walk through​


----------



## Weinie

Colin Parkinson said:


> HMS Glasgow under construction - walk through​


Curious, how will they put the boat in the water? Cranes?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

It's a side extending gantry style crane sort of of what they have on the AOP's


----------



## Underway

You know the first thing changed on the ship is someone is going to put a Canadaarm label on that thing when we get it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Unless of course we "Canadianize" the design by replacing that with luffing Davits made in some important riding


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Unless of course we "Canadianize" the design by replacing that with luffing Davits made in some important riding


Interestingly enough the flexdeck crane you see there is being built by Rolls Royce Canada (somewhere in Ontario) for both the UK and Canadian T26 variants.  I'm unsure if the Australians are doing the same but its likely.  Its a pretty unique crane system.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

That "cage" on the lower portion that grabs the boat looks worrisome, trying to recover in any sea.


----------



## Underway

The arm does look pretty chonky for that boat recovery job.  It's an artist interpretation, so it will be interesting to see what the actual final product looks like when they get there.

I've seen similar recovery systems before.  I'm sure you have as well.  A crane cable is initially hooked on the boat, that cable is reeled in until the "cage is around the boat.  You can do it at the waterline or more often it seats the boat halfway up the side of the ship to steady it for ease of placing the boat into its stow position/chock.

So it's not really a grabber for the boat, it just seats the boat, a cable does the work.  Unless of course this is an entirely different design and we are going to win prizes at the arcade by picking up boats crew instead.  I'm not sure I want a boat Cox'n for a prize but if its free to play...


----------



## Underway

HMS Glasgow acceptance date

Updated info on the acceptance date of HMS Glasgow, 2027 is the target date.  Which means 10 years to FOC from first steel cut.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> HMS Glasgow acceptance date
> 
> Updated info on the acceptance date of HMS Glasgow, 2027 is the target date.  Which means 10 years to FOC from first steel cut.


So based on that new information, will our realistic timeframe be 14yrs since ours is more complex and being built by a less experienced yard, thus adding approx. 40% to the timeline?


----------



## Underway

Haha, way to bring it back.  Maybe?   We won't have COVID to tangle with, which caused some delays with Glasgow.   Their original schedule was around 8 years IIRC.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Haha, way to bring it back.  Maybe?   We won't have COVID to tangle with, which caused some delays with Glasgow.   Their original schedule was around 8 years IIRC.


I was just pulling your chain. 
I know that we both want these ships built as soon as possible so that our capabilities don’t suffer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> The arm does look pretty chonky for that boat recovery job.  It's an artist interpretation, so it will be interesting to see what the actual final product looks like when they get there.
> 
> I've seen similar recovery systems before.  I'm sure you have as well.  A crane cable is initially hooked on the boat, that cable is reeled in until the "cage is around the boat.  You can do it at the waterline or more often it seats the boat halfway up the side of the ship to steady it for ease of placing the boat into its stow position/chock.
> 
> So it's not really a grabber for the boat, it just seats the boat, a cable does the work.  Unless of course this is an entirely different design and we are going to win prizes at the arcade by picking up boats crew instead.  I'm not sure I want a boat Cox'n for a prize but if its free to play...


Working on the R-Class cutter, the hiab arm almost went through the hull of our Avon Searider, when a wave rolled the cutter and lifted the RHIB up at the same time, after that we only recovered in sheltered waters. Also the reason why I am such a fan of stern launch and recovery, way safer. To be fair the Type 26 is much bigger than a 95' Cutter, but launching and recovering boats in a seaway is always a high risk gamble.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> Working on the R-Class cutter, the hiab arm almost went through the hull of our Avon Searider, when a wave rolled the cutter and lifted the RHIB up at the same time, after that we only recovered in sheltered waters. Also the reason why I am such a fan of stern launch and recovery, way safer. To be fair the Type 26 is much bigger than a 95' Cutter, but launching and recovering boats in a seaway is always a high risk gamble.


Agree in Stern L&R -- the "grabber arm" looks cool - but has "smashy smashy" written all over it.
   I've also been curious if a "soft ramp" could be used over the side for recovery - it would take a tad more space than the Grabber, but only needs around 75% of the boat length - and would still work in the current berth space 

 - The rigid parts of the cage would only need to be the top 1/2 - and have enough bumper cushions that not significant damage to anything or anyone would occur if it did bump 
Dangle a floater guide rope from the front center of the cage - and then when clipped to the bow winch the RHIB (or other small craft) into the ramp dock - the crew then clips to the side cleats - then the entire platform is raised - and the bottom supports lift the craft out.


----------



## Maxman1

Colin Parkinson said:


> It also requires that the elevators and hangers can handle the aircraft, for the F35b , the Mistrals not be my first choice, I would go with a vessel based on the  San Juan 1/Canberra Class giving some aviation and amphibious benefits as well. However to fit into our current budget and crewing realities, the Mistrals with helicopters are a far better fit for Canada. I would give up a AOP's and a CSC for them.



Now that I think about it, could a _Mistral _handle a CT-156 Harvard II (and is a Harvard II carrier-capable)? Because there's a light attack version of it, the AT-6 Wolverine, which has been adopted by the USAF. If we could operate those from a _Mistral_, that would be pretty slick.


----------



## Kirkhill

Steam Catapults (1955) and Rubber Decks (1948)




> Back in 1955, our predecessors were also following aircraft carrier developments closely, with first test of an important new technology, the steam catapult. Using steam from the ship’s boilers to act directly on the catapult itself, these had been tested aboard the carrier HMS _Perseus_ since 1950, and had just started to be installed aboard the British and American carrier fleet.





> Prior to the use of steam catapults, aircraft had been propelled into the air using a hydro-pneumatic system which used steel wire ropes to drag a small trolley along the flight deck, with the aircraft towed along behind. This was fine for the relatively small and lightweight aircraft carried by naval vessels in World War II, but *with the advent of jet engines, carrier-borne aircraft became heavier and needed to be launched at greater speed*. For a while, naval architects just increased the power of the hydrodynamic system, but the heavier aircraft — along with the heavier cables and pulleys — meant that eventually the catapults were growing too large to be installed even on the biggest ships.











						This month in 1955: the steam catapult
					






					www.theengineer.co.uk
				







> The ‘Rubber’ Flight Deck​In 1945 deck landing trials with de Havilland Sea Vampire fighters exposed the limitations imposed by the slow acceleration rates of early types of jet engine and it became obvious that changes in both carrier technology and deck landing technique were needed.





> Mr Lewis Boddington, Head Scientist at the Naval Aircraft Department, NAD, at the Royal Aircraft Establishment, RAE, at Farnborough recommended transferring the pneumatic absorption of deck landing stresses from the aircraft to the carrier, in other words operating aircraft that had no undercarriages. His concept was based on the logic that catapults and arrester wires, the other devices that allowed short take-offs and landings, were built into the carrier and not the aircraft. The idea had the additional merit that the airframes of fighters without undercarriages would be some 15% lighter than their conventional equivalents and this could be translated into higher performance.





> The obvious drawback was the inability of aircraft without wheels to move under their own power after landing either on a carrier deck or an airfield ashore. The Admiralty was sufficiently interested in this potential solution to devote money, manpower and resources to evaluate to it during a period of severe post-war austerity.
> 
> A flexible deck, more commonly referred to as a rubber deck, was built ashore at Farnborough onto which aircraft were to fly a low, flat approach well above the aircraft’s stalling speed to pass just over the rubber deck with their arrester hook down.





> In 1948 HMS _Warrior_ was fitted with a rubber deck made out of hosepipes laid across a steel frame over the conventional flight deck between the two lifts. They were filled with compressed air and covered by a rubber membrane on which the aircraft landed and the surface was lubricated for landings by hosing fresh water onto it. A single Mark 4 arrester wire was fitted over the rubber deck with the actuating pistons situated fore and aft alongside it. It had a maximum pull-out of only 160 feet which meant that a high minimum wind over the deck was required for every recovery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Warrior’_s first rubber deck trials took place in November 1948 and the first landing was carried out by Lieutenant Commander Brown in TG 286, landing at an indicated air speed of 96 knots into a 35 knot wind over the deck which gave the arrester hook an entry speed into the wire of 61 knots. Once landed, the aircraft was lifted by crane so that its undercarriage could be lowered and it could then be manoeuvred onto the conventional area of flight deck forward of the rubber deck as normal. All subsequent landings were flown by Sea Vampire F 21s which were heavier and capable of being launched by the ship’s single BH 3 hydraulic catapult.





> Royal Canadian Navy service​She was launched on 20 May 1944 and completed on 24 January 1946. She was transferred to the Royal Canadian Navy, commissioned as *HMCS Warrior* and placed under the command of Captain Frank Houghton.[1] She entered Halifax harbour on 31 March 1946, a week after leaving Portsmouth. She was escorted by the destroyer HMCS _Micmac_ and the minesweeper HMCS _Middlesex_. The RCN experienced problems with the unheated equipment during operations in cold North Atlantic waters off eastern Canada during 1947. The RCN deemed her unfit for service and, rather than retrofit her with equipment heaters, made arrangements with the Royal Navy to trade her for a more suitable aircraft carrier of the _Majestic_ class which became HMCS _Magnificent_ (CVL 21) on commissioning.  HMCS _Warrior_ returned to the United Kingdom and was recommissioned as *HMS Warrior (R31)* on 23 March 1948. _Warrior_ was then refitted in Devonport and equipped with a flexible flight deck (layers of rubber) to test the feasibility of receiving undercarriage-less aircraft; the Sea Vampire was used to test the concept, which was successful but not introduced into service.








HMCS Magnificent - 40 aircraft with props. No catapults.  Also no angled flight deck.


----------



## calculus

Maxman1 said:


> Now that I think about it, could a _Mistral _handle a CT-156 Harvard II (and is a Harvard II carrier-capable)? Because there's a light attack version of it, the AT-6 Wolverine, which has been adopted by the USAF. If we could operate those from a _Mistral_, that would be pretty slick.


No catapults on the Mistrals, so I would say no. Deck is no where near long enough. Still be nice to have a couple, but would be restricted to vertical lift only.


----------



## JMCanada

V280 Valor tilt-rotor will, most likely, be operative before Canada operates a Mistral type LHD. Not comparable to the F35-B but still may be a good asset for close aerial support and to deploy troops faster and at longer ranges.


----------



## Kirkhill

calculus said:


> No catapults on the Mistrals, so I would say no. Deck is no where near long enough. Still be nice to have a couple, but would be restricted to vertical lift only.



Just wondering what V2 is on something like the Harvard II at Maximum Take Off Weight.  

Consider a 20 knot wind (37 km per hour) and the "Mistral or equivalent" steaming flat out into the wind at 18.8 knots (35 km per hour).  That means that the aircraft has got a wind speed of 72 km per hour flowing over its wings while it is standing still on the deck.

It was that wind advantage that the old, pre-catapult, carriers relied on to get their aircraft into the air.

Having said that, the Valor is still probably a better bet.  Both at sea and on shore.


----------



## JMCanada

Harvard II:

*Wingspan:* 33 ft 5 in (10.19 m)
*Height:* 10 ft 8 in (3.25 m)
*Empty weight:* 4,707 lb (2,135 kg)
*Max takeoff weight:* 6,500 lb (2,948 kg)
*Cruise speed:* 320 mph (510 km/h, 280 kn)
*Range:* 1,000 mi (1,700 km, 900 nmi)

V280

*Width:* 81.79 ft (24.93 m)
*Height:* 23 ft 0 in (7 m)
*Empty weight:* 18,078 lb (8,200 kg)
*Max takeoff weight:* 30,865 lb (14,000 kg)
Cruise speed: 320 mph (520 km/h, 280 kn)
Ferry range: 2,400 mi (3,900 km, 2,100 nmi)


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A Mistral Class flight deck is about 100' longer than a WWII Bogue Class Escort Carrier. So yes it could launch prop driven attack aircraft, however to ensure safe landings, you need arrestor wires and crash barriers. Then you need to modify the aircraft with stronger lading gear, arrestor hook and support frame. Marininize the aircraft and put folding wings on it. It most certainly would be a absolutely Canadian thing to do. they would be excellent for shooting up pirate vessels and warlord shorebased installations. Although I think this airframe might be a more valuable addition.


----------



## calculus

New overhead view of CSC on the LMC website: Lockheed Martin Canada

Still showing 24 MK41 VLS, so that seems to be confirmed, but nice to see the 6 ExLS cells are still there aft of the funnel.


----------



## Dana381

Forgive me if this has been discussed before. I have seen discussions about possible future replacements for the Cyclone but I don't recall this being discussed.

With the CSC and the AOR both being built to handle a "Chinook sized helicopter" Wikipedia. What are the chances the Navy is preparing for a navalized cargo helicopter? How much non ASW work does the Cyclone do? I'm assuming quite a bit. Why fly the blades off of expensive combat helicopters when much of their work could be done more efficiently by a cheaper helicopter? What size helicopter can the HDW class handle?

Do you think we will see and RFP for a navalized cargo helicopter in the near future and what options would work best for us? NH90 S-92 SH-60 or something else. I can't see the RCAF sending it's Chinooks to sea.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Dana381 said:


> Forgive me if this has been discussed before. I have seen discussions about possible future replacements for the Cyclone but I don't recall this being discussed.
> 
> With the CSC and the AOR both being built to handle a "Chinook sized helicopter" Wikipedia. What are the chances the Navy is preparing for a navalized cargo helicopter? How much non ASW work does the Cyclone do? I'm assuming quite a bit. Why fly the blades off of expensive combat helicopters when much of their work could be done more efficiently by a cheaper helicopter? What size helicopter can the HDW class handle?
> 
> Do you think we will see and RFP for a navalized cargo helicopter in the near future and what options would work best for us? NH90 S-92 SH-60 or something else. I can't see the RCAF sending it's Chinooks to sea.


Nearly all the embarked Cyclone hours go toward either surface or subsurface surveillance, with the remainder going to training or logistics.


----------



## Dana381

Ok, I was (wrongly) under the assumption that they were often used for resupply and crew movement duties as well.


----------



## FSTO

Dana381 said:


> Ok, I was (wrongly) under the assumption that they were often used for resupply and crew movement duties as well.


Ship to ship transfer of personnel are mainly done by boat or if we're really in the mood, Jackstay.


----------



## Dana381

So to modify my question on my above post. When the AOR's start coming online and lets say we keep Asterix how much could we benefit from a naval cargo helicopter?

It could also be used for initial training in shipboard ops. In stead of going from land ops straight to ship ops with an expensive and critical combat helicopter a pilot could 'cut their teeth' sort of speak on a cheaper and easier to replace cargo helicopter. Bear trap and aerial refueling training could at least in part be done on another type to minimize risk to the Cyclones.

The fact that these two types are specifically designed to operate a Chinook sized helicopter must have been done for some reason.


----------



## Dana381

I'll admit I had to look it up but it looks like quite the trip. 😱


----------



## Maxman1

There's worse ways to get aboard.


----------



## MTShaw

calculus said:


> New overhead view of CSC on the LMC website: Lockheed Martin Canada
> 
> Still showing 24 MK41 VLS, so that seems to be confirmed, but nice to see the 6 ExLS cells are still there aft of the funnel.


It’s like Lockheed and the Navy are having an argument about how many vls cells we should have.


----------



## Underway

If that's the case they are also arguing about the entire mast design as well.    

I would go with Lockheed's new image.  That CSC infographic was released during the PBO's investigation into the ship.  The RCN needed to educate the public and the government.  The design was already in transition when they put that out.

Note:  JSS image on their infographic is also incorrect, the design keeps moving on even if the fancy public relations art does not.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> If that's the case they are also arguing about the entire mast design as well.
> 
> I would go with Lockheed's new image.  That CSC infographic was released during the PBO's investigation into the ship.  The RCN needed to educate the public and the government.  The design was already in transition when they put that out.
> 
> Note:  JSS image on their infographic is also incorrect, the design keeps moving on even if the fancy public relations art does not.‘


Makes for a mean looking ship.


----------



## Czech_pivo

MTShaw said:


> Makes for a mean looking ship.


Please don’t say that. If the PMO hears that they’ll force a smiley face to be painted on the bow so as to not offend anyone.


----------



## MTShaw

🤣. Canadians find warships to be too offensive.


----------



## dapaterson

If you think a warship is offensive, you've never met a NWO...


----------



## FSTO

dapaterson said:


> If you think a warship is offensive, you've never met a NWO...


Good thing I don't call myself that!


----------



## MTShaw

Sorry about my previous quote and the past some other ones. I have aphasia and words come out not as planned. I can read it 10 minutes and it still looks normal. So I apologize in advanced for unintentionally jerk-ish.

The Monkey one  I regret still.


----------



## Kirkhill

MTShaw said:


> Sorry about my previous quote and the past some other ones. I have aphasia and words come out not as planned. I can read it 10 minutes and it still looks normal. So I apologize in advanced for unintentionally jerk-ish.
> 
> The Monkey one  I regret still.


I have no excuse!


----------



## suffolkowner

A short comment mostly on the VLS of the CSC in comparison to a select group, basically 32 or even 34 isnt too bad






						Some Comments on CSC Armaments & Aussie Comparisons – Canadian Naval Review
					

By Timothy Choi, 19 November 2021 Earlier this week, my fellow CNR colleague Dr. Dan Middlemiss published some thoughts on a latest report on the Australian Hunter class frigate program and what lessons they may impart for Canada.




					www.navalreview.ca


----------



## Underway

Brace yourself for 30 VLS.   24 Mk 41 and 6 ExLs.  30 is still fine from my perspective.  Particularly with that sensor suite.


----------



## OceanBonfire

BAE Systems sends UK’s Type 26 frigate design data to Australia to support the construction of the Hunter-class frigates. They're transferring design information, drawings, data, videos, diagrams and tools to a team of engineers at Osborne to establish a new design capability for the warships in Australia.


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462969160888160257





						Complex warship design capability boost for Australia
					

More than two million digital artefacts and 90,000 documents are being transferred from the UK’s Type 26 frigate program in Scotland to Adelaide’s Osborne Naval Shipyard for the construction of the Hunter class frigate, the Royal Australian Navy’s next generation of anti-submarine warships.




					www.baesystems.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Brace yourself for 30 VLS.   24 Mk 41 and 6 ExLs.  30 is still fine from my perspective.  Particularly with that sensor suite.


I ask myself if we have the budget to fill all the cells and have reloads?


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> I ask myself if we have the budget to fill all the cells and have reloads?


200 SM-2 IIIc is a good start. Also the Sea Ceptor order for an undisclosed amount. We’ll get there.  Sigh. 

One thing I will commend the grits for is  making a plan and sticking to it.  We might not agree with their priorities but there we go. 






						Defence Capabilities Blueprint
					

The Defence Capabilities Blueprint (DCB) offers access to information related to defence investment opportunities. The DCB provides industry access to planning information such as funding ranges and project timelines. Information on approximately 250 projects funded under Strong, Secure, Engaged...




					dgpaapp.forces.gc.ca


----------



## Czech_pivo

OceanBonfire said:


> BAE Systems sends UK’s Type 26 frigate design data to Australia to support the construction of the Hunter-class frigates. They're transferring design information, drawings, data, videos, diagrams and tools to a team of engineers at Osborne to establish a new design capability for the warships in Australia.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1462969160888160257
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Complex warship design capability boost for Australia
> 
> 
> More than two million digital artefacts and 90,000 documents are being transferred from the UK’s Type 26 frigate program in Scotland to Adelaide’s Osborne Naval Shipyard for the construction of the Hunter class frigate, the Royal Australian Navy’s next generation of anti-submarine warships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.baesystems.com


Have to wonder if we'll be offered this as well.  The Ozzie's are getting reacquainted with the Motherland quite nicely recently whereas we are quickly going down the path of being that kid that is picked last to be on a team in gym class.


----------



## quadrapiper

Colin Parkinson said:


> I ask myself if we have the budget to fill all the cells and have reloads?


Would assume this is a "steel is cheap, air's cheaper" sort of thing: better to build and wire the "box," even if it's going to sit empty most of the time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

it is also a really, really bad idea to buy all of your missiles in one lot number.

It is better to spread the buy over a number of years so that they do not TX all at once.


----------



## Stoker

MTShaw said:


> It’s like Lockheed and the Navy are having an argument about how many vls cells we should have.
> View attachment 66921


Thats pretty dated and the data I saw


Czech_pivo said:


> Have to wonder if we'll be offered this as well.  The Ozzie's are getting reacquainted with the Motherland quite nicely recently whereas we are quickly going down the path of being that kid that is picked last to be on a team in gym class.











						BAE transfers warship design data to Australia
					

BAE is in the process of transferring two million digital artefacts and 90,000 documents about the UK’s Type 26 frigate to their Australian offering to support the construction of the Hunter Class f




					www.defenceconnect.com.au


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> Have to wonder if we'll be offered this as well.  The Ozzie's are getting reacquainted with the Motherland quite nicely recently whereas we are quickly going down the path of being that kid that is picked last to be on a team in gym class.


How do you know the data hasn't already been transferred?  It's not like our project offices are full of people who talk to the media, unlike apparently the Australian ones.  

Design transfers have quite a bit to do with manufacturing and construction.  Australia needs to toolup and reinvigorate their shipyard.  Ours is already going full tilt.

Its a nice story but I wouldn't read to much into it.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> How do you know the data hasn't already been transferred?  It's not like our project offices are full of people who talk to the media, unlike apparently the Australian ones.
> 
> Design transfers have quite a bit to do with manufacturing and construction.  Australia needs to toolup and reinvigorate their shipyard.  Ours is already going full tilt.
> 
> Its a nice story but I wouldn't read to much into it.


I always enjoy hearing your opinion or side of the story, brings a good balance.


----------



## AirDet

suffolkowner said:


> A short comment mostly on the VLS of the CSC in comparison to a select group, basically 32 or even 34 isnt too bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some Comments on CSC Armaments & Aussie Comparisons – Canadian Naval Review
> 
> 
> By Timothy Choi, 19 November 2021 Earlier this week, my fellow CNR colleague Dr. Dan Middlemiss published some thoughts on a latest report on the Australian Hunter class frigate program and what lessons they may impart for Canada.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalreview.ca


When I read the reference material in the above story it mentioned "the Medium Patrol Vessels". This is the first I've heard of this. are they referring to the MCDV replacement?


----------



## Underway

Coast guard build?


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> Coast guard build?


No mention at all.  I'm sticking with my belief that they don't get built (at least by Irving, lol). The stated timelines don't allow for it.


----------



## Kirkhill

> for each of the following programs, the AOPS program, the Off-shore Oceanographic Science Vessel, the Off-Shore Science Fisheries Vessels, the Canadian Surface Combatants, the Polar Icebreaker, the Program Icebreakers, and the Medium Patrol Vessels,



I think Mr. Blaney (Bellechasse-Les Etchemins-Lévis) may have misconstrued MPV, the ships allocated to Seaspan for the Coast Guard.  MPV does not stand for Medium Patrol Vessel.  It stands for Multi-Purpose Vessel.  Seaspan will be building up to 16 of them.









						Building Ships - Seaspan
					






					nss.seaspan.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Those will replace the 1100 class icebreaker/buoytenders


----------



## OceanBonfire

This week:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468272904194437142

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468272905649893384


----------



## Underway

This is good news!  PDR usually takes about 2 weeks to go over all the systems.  If they are at this stage that means that the design is ready for the review and will likely pass (its not like the PMO CSC will be surprised by anything they see).


----------



## dapaterson

Unless the awning over the flight deck for cocktail parties is missing.  That would bring the entire process to a grinding halt.


----------



## Lumber

dapaterson said:


> Unless the awning over the flight deck for cocktail parties is missing.  That would bring the entire process to a grinding halt.


Ummm... flight deck? <frantically checks notes...>


----------



## MTShaw

Big Spy-7 at Clear Air Force Station.



			https://www.defensenews.com/resizer/bct-YYm7cIsAfBfV9v9etyUHTp0=/1024x0/filters:format(jpg):quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/mco/67PLGUPAZVHMDBPQMMJWLLKOFE.jpg
		










						US Missile Defense Agency declares initial delivery of Long-Range Discrimination Radar in Alaska
					

The Alaska-based missile defense radar that can detect intercontinental ballistic missiles has reached initial fielding, the Missile Defense Agency declared in a Dec. 6 ceremony at Clear Air Force Station.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Good2Golf

There’s some nice EIRP right there!!!


----------



## suffolkowner

Full steam ahead: Why Canada's shipbuilding program oughtn't to be abandoned or cut | Macdonald-Laurier Institute
					

Richard Shimooka examines how the Canadian Surface Combatant program emerged, what its progress has been to date and why the outcomes are reasonable.




					www.macdonaldlaurier.ca
				




a decent write up on the process so far


----------



## Czech_pivo

suffolkowner said:


> Full steam ahead: Why Canada's shipbuilding program oughtn't to be abandoned or cut | Macdonald-Laurier Institute
> 
> 
> Richard Shimooka examines how the Canadian Surface Combatant program emerged, what its progress has been to date and why the outcomes are reasonable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.macdonaldlaurier.ca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a decent write up on the process so far


And here looks to be the counter point.  I don't have access behind the paywall so I'm aware of all that is being said.  If anyone else can post the complete article that would be great.









						Canada has no option but pivot away from current Surface Combatants path
					

This program alone could bankrupt DND's capital and maintenance accounts for the next 30 years. It could inhibit the Canadian Armed Forces from fulfilling its mandate.




					www.hilltimes.com


----------



## Navy_Pete

Czech_pivo said:


> And here looks to be the counter point.  I don't have access behind the paywall so I'm aware of all that is being said.  If anyone else can post the complete article that would be great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canada has no option but pivot away from current Surface Combatants path
> 
> 
> This program alone could bankrupt DND's capital and maintenance accounts for the next 30 years. It could inhibit the Canadian Armed Forces from fulfilling its mandate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hilltimes.com


Alan Williams has a bit of a bias; I think he was part of a losing bid. His previous op-eds were full of untruths and conjecture, so don't think you are missing much.

Have a lot of time for Richard Shimooka's articles though; always well researched and he makes a really good point. Changing options at this point would effectively leave us with no functional warships in 15 years and cost billions on CSC alone, and the reputational damage (to our already poor reputation on defence procurement) would cost a lot in any other major procurement as well.

NSS only kicked off because of a number of guarantees in the framework that protected the shipyards if we canceled projects or otherwise got cold feet, but I'm sure there are all kinds of 'risk premiums' built into any large procurement bids for the GoC.


----------



## Uzlu

Czech_pivo said:


> And here looks to be the counter point.


And here looks to be the counter to the counter point.



			https://www.navalassoc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Strategic-Shipbuilding-Choi.pdf


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> Alan Williams has a bit of a bias; I think he was part of a losing bid. His previous op-eds were full of untruths and conjecture, so don't think you are missing much.


He was also on record as saying, “just because we’re [Canada] joining the JSF Program doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to buy the JSF.”


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> He was also on record as saying, “just because we’re [Canada] joining the JSF Program doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to buy the JSF.”
> View attachment 67983


Well historically one can argue there is a long line of precedents...


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> He was also on record as saying, “just because we’re [Canada] joining the JSF Program doesn’t necessarily mean we’re going to buy the JSF.”


That is true actually.  You don't have to own the aircraft to be part of the program.  They are separate things.  I don't have to golf to be part of a golf club, just gotta pay the membership fee.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> That is true actually.  You don't have to own the aircraft to be part of the program.  They are separate things.  I don't have to golf to be part of a golf club, just gotta pay the membership fee.


True, but your membership vote is but one of many, and if the club votes overall to adjust rules of the club based on how the playing members in the majority want to operate the club and you don’t like the changes, you risk being told ‘whatever…you don’t even play’ and then you get to pound sand.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Good2Golf said:


> True, but your membership vote is but one of many, and if the club votes overall to adjust rules of the club based on how the playing members in the majority want to operate the club and you don’t like the changes, you risk being told ‘whatever…you don’t even play’ and then you get to pound sand.


I believe being part of the development process allowed Canadian  companies to provide components to the aircraft. Not sure what will happen if we don't buy any but there are some Canadian companies providing key systems as well as some sensors (metal detection in the oil?), and from the economic projections I remember seeing the economic benefits for that actually exceeded our JSF program costs by a lot.

If we don't buy any not sure if they will source another supplier out of the pool, but that would probably make sense.


----------



## Good2Golf

Navy_Pete said:


> I believe being part of the development process allowed Canadian  companies to provide components to the aircraft. Not sure what will happen if we don't buy any but there are some Canadian companies providing key systems as well as some sensors (metal detection in the oil?), and from the economic projections I remember seeing the economic benefits for that actually exceeded our JSF program costs by a lot.
> 
> If we don't buy any not sure if they will source another supplier out of the pool, but that would probably make sense.


The JSF Program reserved the right to adjust industrial involvement in a number of factors; direct program funding by Level 1,2 and 3 partners being but one factor, procurement impact is another.  Canada isn’t quite at Turkey buying an S-400 and getting turfed level, but without actually procuring the aircraft, there’s only so much value that the overall
program partners will allow Candian industry to benefit.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> This infrastructure will be critical in testing the new CSC ships’ combat systems and will ensure the new ships are sea-ready once delivered. As there are no existing facilities capable of supporting this type of testing for CSC in Canada, we are delivering this new, purpose-built testing facility to carry out this work as part of the CSC’s rigorous tests and trials program.














						Contract awarded to begin design work for Land-Based Testing Facility in Nova Scotia - Canada.ca
					

January 14, 2022 – Ottawa, Ontario – Department of National Defence / Canadian Armed Forces




					www.canada.ca
				





__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1482039350653337600


----------



## MilEME09

Hopefully once the CSC closes out it becomes a state if the art facility for testing all future naval systems and designs.


----------



## KevinB

MilEME09 said:


> Hopefully once the CSC closes out it becomes a state if the art facility for testing all future naval systems and designs.


Given what happened to LETE - which was a World Class Land System testing site -- I am sure it will be bulldozed and sold.


----------



## calculus

And meanwhile, our neighbours to the south are cutting steel on the Constellation class later this year: 









						U.S. Navy’s Constellation-Class: New Frigate to Start Construction This Year - Naval News
					

U.S. Navy provided updates on the Constellation-class Frigate program during the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2022 Symposium.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## MilEME09

calculus said:


> And meanwhile, our neighbours to the south are cutting steel on the Constellation class later this year:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Navy’s Constellation-Class: New Frigate to Start Construction This Year - Naval News
> 
> 
> U.S. Navy provided updates on the Constellation-class Frigate program during the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2022 Symposium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com


They also have larger yards, more design, and construction experience, etc....


----------



## Stoker

MilEME09 said:


> Hopefully once the CSC closes out it becomes a state if the art facility for testing all future naval systems and designs.



From what I understand it will also be used to trial ships coming out of refit and training.


----------



## Maxman1

calculus said:


> And meanwhile, our neighbours to the south are cutting steel on the Constellation class later this year:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Navy’s Constellation-Class: New Frigate to Start Construction This Year - Naval News
> 
> 
> U.S. Navy provided updates on the Constellation-class Frigate program during the Surface Navy Association (SNA) 2022 Symposium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalnews.com



One of which will be named _Chesapeake. _We should name one of the CSCs _Shannon. _There's even a Shannon, Quebec, just outside Valcartier, so it would still maintain Canadian frigate naming conventions.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Maxman1 said:


> One of which will be named _Chesapeake. _We should name one of the CSCs _Shannon. _There's even a Shannon, Quebec, just outside Valcartier, so it would still maintain Canadian frigate naming conventions.



Lol love it.


----------



## lenaitch

Jeez, didn't we back away from naming the new JSS Queenston and Chateauaguay because it was felt to be 'provocative' to our sensitive neighbour?


----------



## FSTO

lenaitch said:


> Jeez, didn't we back away from naming the new JSS Queenston and Chateauaguay because it was felt to be 'provocative' to our sensitive neighbour?


No, PM Harper was a fan of the War of 1812 and his office pushed for those names. The CRCN at the time was Ron Lloyd who pushed back due to his view that 1812 was a "British" War. That is a silly view IMO, but there is a large cohort in Canada who are of the opinion that everything that happened in the northern part of NA prior to 1867 is not part of our history.


----------



## MilEME09

Maxman1 said:


> One of which will be named _Chesapeake. _We should name one of the CSCs _Shannon. _There's even a Shannon, Quebec, just outside Valcartier, so it would still maintain Canadian frigate naming conventions.


Only if we also get HMCS Hanna, and it's ships crest will just be a photograph of Nickelback


----------



## Pelorus

To be fair they were also terrible names for ships.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

_HMS Pansy enters the chat_


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> _HMS Pansy enters the chat_


HMCS LBGTQQIP2SAA takes offense at HMS Pansy’s inferences.


----------



## NavyShooter

HMCS Boaty McBoatface....?


----------



## Halifax Tar

I like HMCS Indefatigable 

I just want to hear people try to say it in public briefings


----------



## Humphrey Bogart

FSTO said:


> No, PM Harper was a fan of the War of 1812 and his office pushed for those names. The CRCN at the time was Ron Lloyd who pushed back due to his view that 1812 was a "British" War. That is a silly view IMO, but there is a large cohort in Canada who are of the opinion that everything that happened in the northern part of NA prior to 1867 is not part of our history.


This is a real stupid view considering a substantial portion of the population in Canada are the ancestors of families that arrived here well before 1867.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Humphrey Bogart said:


> This is a real stupid view considering a substantial portion of the population in Canada are the ancestors of families that arrived here well before 1867.



It helps absolve one of any feelings of responsibility for anything happened prior to 1867 too


----------



## Gorgo

Well, if you want to go for "battle" names, you can't do better than choose fifteen from the following:

*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Batoche*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Paardeburg*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Gallipoli*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Arras*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Beaumont-Hamel*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Thiepval*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Vimy*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Arleux*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Passchendaele*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Hong Kong*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Dieppe*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Ortona*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Cassino*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Caen*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Falaise*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Rimini*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Scheldt*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Kap'yŏng*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Messines*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Festubert*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Givenchy*_
*Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Saint-Eloi*_


----------



## Czech_pivo

Gorgo said:


> Well, if you want to go for "battle" names, you can't do better than choose fifteen from the following:
> 
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Batoche*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Paardeburg*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Gallipoli*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Arras*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Beaumont-Hamel*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Thiepval*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Vimy*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Arleux*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Passchendaele*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Hong Kong*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Dieppe*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Ortona*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Cassino*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Caen*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Falaise*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Rimini*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Scheldt*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Kap'yŏng*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Messines*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Festubert*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Givenchy*_
> *Her Majesty's Canadian Ship *_*Saint-Eloi*_


Strike the first off the list.  Batoche would 'offend' our Indigenous/Metis Canadians.  I assume that we can't use HMCS Ridgeway in its place.....?


----------



## YZT580

Czech_pivo said:


> Strike the first off the list.  Batoche would 'offend' our Indigenous/Metis Canadians.  I assume that we can't use HMCS Ridgeway in its place.....?


Strike Gallipoli.  That was a disaster for everybody except the Turks.


----------



## tomydoom

YZT580 said:


> Strike Gallipoli.  That was a disaster for everybody except the Turks.


Add HMCS Groningen, I’m partial to that one. My daughter goes to university there and my grandfather fought there with the Fort Gary Horse.


----------



## Good2Golf

tomydoom said:


> Add HMCS Groningen, I’m partial to that one. My daughter goes to university there and my grandfather fought there with the Fort Gary Horse.


👍🏼 Several cousins-in-law there and my grandfather was there too with the Regina Rifles.


----------



## tomydoom

Good2Golf said:


> 👍🏼 Several cousins-in-law there and my grandfather was there too with the Regina Rifles.


I saw this on the side of a house in Groningen; when I was visiting my daughter. I found it moving that these sorts of small commemorations are relatively common in the Netherlands.

The inscription translated, “Here died on April 3, 1945 in a tank of The Fort Garry Horse Fred Butterswoth from Winnipeg Canada. He was the first of the more than 40 fallen liberators of our city to give his young life for our freedom”


----------



## Czech_pivo

tomydoom said:


> I saw this on the side of a house in Groningen; when I was visiting my daughter. I found it moving that these sorts of small commemorations are relatively common in the Netherlands.


 


tomydoom said:


> Add HMCS Groningen, I’m partial to that one. My daughter goes to university there and my grandfather fought there with the Fort Gary Horse.


I'm all for it and I'd add in HMCS Walcheren Island.


----------



## tomydoom

Czech_pivo said:


> I'm all for it and I'd add in HMCS Walcheren Island.


Works for me, now if we can sell it to the good idea fairies that lurk these forums.


----------



## Spencer100

I think naming after battles would be a nonstarter.

Better go with Flower class.  They have history and doesn't sound warlike. LOL

These were built in Canada Flower class corvettes. 

HMCS Windflower
HMCS Snowberry
HMCS Trillium
HMCS Mayflower
HMCS Mandrake
HMCS Willowherb
HMCS Hepatica
HMCS Spikenard
HMCS Fennel
HMCS Bittersweet
HMCS Camrose
HMCS Eyebright

These are the ones I found maybe more or different ones people like. I didn't look to see if they had Battle Honours or the like.  But I do like the connection to history.  I know that the CSC is not a Corvette.  But is the CSC even a frigate?  LOL


----------



## Czech_pivo

Spencer100 said:


> I think naming after battles would be a nonstarter.
> 
> Better go with Flower class.  They have history and doesn't sound warlike. LOL
> 
> These were built in Canada Flower class corvettes.
> 
> HMCS Windflower
> HMCS Snowberry
> HMCS Trillium
> HMCS Mayflower
> HMCS Mandrake
> HMCS Willowherb
> HMCS Hepatica
> HMCS Spikenard
> HMCS Fennel
> HMCS Bittersweet
> HMCS Camrose
> HMCS Eyebright
> 
> These are the ones I found maybe more or different ones people like. I didn't look to see if they had Battle Honours or the like.  But I do like the connection to history.  I know that the CSC is not a Corvette.  But is the CSC even a frigate?  LOL


What about HMCS Pansy?  
Mandrake! Love it.  A nod to Kubrick's movie 'Dr Strangelove'


----------



## tomydoom

Spencer100 said:


> I think naming after battles would be a nonstarter.
> 
> Better go with Flower class.  They have history and doesn't sound warlike. LOL
> 
> These were built in Canada Flower class corvettes.
> 
> HMCS Windflower
> HMCS Snowberry
> HMCS Trillium
> HMCS Mayflower
> HMCS Mandrake
> HMCS Willowherb
> HMCS Hepatica
> HMCS Spikenard
> HMCS Fennel
> HMCS Bittersweet
> HMCS Camrose
> HMCS Eyebright
> 
> These are the ones I found maybe more or different ones people like. I didn't look to see if they had Battle Honours or the like.  But I do like the connection to history.  I know that the CSC is not a Corvette.  But is the CSC even a frigate?  LOL


I thought Canadian operated flower class corvettes were all named after Canadian towns and cities?   Given the current political climate and Canadian destroyer naming convention, perhaps a new "Tribal Class" would be appropriate.  Have a revered member of each named band be the commissioning sponsor and the PR win for the Navy could be huge.


----------



## Stoker

tomydoom said:


> I thought Canadian operated flower class corvettes were all named after Canadian towns and cities?   Given the current political climate and Canadian destroyer naming convention, perhaps a new "Tribal Class" would be appropriate.  Have a revered member of each named band be the commissioning sponsor and the PR win for the Navy could be huge.


A new tribal class is being looked at, with updated names.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

YZT580 said:


> Strike Gallipoli.  That was a disaster for everybody except the Turks.


It was pretty brutal for the Turks as well, their causality rates were very high, plus British sub activity cost them a lot of shipping caused all sorts of shortages.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Stoker said:


> A new tribal class is being looked at, with updated names.


Hopefully not with the phonetic spelling that's common these days.


----------



## quadrapiper

tomydoom said:


> I thought Canadian operated flower class corvettes were all named after Canadian towns and cities?   Given the current political climate and Canadian destroyer naming convention, perhaps a new "Tribal Class" would be appropriate.  Have a revered member of each named band be the commissioning sponsor and the PR win for the Navy could be huge.


And it has the same happy bonus as City or River class names as far as spreading ship's namesakes around the country. Now, whether or not a ship makes like CALGARY and digs into that identity is a whole other question...

Using flower or plant names would be interesting for the same reason, though without the same ability to link with a specific population, as well as the historical precedent. Maybe for MCDV 2.0 or similar?


----------



## Spencer100

tomydoom said:


> I thought Canadian operated flower class corvettes were all named after Canadian towns and cities?   Given the current political climate and Canadian destroyer naming convention, perhaps a new "Tribal Class" would be appropriate.  Have a revered member of each named band be the commissioning sponsor and the PR win for the Navy could be huge.


Those were the names I found built in Canada and with a HMCS assigned to them. 

I would love Tribal Class.  But reading the tea leaves of the current climate it would be a nonstarter too. I would think some or most of the bands would be interested.   But you would be a in minefield.  Would you get the hereditary chiefs to agree or the elected?  Plus it would disrupt the current narrative.   First Nations as warship names!  I can see the people at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada fainting now.  LOL


----------



## Colin Parkinson

The Band would be very much interested and would want it, your correct that the PC crowd that tries to convince me that FN did not have warfare or slavery would be horrified.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin Parkinson said:


> It was pretty brutal for the Turks as well, their causality rates were very high, plus British sub activity cost them a lot of shipping caused all sorts of shortages.



Around 50 Newfoundlanders are burried there as well.  Little known. 

We visited their graves and did a small ceremony for them while in Istanbul on TOR in 2007. 

Did the same for some Canadians burried in Chania Crete as well while on FRE in 2016.


----------



## Happy Guy

KevinB said:


> Given what happened to LETE - which was a World Class Land System testing site -- I am sure it will be bulldozed and sold.


When I was at AM(MAT) in the mid 2000s, the CAF had access to this facilities even though it is now owned and controlled by the RCMP;  in fact we ran a major Armoured Vehicle trial there.  

From what I was told LETE used to be in the middle of no where.  The developers, while knowing that this was a test facility started building homes around it.  The inevitable happened.   The neighbours would complain about the loud noise, trembling ground and smoke that things like Leopards tanks, LAVs, Gizzlies, Bisons and other vehicles would make especially tests that would run late into the evening.  LETE would try to cooperate and keep the noise levels down and testing within normal business hours, however if your backyard is within 30 metres or less, of the track and a Leopard is rumbling on the test track, it would be noisy, the ground would shake and the diesel fumes would linger.
The neighbours would complain to their local MP.  The MP would drive pass the test facility everyday and see nothing happening on the outside while not realizing that extensive tests were being performed inside the facilities and out of sight from the  public.  This local Liberal MP started making inquiries and with the Liberal Government, who were in power, eventually shut down the facility.

IMO :

the Army lost a world class engineering facility with highly educated civilian and military staff centred in one place.  We would be reliant on paying money for access to other engineering facilities or having contractors perform the tests.  For example the Canadian Army would use the United States Army Aberdeen proving grounds in Maryland, USA.  You can imagine access to this ground would be difficult as we are not considered a priority for the Americans unless the equipment to be tested would be of great interest to them.  There are the TD costs, security clearances and so forth.
the local city planning council is at fault for letting developers build houses too close to the test facility.
the local MP, who made political points for his/her constituents without understanding, and there I say not caring, about the long term consequences to the CAF
the Canadian Army will not build another facility like LETE again.  Besides the initial large cost, there is an issue of where to build, the need to attract and retain talent and the general lack of will by the Canadian Army senior leadership to support a LETE like facility.

I do not blame the senior military authorities at the time for I'm sure that they tried to do their best.   They were facing a rather a hostile political environment, uncaring public towards the military, and a declining military budget.  

I think that the RCMP still owes and maintains these facilities and the CAF still has access to it.  I hope that the RCMP do not lose it.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> Those were the names I found built in Canada and with a HMCS assigned to them.
> 
> I would love Tribal Class.  But reading the tea leaves of the current climate it would be a nonstarter too. I would think some or most of the bands would be interested.   But you would be a in minefield.  Would you get the hereditary chiefs to agree or the elected?  Plus it would disrupt the current narrative.   First Nations as warship names!  I can see the people at Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada fainting now.  LOL


Having served on the 280s there was a connection with the actual band which was pretty neat.  I suspect if we (GoC) put out a call to the AFN for tribal bands that would like to participate we would have far more volunteers then ships. I suspect that came after the ships were named, but it was pretty interesting none the less. The only downside was that the actual FN community was generally far away from the coast, so it was usually only the Command Team that got to actually visit the FN for the different community events.

At least with the CPFs the names had a history from previous namesakes that it wasn't so embarrassing how non-fighty the names are or how lame the ships crests are.

With the previous Tribal ships you have battle honours from WW2 and also the 280s history, and some neat artifacts currently gathering dust in the museum that could be brought on board. Lots of great options we could bring back for the CSCs.

As an aside, personnally have yet to meet anyone from the INAC side that wasn't an oxygen thief to date, but maybe they just assign their deadweight to work with DND files.


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:


> Having served on the 280s there was a connection with the actual band which was pretty neat.  I suspect if we (GoC) put out a call to the AFN for tribal bands that would like to participate we would have far more volunteers then ships. I suspect that came after the ships were named, but it was pretty interesting none the less. The only downside was that the actual FN community was generally far away from the coast, so it was usually only the Command Team that got to actually visit the FN for the different community events.
> 
> At least with the CPFs the names had a history from previous namesakes that it wasn't so embarrassing how non-fighty the names are or how lame the ships crests are.
> 
> With the previous Tribal ships you have battle honours from WW2 and also the 280s history, and some neat artifacts currently gathering dust in the museum that could be brought on board. Lots of great options we could bring back for the CSCs.
> 
> As an aside, personnally have yet to meet anyone from the INAC side that wasn't an oxygen thief to date, but maybe they just assign their deadweight to work with DND files.


Ok I still don't think it could fly.  I have seen the homework my kids have been bring home over the last 20 years (age 32 to 13)  The PMO and Minister offices are run by 20 and 30 year olds who would look a project of naming warships after FN's and their heads would burst open. But anyways....

So we have 7 former Tribal class WWII RCN names plus two RN names that are Canadian.
Iroquois
Athabaskan
Huron
Micmac
Nootka
Cayuga
Haida (Used for the National Flagship) 

In RN service
Mohawk 
Eskimo (this one would not work for obvious reasons ) 

Two more RCN V class 
Algonquin (also a 280 class)
Sioux

So we would need two or three more.  There are a couple stone frigates with names that would work also. 

This was a quick search for FN related names to the RCN.  I like the idea of reusing names with some history. I could have missed a name or two that would work.


----------



## ringo

CSC likely to be province and perhaps territory names IMHO.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Spencer100 said:


> Ok I still don't think it could fly.  I have seen the homework my kids have been bring home over the last 20 years (age 32 to 13)  The PMO and Minister offices are run by 20 and 30 year olds who would look a project of naming warships after FN's and their heads would burst open. But anyways....
> 
> So we have 7 former Tribal class WWII RCN names plus two RN names that are Canadian.
> Iroquois
> Athabaskan
> Huron
> Micmac
> Nootka
> Cayuga
> Haida (Used for the National Flagship)
> 
> In RN service
> Mohawk
> Eskimo (this one would not work for obvious reasons )
> 
> Two more RCN V class
> Algonquin (also a 280 class)
> Sioux
> 
> So we would need two or three more.  There are a couple stone frigates with names that would work also.
> 
> This was a quick search for FN related names to the RCN.  I like the idea of reusing names with some history. I could have missed a name or two that would work.


HMCS Seneca 
HMCS Chippewa
HMCS Cree


----------



## Thumper81

I can see them reusing the Steamer's names (St. Laurent, Mackenzie, Restigouche, Fraser, etc.).  Basically Canadian rivers.


----------



## dapaterson

Or just name them after common infractions against the NDA.

HMCS Absent without Authority
HMCS Abuse of Authority
HMCS Conduct to the Prejudice of the Good Order and Discipline
HMCS Insubordinate Behaviour
HMCS Scandalous Conduct by Officers
HMCS Drunkenness


----------



## Dana381

We should take from the brits and use cool names that sound tough.

HMCS Conqueror
HMCS Indomitable
HMCS Cyclops
HMCS Furious
HMCS Majestic
HMCS Vampire
HMCS Formidable
HMCS Repulse
HMCS Sirius
HMCS Victory
HMCS Warspite
HMCS Adversary
HMCS Agressor
HMCS Banshee
HMCS Bayonet

And they even have one we can name in honour of Tredeau, HMCS Cuckoo


----------



## Halifax Tar

A bit too aggressive for Canadians @Dana381 

How about: 

HMCS Double Double
HMCS Sorry about that eh 
HMCS No Doot Aboot it


----------



## Maxman1

ringo said:


> CSC likely to be province and perhaps territory names IMHO.



Cruisers were named after provinces, such as HMCS _Ontario_ (formerly HMS _Minotaur_) and HMCS _Quebec_ (formerly HMCS _Uganda_, formerly HMS _Uganda_).


----------



## Spencer100

New idea.  Name them after Liberal pols and big supporters.  That way they get built!  I never understand why CAF never uses their hubris for their own good.  

HMCS Trudeau 
HMCS Copps
HMCS Martin
The important one HMCS Butts 
HMCS Desmarais
etc


----------



## MilEME09

Why not call it the honorary class, then name them after who ever donates the most? Might be a great way to make up for budget issues.

HMCS Scotia bank sounds Okay /sarcasm


----------



## Good2Golf

Halifax Tar said:


> A bit too aggressive for Canadians @Dana381
> 
> How about:
> 
> HMCS Double Double
> HMCS Sorry about that eh
> HMCS No Doot Aboot it


Don’t forget:

HMCS Oh Fuck Yah Buddy
HMCS Out For A Rip Are You Dare Bud


----------



## Edward Campbell

Maxman1 said:


> Cruisers were named after provinces, such as HMCS _Ontario_ (formerly HMS _Minotaur_) and HMCS _Quebec_ (formerly HMCS _Uganda_, formerly HMS _Uganda_).


Well, at 7,800 tons the CSCs are damned near as big as _Ontario_ and _Quebec_ (8,800 tons).


----------



## tomydoom

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t forget:
> 
> HMCS Oh Fuck Yah Buddy
> HMCS Out For A Rip Are You Dare Bud


Can’t leave out:

HMCS Just Giver
HMCS Lard Tunderin


----------



## quadrapiper

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t forget:
> 
> HMCS Out For A Rip Are You Dare Bud


Sure that one shouldn't be an RCMP hull?


----------



## Spencer100

MilEME09 said:


> Why not call it the honorary class, then name them after who ever donates the most? Might be a great way to make up for budget issues.
> 
> HMCS Scotia bank sounds Okay /sarcasm


Funny thing is I remember an editorial in the G&M in the 80's during the nuclear sub debate suggesting just that.  Get sponsors and sell naming rights etc. Ok lets go one step further privateers.  

USNI Proceedings put it out there.....Letters of marque!









						Unleash the Privateers!
					

The threat of privateers to China’s maritime economy could strengthen deterrence and possibly prevent a war.




					www.usni.org


----------



## JMCanada

Spencer100 said:


> USNI Proceedings put it out there.....Letters of marque!



The article is dated in april,... maybe the first? 😀😉

After reading "Deniability versus Utility:  China’s Maritime Militia", from the Naval Association of Canada (NAC) here, i bet that they are in a better position for privateering.


----------



## Spencer100

JMCanada said:


> The article is dated in april,... maybe the first? 😀😉
> 
> After reading "Deniability versus Utility:  China’s Maritime Militia", from the Naval Association of Canada (NAC) here, i bet that they are in a better position for privateering.


Damn I didn't think of that...You all most had me, I even went back to double check....I didn't want egg on my face....wouldn't be the first time.   Nope even referenced.

Probably true about China and the Maritime Militia.  Anyone else get the feeling we are totally getting out maneuvered?  Between China, Russia and everyone else?


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> A bit too aggressive for Canadians @Dana381
> 
> How about:
> 
> HMCS Double Double
> HMCS Sorry about that eh
> HMCS No Doot Aboot it


HMCS Take 20% Off There Bud
HMCS Lets goferarip

But if you are going for intimidating names maybe we could ask the British if was can use HMS Cockchaffer.  I just shudder to think how irritating that ship might be.


----------



## Underway

Also something no one is talking aboot... that 3D model of the CSC only has 30 VLS (24 mk 41, 6 ExLS).

_ducks for cover_


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> Also something no one is talking aboot... that 3D model of the CSC only has 30 VLS (24 mk 41, 6 ExLS).
> 
> _ducks for cover_


By the time they are built it will FBNW vls.


----------



## Good2Golf

Spencer100 said:


> By the time they are built it will FBNW vls.


👍🏼 Only two sets bought, one for each coast’s Duty Ready Ship…


----------



## JMCanada

I still can't subscribe it would not be possible to get either one more mk41 VLS (8 cells) or 24 additional CAMM in the fore position like the Hunter-class or the City-class.


----------



## Maxman1

MilEME09 said:


> Why not call it the honorary class, then name them after who ever donates the most? Might be a great way to make up for budget issues.
> 
> HMCS Scotia bank sounds Okay /sarcasm



HMCS _Raid Shadow Legends_


----------



## Underway

JMCanada said:


> View attachment 68157View attachment 68158
> I still can't subscribe it would not be possible to get either one more mk41 VLS (8 cells) or 24 additional CAMM in the fore position like the Hunter-class or the City-class.


I think the australians are having the same difficulty we are with space and margins.  The CSC is being jammed full to the brim with gear.  They are packing a cruisers worth of equipment in there and are adding capability beyond the UK version.

For example the UK Type 26 doesn't have a ship-launched ASW torpedo tube (which I pointed out three years ago and was dismissed as "that's crazy").  The UK tactics are to exclusively use helicopters and submarines to hunt enemy subs.  Which makes sense given their force structure. 

We however can't afford an aircraft carrier or nuclear subs to go around with our TG, so need an alternative.  Which means someone's mess or a magazine is getting cut in half to cram in two torpedo tubes, racks for the torpedos and two cranes to load it, that the UK doesn't have to worry about.

Which cuts into margins everywhere.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> I think the australians are having the same difficulty we are with space and margins.  The CSC is being jammed full to the brim with gear.  They are packing a cruisers worth of equipment in there and are adding capability beyond the UK version.
> 
> For example the UK Type 26 doesn't have a ship-launched ASW torpedo tube (which I pointed out three years ago and was dismissed as "that's crazy").  The UK tactics are to exclusively use helicopters and submarines to hunt enemy subs.  Which makes sense given their force structure.
> 
> We however can't afford an aircraft carrier or nuclear subs to go around with our TG, so need an alternative.  Which means someone's mess or a magazine is getting cut in half to cram in two torpedo tubes, racks for the torpedos and two cranes to load it, that the UK doesn't have to worry about.
> 
> Which cuts into margins everywhere.


At 3 metres and 400 tons less than flights 1 and 2 of the Burke class destroyers, how much less (or more?) weaponry will the CSC have than those Burke's? And at those small size differences why are we not calling them destroyers?


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> At 3 metres and 400 tons less than flights 1 and 2 of the Burke class destroyers, how much less (or more?) weaponry will the CSC have than those Burke's? And at those small size differences why are we not calling them destroyers?


"Destroyers"  I think you can answer that yourself.    They are "Peacekeeping" floaty things! 

Although the terms destroyer, frigate, cruiser, corvette seem to be almost meaningless.  The USN new Destroyer design looks to be 14,000 tons. The PLAN 055 are 13,000.  The SK and Japanese are over 10,000 tons.  Plus Japanese a few destroyers look surprising flat on top.  The new Italian design DDX is going to be over 11,000 too. We are seeing OPV/ corvettes over 3000 tons. Frigates are going to 8,000 tons.  It is all over the map.  And then don't get me on LCS, its a "small" ship at over 3000 tons.  

Italian DDX

USN DDG(X)

PLAN 055


So by the CSC is in the water I guess 8000 tons will be "frigate" size.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Spencer100 said:


> "Destroyers"  I think you can answer that yourself.    They are "Peacekeeping" floaty things!
> 
> Although the terms destroyer, frigate, cruiser, corvette seem to be almost meaningless.  The USN new Destroyer design looks to be 14,000 tons. The PLAN 055 are 13,000.  The SK and Japanese are over 10,000 tons.  Plus Japanese a few destroyers look surprising flat on top.  The new Italian design DDX is going to be over 11,000 too. We are seeing OPV/ corvettes over 3000 tons. Frigates are going to 8,000 tons.  It is all over the map.  And then don't get me on LCS, its a "small" ship at over 3000 tons.
> 
> Italian DDX
> View attachment 68160
> USN DDG(X)
> View attachment 68161
> PLAN 055
> View attachment 68162
> 
> So by the CSC is in the water I guess 8000 tons will be "frigate" size.


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> At 3 metres and 400 tons less than flights 1 and 2 of the Burke class destroyers, how much less (or more?) weaponry will the CSC have than those Burke's? And at those small size differences why are we not calling them destroyers?


Few things, Flight 1 burkes didn't have a hanger.  Secondly burkes were designed to for their very heavy radar to be on 01 deck not in a mast.  That changes things.  And its not weapons, its all the equipment that is bulking CSC out.

As for naming conventions, they are only still called CSC right now. The class hasn't been decided upon.  Besides ships are classified for their ROLE, not their size.  Though politics does play a part (see US reclassing of the Tico's as a weird example).

Their role is, well multi-role.  They aren't specialized. Which generally falls under the frigate classification.  Also, the UK and Australia are labeling theirs as frigates.  Call them whatever you like.  It doesn't actually matter. Helicopter destroyers are aircraft carriers.  Dutch AAW frigates are destroyers.  Norwegian AAW frigates are frigates.  Capability matters not names.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

I would add to the above that, if you have ever been on an Arleigh Burke, it is pretty clear that they designed the hull with the weapons and sensors in mind, first. Then they crammed crew accommodations in around that.

I think the T26 is probably different in that respect.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> I would add to the above that, if you have ever been on an Arleigh Burke, it is pretty clear that they designed the hull with the weapons and sensors in mind, first. Then they crammed crew accommodations in around that.
> 
> I think the T26 is probably different in that respect.


It is VERY different in that respect I can confirm.


----------



## calculus

There is tremendous pressure on right now to get steel cut in 2024, so minimizing changes to the basic design is one way to crash the schedule. However, this is a 20+ year project, so it is not unreasonable to expect that follow-on batches of ships will differ (perhaps dramatically) from the ships of Batch 1. We know the RCN would like to have 32 Mk41s, as they published information to that effect, so presumably some effort will be spent looking into the feasibility of adding another 8 cells during the design of the Batch 2 ships.

I don't think this story is completely written yet...


----------



## Maxman1

Spencer100 said:


> "Destroyers"  I think you can answer that yourself.    They are "Peacekeeping" floaty things!
> 
> Although the terms destroyer, frigate, cruiser, corvette seem to be almost meaningless.  The USN new Destroyer design looks to be 14,000 tons. The PLAN 055 are 13,000.  The SK and Japanese are over 10,000 tons.  Plus Japanese a few destroyers look surprising flat on top.  The new Italian design DDX is going to be over 11,000 too. We are seeing OPV/ corvettes over 3000 tons. Frigates are going to 8,000 tons.  It is all over the map.  And then don't get me on LCS, its a "small" ship at over 3000 tons.
> 
> Italian DDX
> View attachment 68160



I've seen the Italian design referred to as a cruiser.


----------



## quadrapiper

SeaKingTacco said:


> I would add to the above that, if you have ever been on an Arleigh Burke, it is pretty clear that they designed the hull with the weapons and sensors in mind, first. Then they crammed crew accommodations in around that.
> 
> I think the T26 is probably different in that respect.


Then if memory serves crammed several more generations of kit into the hull.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maxman1 said:


> I've seen the Italian design referred to as a cruiser.











						Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery
					

Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## calculus

calculus said:


> There is tremendous pressure on right now to get steel cut in 2024, so minimizing changes to the basic design is one way to crash the schedule. However, this is a 20+ year project, so it is not unreasonable to expect that follow-on batches of ships will differ (perhaps dramatically) from the ships of Batch 1. We know the RCN would like to have 32 Mk41s, as they published information to that effect, so presumably some effort will be spent looking into the feasibility of adding another 8 cells during the design of the Batch 2 ships.
> 
> I don't think this story is completely written yet...


And stuff like this article is why the Navy wants to get things going as soon as possible, and is thus willing to sacrifice some capability in the name of speed:

Achieving a Cost-Effective Fleet in a Decade – Canadian Naval Review


----------



## Czech_pivo

calculus said:


> And stuff like this article is why the Navy wants to get things going as soon as possible, and is thus willing to sacrifice some capability in the name of speed:
> 
> Achieving a Cost-Effective Fleet in a Decade – Canadian Naval Review


_Construction of a new fleet of 15 frigates was estimated to cost $26.2 billion in 2008, it is now expected to cost as much as $82B, according to an analysis by the PBO._

That price of 82$b is completely offside when the phase 'construction of a new fleet' - correction, it should say 82$b for the entire life cycle of 40yrs for the 15 ships, n'cest pas?


----------



## Spencer100

Czech_pivo said:


> _Construction of a new fleet of 15 frigates was estimated to cost $26.2 billion in 2008, it is now expected to cost as much as $82B, according to an analysis by the PBO._
> 
> That price of 82$b is completely offside when the phase 'construction of a new fleet' - correction, it should say 82$b for the entire life cycle of 40yrs for the 15 ships, n'cest pas?


The entire CAF needs to get smart about things.  They need to break up the cost announcements.  I understand that is the way accounting is done in the government.  But you don't have to advertise it that way.  Break the cost up for the press releases. Couple of points.  The program is so long the total cost estimates are a fairytale.  Plus no one at the start of the program will be around at the end to be held accountable anyways.  

I do believe this is one of the major problems with procurement.  The numbers are so big everyone needs a say.  Make the numbers smaller.  This what hurt the F35.  The numbers are huge.  Plus people see 200 million a plane.  Cost is now approx. 80US.    

With the CSC people will 80 Billion for 15 ships.  That's over 5 billion a ship. They will then google cost of USN destroyer and see 1.5 to 2.  And say we can 2 Burkes with some money leftover.   That will total amount of digging anyone will do.  They will then call for the program to be cancelled or changed.

One more point.  After watching from afar over my lifetime.  Would it not be better in some way for the CAF to get over the dislike of "micro" fleets and just buy a bunch more of things in much smaller batches than have nothing at all?  Would not 5 - 10 AA systems be better than none?  3 fleets of 20 fighters than one of old or never to see new? etc.  I do understand most CAF fleets are small to begin with, and the smaller the fleet the higher the cost in training, maintenance etc.  Stop Canadianizing would help here. (one more advantage is that a problem with one system does ground everything) But right now the way things are is not working.  my two cents.


----------



## Underway

CAF doesn't do cost announcements.  The government does.  CAF is there to smile and look happy we are getting ships.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> CAF doesn't do cost announcements.  The government does.  CAF is there to smile and look happy we are getting ships.


OK but the CAF and DND does have accountants that could at least do a "backgrounder" or breakup the total cost structure and say it is this much this year and it over 20 years etc.  They can do that..


----------



## Stoker

Czech_pivo said:


> _Construction of a new fleet of 15 frigates was estimated to cost $26.2 billion in 2008, it is now expected to cost as much as $82B, according to an analysis by the PBO._
> 
> That price of 82$b is completely offside when the phase 'construction of a new fleet' - correction, it should say 82$b for the entire life cycle of 40yrs for the 15 ships, n'cest pas?


That's a very poor article especially when it quotes the 30 Billion for the FREMM when the PBO itself said over 70 Billion when everything included. As well the 26.2 Billion that everybody loves to quote was only a placeholder when they didn't know the design or capabilities.


----------



## calculus

Czech_pivo said:


> _Construction of a new fleet of 15 frigates was estimated to cost $26.2 billion in 2008, it is now expected to cost as much as $82B, according to an analysis by the PBO._
> 
> That price of 82$b is completely offside when the phase 'construction of a new fleet' - correction, it should say 82$b for the entire life cycle of 40yrs for the 15 ships, n'cest pas?


The $82 Billion (or $56-60 Billion, depending on who you believe) is the _Capital _cost to build the ships and associated infrastructure (including improvements to existing infrastructure). It also includes all design costs, training costs (including new infrastructure), and documentation. Initial weapons loadouts are included. I believe (might be wrong) it also includes salaries, POL, and other supplies required to get the first of class _to IOC_. There are probably other items I have missed. What is not included are the _Operating _costs for the life of the fleet, which I believe were estimated by PMO to be in the $200 Billion range, out to the "mid 2070s". So, the total cost of this program is nothing to sneeze at, and could easily exceed $300 Billion if we ad in some extra Capital for mid-life refits. Those costs are spread out over at least 30 (and more likely 40) years, however, which is very important context when explaining these things to the average politician...


----------



## Maxman1

Colin Parkinson said:


> Italy plans new destroyers for 2028 delivery
> 
> 
> Fresh from a burst of shipbuilding spurred by the retirement of old vessels, the Italian Navy is now back at the drawing board to design what it considers the cornerstone of its fleet — new destroyers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com


 
It was more of a "it's a cruiser in everything but name" type of remarks.

I still find it a bit odd most navies seem so averse to classifying ships as cruisers.


----------



## Underway

Maxman1 said:


> It was more of a "it's a cruiser in everything but name" type of remarks.
> 
> I still find it a bit odd most navies seem so averse to classifying ships as cruisers.


Cruisers are a name that no longer makes sense because they had a very specific job.  They were to sail around quickly (cruise) and destroy enemy merchant shipping.  Run away from anything else basically.  As such they had large engines, good guns and were lightly armoured.  That surface raider role is not the job of aircraft and submarines.

Battlecruisers were overgunned, underarmoured ships that were designed to outfight anything they couldn't outrun. In practice, looking back on history they were a good class for colonialism (strategic mobility, powerful enough to suppress colonial holdings) but a bad class for peer warfare.  HMS Hood was a battlecruiser.  Eventually the battlecruiser and dreadnought evolved into one class the fast battleship.  See how Hood did against a proper fast battleship the Bismark (yes I know there is more to the story, I'm using the example as shorthand).

By the end of WW2 Cruisers were basically AAW ships to escort carriers (most ships were AAW to escort carriers by the end of the war in the Pacific, it was not restricted to cruisers) and a few were used to continue on colonial ways.

Today modern destroyers (which have grown away from their torpedo boat/sub killing role to be replaced by frigates) have taken the AAW/CIC role away from "cruisers".  As such cruisers are mainly a dead class, like battleships, with only a few holdouts kicking around.  Because the role that cruisers filled (cruising) no longer exists.

However, the role for frigates (ASW, general purpose) and the role for destroyers (AAW, Command and Control) still does.  Hence why they are the most common classes.  So its not that navies are adverse to the name, its that the role for cruisers is gone, so you don't need to build one. Just like the role for battleships is gone.


----------



## JMCanada

I would like to revert to eighteen century nomenclature and classify the ships according to their number of guns VLS:
Ticos  (122) would be 1st rate
Burkes (90-96) would be 2nd rate
Constellation (32) ... frigates / 5th rate

of course, Harpoons and NSM do not add, ... they're like the carronades.
Very simplistic... I know... lol.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

JMCanada said:


> I would like to revert to eighteen century nomenclature and classify the ships according to their number of guns VLS:
> Ticos  (122) would be 1st rate
> Burkes (90-96) would be 2nd rate
> Constellation (32) ... frigates / 5th rate
> 
> of course, Harpoons and NSM do not add, ... they're like the carronades.
> Very simplistic... I know... lol.


Jack Aubrey/Patrick O’Brien fan?


----------



## JMCanada

SeaKingTacco said:


> Jack Aubrey/Patrick O’Brien fan?


Not really, I'm from Spain, descendant of garlic-eaters Dons,...
I'm fan of Naval History, but have another perspective 😉

"Tu regere imperio fluctus, Hispane memento"
[ Spain, remember, you (once) ruled the waves. ]


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> Jack Aubrey/Patrick O’Brien fan?


C.S. Forester


----------



## calculus

Underway said:


> C.S. Forester


_The Ship. _Quite relevant to your cruiser discussion a few posts ago.


----------



## Halifax Tar

calculus said:


> _The Ship. _Quite relevant to your cruiser discussion a few posts ago.



Excellent book.


----------



## Furniture

Maxman1 said:


> HMCS _Raid Shadow Legends_


I was not ready for that when I scrolled past... I'm still laughing.


----------



## calculus

Interesting (and relevant to CSC) piece on the U.S. future Constellation class, and the dangers and advantages of modifying a "parent" design. 









						For Navy's new frigate, design changes carry risks and rewards - Breaking Defense
					

Analysts say straying too far from a parent design can cause problems, but so can being too faithful to it.




					breakingdefense.com


----------



## Dana381

Lockheed demonstrates the integration of SPY-7 into Aegis for Japan - Naval News
					

Lockheed Martin completed a successful demonstration of AN/SPY-7(v)1 radar integration into Aegis Weapon System of Japan.




					www.navalnews.com
				




It's good to see progress being made on the SPY-7. The detractors were claiming we were fielding a brand new radar system and predicted a long teething period. Hopefully with these tests done for Japan it will smooth out the wrinkles for the CSC


----------



## calculus

Possible headwinds in Australia for the Hunter class program:


----------



## JMCanada

Hunter-class frigate report indicates Australian naval shipbuilding in disarray | The Strategist
					

The latest revelations about the Royal Australian Navy’s Hunter-class frigates confirm much of what we knew about the problems besetting the program, but add a level of granularity far beyond the general admissions made by ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au
				




(...)
Unfortunately, the exit report indicates that the design is far from coherent. We’ve known that the substantial modifications that Defence imposed on what was an immature design to start with have driven substantial problems. First among these is a growth in the size of the vessel from around 8,000 tonnes to over 10,000 tonnes. The laws of physics mean that if you increase the size of the vessel by 25% without increasing the power plant, performance will suffer. The exit report puts some detail around that, stating that ‘maximum speed will be lower than comparable RAN surface combatants’ and the vessel will face ‘increased fuel consumption and running costs’.

Lack of power also has a direct impact on warfighting capability, with the commander needing to ‘prioritise power allocation to either the CEAFAR2 radar or the propulsion system depending on the ship’s operational requirements’. In the middle of a fight when you need to go fast and run your radar at full power to detect incoming missiles, you can’t do both. The list of problems goes on, suggesting that ultimately a feasible ship design may not be possible.

The future frigate selection process was meant to pick a mature design that was in the water and in service. Instead, it picked an immature design as its reference ship (the UK’s Type 26 frigate) that had barely started construction and was far from being in the water, let alone in service. The government also agreed to five major changes to the design, including installing the Australian-made CEAFAR radar and the US Aegis combat system. There’s no such thing as a completely off-the-shelf warship design, but the point of picking a mature, in-service design is to minimise changes and the technical and schedule risks that accompany them. Instead, the path Defence has taken has generated risks that are now being realised.

One key irony is that the now-cancelled Attack-class submarine program had completed its system functional review (...) and was ready to commence detailed design. In essence, the Attack class was considerably more mature than the Hunter (...).


----------



## calculus

Here is a an interesting breakdown of the cost of the USN's missiles: 









						Here Is What Each Of The Navy's Ship-Launched Missiles Actually Costs
					

Arming America's fleet of fighting ships is an extremely expensive endeavor.




					www.thedrive.com
				




That gives a somewhat good idea of the costs of outfitting CSC, though those costs are not FMS costs, so expect us to pay more. Don't know how much Sea Ceptor is, however, so that little bit of the puzzle is still to be determined.


----------



## Happy Guy

A good article (dated 12 Oct 2021) in French from the respected French newspaper, Le Figaro, about the chances of Canada buying French submarines.  From what I've read and think that I understand : almost nil because Canada has a history of buying arms/equipment from the American and British.  In addition, Canada doesn't have the defence budget to buy submarines.

Canada : le fiasco des sous-marins vendus par les Britanniques a laissé des traces


----------



## Czech_pivo

Happy Guy said:


> A good article (dated 12 Oct 2021) in French from the respected French newspaper, Le Figaro, about the chances of Canada buying French submarines.  From what I've read and think that I understand : almost nil because Canada has a history of buying arms/equipment from the American and British.  In addition, Canada doesn't have the defence budget to buy submarines.
> 
> Canada : le fiasco des sous-marins vendus par les Britanniques a laissé des traces


_Canada doesn't have the defence budget to buy submarines, fighters, ships, anti-tank weapons, air-defence weapons, artillery, marine helicopters, personal weapons._


----------



## Czech_pivo

Happy Guy said:


> A good article (dated 12 Oct 2021) in French from the respected French newspaper, Le Figaro, about the chances of Canada buying French submarines.  From what I've read and think that I understand : almost nil because Canada has a history of buying arms/equipment from the American and British.  In addition, Canada doesn't have the defence budget to buy submarines.
> 
> Canada : le fiasco des sous-marins vendus par les Britanniques a laissé des traces


Related to the above.  Whatever happened to Trudeau and Macron meeting face to face as the French Ambassador to Canada was requesting back in the October timeframe?  I guess that request fell on deaf ears in Trudeau's Ottawa.

Here's the link to the above question that I had.  Turns out that the dates are the exact same - 12 Oct









						Google News
					

Comprehensive up-to-date news coverage, aggregated from sources all over the world by Google News.




					news.google.com


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Maybe if they offered pink/rainbow painted, trans-gendered submarines, manned by liberal Voters?


----------



## Happy Guy

I believe that in general Liberal and NDP voters do not serve in the CAF as it : goes against their principle of non violence;  they can no longer be oblivious to threats to the country; hinders their wishful thinking that singing "kum ba yah" will bring peace and unity to the world; and being forced to be reminded of promises like a peacekeeping force for UN ops.

To be fair, I think that most of the MPs, MPPs (all political parties) have never served in the CAF or in law enforcement and are generally ignorant of national security issues except of those topical problems that strove them to be elected in the first place. Erin O'Toole was a rare, modern MP who served in the CAF. LGen (Ret'd) Leslie and LCol (Ret'd) McCrimmon were recent two MPs that came to mind.

I am not sure that a Conservative Gov't would support the purchase of submarines simply due to huge cost given the myriad of other costly and necessary defence equipment that needs to be procured.  If they did buy submarines, what defence purchases would they be forced cut for budgetary reasons -  We will soon face massive budgetary pressures with the debt incurred by COVID spending:  Long range patrol aircraft replacement?  Ice Breakers for the Coast Guard? Satellites?  Any decision like this comes with risks.


----------



## calculus

Latest from Australia and the Hunter class. It appears that all is progressing normally, despite all the news to the contrary:









						New baseline design for Australian Navy's Hunter-class frigate established
					

The year-long System Definition Review (SDR), involving work by BAE Systems’ engineering teams in Australia and the UK, has established a new baseline design for the Royal Australian Navy's (RAN) Hunter-class frigate program.




					www.navaltoday.com


----------



## calculus

OceanBonfire said:


> This week:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468272904194437142
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1468272905649893384


Anyone know if this passed?


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> Anyone know if this passed?


Still ongoing.

It's not a pass/fail per say either.  Each system is its own island so to speak.  It's more a green/yellow/red and caution flashers type process.


----------



## suffolkowner

a little more detail on the system definition review









						Hunter program delivers major engineering milestone - APDR
					

The Hunter Class Frigate Program has successfully held a major engineering review, which defines how the Australian Combat System integrates into the Global Combat Ship reference ship design.




					asiapacificdefencereporter.com


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1493263023208910851


----------



## Dale Denton

Happy Guy said:


> I believe that in general Liberal and NDP voters do not serve in the CAF as it : goes against their principle of non violence;



We all don't actually believe this, don't be so divisive using such a broad stroke of your fellow countrymen. Even if this was true, then that would be the bulk of the population not wanting a CAF. In that case, then it should be abolished or reformed into an organisation that can fit Canadians' desire. 

Canadians don't like the CAF to be ill-suited to the job, they don't wanna see caskets and the gov't doesn't want headlines saying they could've prevented the death. Canadians don't understand the CFs job or tools and nobody has shown any will to remind people of what the CF does and why it needs to keep doing it (and much more). Instead, they only see the damage control side, and no gov't really see the need to spend Billions on a subject that so few care about, regardless of its importance.



Colin Parkinson said:


> Maybe if they offered pink/rainbow painted, trans-gendered submarines, manned by liberal Voters?



You mean voters who care about Trans and LGBTQ+ rights of human beings??? Yes...what out of touch people they are, the vast majority of Canadians and their families. 


Back on topic...


----------



## Happy Guy

Dale Denton said:


> We all don't actually believe this, don't be so divisive using such a broad stroke of your fellow countrymen. Even if this was true, then that would be the bulk of the population not wanting a CAF. In that case, then it should be abolished or reformed into an organisation that can fit Canadians' desire.
> 
> Canadians don't like the CAF to be ill-suited to the job, they don't wanna see caskets and the gov't doesn't want headlines saying they could've prevented the death. Canadians don't understand the CFs job or tools and nobody has shown any will to remind people of what the CF does and why it needs to keep doing it (and much more). Instead, they only see the damage control side, and no gov't really see the need to spend Billions on a subject that so few care about, regardless of its importance.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean voters who care about Trans and LGBTQ+ rights of human beings??? Yes...what out of touch people they are, the vast majority of Canadians and their families.
> 
> 
> Back on topic...


I was being facetious about Liberals or NDPs not serving in the CAF, but you are right in pointing out that this broad brush statement is incorrect.
LGen Leslie and LCol McCrimmon are two of the most prominent recent former CAF mbrs, that I know of, who later became elected Liberal Mbrs of Parliament.  Then there is the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson (CAMC, RFC, former Prime Minister), Mr. Barney Danson (QOR, former MND),  Mr. Gilles Lamontagne (RCAF Bomber Pilot, former MND) and Mr. James Richardson (RCAF Pilot, former MND) and Mr. Paul Hellyer (Gunner, former MND)  are the more famous ones that I can recall.

I do not know of any NDP MPs who served in the CAF, except that Mr. Ed Broadbent's son - Paul, joined the Reg F and I think he became a Comms Rsch Op.  I briefly knew Paul when we served together in the Militia.

Cheers


----------



## Halifax Tar

Happy Guy said:


> I was being facetious about Liberals or NDPs not serving in the CAF, but you are right in pointing out that this broad brush statement is incorrect.
> LGen Leslie and LCol McCrimmon are two of the most prominent recent former CAF mbrs, that I know of, who later became elected Liberal Mbrs of Parliament.  Then there is the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson (CAMC, RFC, former Prime Minister), Mr. Barney Danson (QOR, former MND),  Mr. Gilles Lamontagne (RCAF Bomber Pilot, former MND) and Mr. James Richardson (RCAF Pilot, former MND) and Mr. Paul Hellyer (Gunner, former MND)  are the more famous ones that I can recall.
> 
> I do not know of any NDP MPs who served in the CAF, except that Mr. Ed Broadbent's son - Paul, joined the Reg F and I think he became a Comms Rsch Op.  I briefly knew Paul when we served together in the Militia.
> 
> Cheers



Harjit Sajjan - Architect of Op Medusa and savior of Afghanistan.


----------



## Dale Denton

I suspect CF service is valued on an MPs resume but not given much credence in gov't/cabinet circles once elected. Think of the changes (i'd hope) our former MND might've had in mind once in Cabinet, and then think of the progress how many years later...

Back to CSC...kinda.

Nobody has anyone done a decent job of articulating to Canadians:

*Why we need a warship like this* - Existing warships are 'near-death' due to old age and obsolescence. 
*Why it costs so much *- Ship has to kill things real good from as far away as possible. It ain't cheap.
*Is it worth it?* - Our friends pay near the same (???) for similar ones, and they won't like us if we don't build them, and the money goes back into Canadian wallets.

We need a public debate on what we want our CAF/RCN to do and how to sustain it long-term. Ireland is going through a similar conversation after the recent Russian presence and a gov't commission acknowledging the unsustainability of the status quo. At least a new White Paper would make headlines to take a temp reading from the public for future defence spending...

Now would be a good time to hire-out an accounting firm to build a Defence Procurement agency from the ground up. I'm surprised the gov't hasn't come up with this earlier (I mean acted on it...), it would be a great way to dump responsibility of cost/time overruns to an arms-length agency than on the PMs feet.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Dale Denton said:


> I suspect CF service is valued on an MPs resume but not given much credence in gov't/cabinet circles once elected. Think of the changes (i'd hope) our former MND might've had in mind once in Cabinet, and then think of the progress how many years later...
> 
> Back to CSC...kinda.
> 
> Nobody has anyone done a decent job of articulating to Canadians:
> 
> *Why we need a warship like this* - Existing warships are 'near-death' due to old age and obsolescence.
> *Why it costs so much *- Ship has to kill things real good from as far away as possible. It ain't cheap.
> *Is it worth it?* - Our friends pay near the same (???) for similar ones, and they won't like us if we don't build them, and the money goes back into Canadian wallets.
> 
> We need a public debate on what we want our CAF/RCN to do and how to sustain it long-term. Ireland is going through a similar conversation after the recent Russian presence and a gov't commission acknowledging the unsustainability of the status quo. At least a new White Paper would make headlines to take a temp reading from the public for future defence spending...
> 
> Now would be a good time to hire-out an accounting firm to build a Defence Procurement agency from the ground up. I'm surprised the gov't hasn't come up with this earlier (I mean acted on it...), it would be a great way to dump responsibility of cost/time overruns to an arms-length agency than on the PMs feet.


The big, big difference between us and the Irish is that they don't have legal obligations under NATO and NORAD to have a set min. # of 'combat ready' warships at any given moment - we do. 
The issue is for us, for decades we have done the absolute barest minimum of meeting these responsibilities and quite possibly failed to meet the 'spirit' of these legally binding obligations.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dale Denton said:


> Now would be a good time to hire-out an accounting firm to build a Defence Procurement agency from the ground up. I'm surprised the gov't hasn't come up with this earlier (I mean acted on it...), it would be a great way to dump responsibility of cost/time overruns to an arms-length agency than on the PMs feet.



Please god no... we already know internally exactly where the delays are and have multiple reports from various outside experts, and everytime we get one the process actually gets worse and slower from all the 'streamlining' and fixes. DPS is a prime example, there is something like 5 core departments and 9 or 10 related stakeholder departments now involved. Some of them don't ever participate unless they are trying to slash your tires and kill something to push support towards their pet project.

The problem isn't that we don't know what to do, it's just that there is a lack of political will to merge portions of 4 departments and internal resistance from the various mandarins that have built their little empires (some of them by sniping at various DND procurements and adding into the delays). A lot of it is backed up by entrenched policies, processes etc by people who have no interest in defence procurements being successful.

An 8 year term with a benevolent dictator would be needed to burn through a lot of it, and someone also needs to kick TBS in the ass while they are at it.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Dale Denton said:


> I suspect CF service is valued on an MPs resume but not given much credence in gov't/cabinet circles once elected. Think of the changes (i'd hope) our former MND might've had in mind once in Cabinet, and then think of the progress how many years later...
> 
> Back to CSC...kinda.
> 
> Nobody has anyone done a decent job of articulating to Canadians:
> 
> *Why we need a warship like this* - Existing warships are 'near-death' due to old age and obsolescence.
> *Why it costs so much *- Ship has to kill things real good from as far away as possible. It ain't cheap.
> *Is it worth it?* - Our friends pay near the same (???) for similar ones, and they won't like us if we don't build them, and the money goes back into Canadian wallets.
> 
> We need a public debate on what we want our CAF/RCN to do and how to sustain it long-term. Ireland is going through a similar conversation after the recent Russian presence and a gov't commission acknowledging the unsustainability of the status quo. At least a new White Paper would make headlines to take a temp reading from the public for future defence spending...
> 
> Now would be a good time to hire-out an accounting firm to build a Defence Procurement agency from the ground up. I'm surprised the gov't hasn't come up with this earlier (I mean acted on it...), it would be a great way to dump responsibility of cost/time overruns to an arms-length agency than on the PMs feet.



In general I agree with you Canada needs to come to a decision about what it wants to be and how the CAF will support and enable that. 

Canadians are disconnected from their military and as is Canadian tradition don't want to spend money on something until its too late and its absolutely required.  If we took Naval defence seriously we would be in a constant cycle of commissioning the new and decommissioning the old.  There are certain things an independent country needs to fund and one of them is a military. 

The thing about Ireland is they are almost non players on the international stage and have generally always been that way since they gained independence.  If we want to be like Ireland than the public needs to be be made aware of what that means and the outcomes and then fund the CAF as per.  Personally I hope we don't go that route as I think Canada has more to offer the world.


----------



## suffolkowner

Czech_pivo said:


> The big, big difference between us and the Irish is that they don't have legal obligations under NATO and NORAD to have a set min. # of 'combat ready' warships at any given moment - we do.
> The issue is for us, for decades we have done the absolute barest minimum of meeting these responsibilities and quite possibly failed to meet the 'spirit' of these legally binding obligations.


How many ships are we required to have for NORAD or NATO?


----------



## Dale Denton

All good points, agreed.

Ireland's case is actually harder as they don't have those agreements and commitments we have, yet they are the ones with a UNSC seat. A country with a missing defence policy has a seat, as if there's a correlation between actually committing to UN missions and UNSC seats... 

Procurement-wise, i'd at least have the gov't try and fail than just not caring.


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> How many ships are we required to have for NORAD or NATO?


We don't have any required ships.  We make commitments based on what we think we can do.  Canada having a running ship in STANAG 1 or 2 is based entirely on government saying we will do something.  It goes on multiyear cycles.  So for example,  Canada says to NATO that we will commit one frigate to STANAG 1 or 2 over the next three years.  Then the RCN plans the fleet cycle to ensure we meet that government commitment.

Canada has an excellent reputation for these sorts of international fleets and is extremely reliable.  I know that we think of our navy as falling apart etc... but what we send to these actually works and contributes.  Some of the other nations are less... robust... in their maintenance and readiness of the ship that goes.

That being said this reputation comes at a cost, to the maintenance for the fleet.


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1494703256697593857


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> We don't have any required ships.  We make commitments based on what we think we can do.  Canada having a running ship in STANAG 1 or 2 is based entirely on government saying we will do something.  It goes on multiyear cycles.  So for example,  Canada says to NATO that we will commit one frigate to STANAG 1 or 2 over the next three years.  Then the RCN plans the fleet cycle to ensure we meet that government commitment.
> 
> Canada has an excellent reputation for these sorts of international fleets and is extremely reliable.  I know that we think of our navy as falling apart etc... but what we send to these actually works and contributes.  Some of the other nations are less... robust... in their maintenance and readiness of the ship that goes.
> 
> That being said this reputation comes at a cost, to the maintenance for the fleet.


Our navy is falling apart, but the STANAG is only a part of it. Those on their own are easy to manage, it's the stupid multi-ship exercises, and simultaneous alongside work periods that preceed/follow that really kill things. We don't have enough resources to do 4 concurrent SWPs, struggle to find crews to have most of the fleet out at the same time, and carry huge risk in having reduced crews on ships that fall below what is supposed to be the minimum standard to go to sea.

Doing a risk assessment and talking it until it's yellow doesn't fix anything, and when there are thousands of defects it's a bit of a smoke screen when we don't roll things up into aggregate risk assessments.

At least we stopped deploying ships over Xmas just because though, glad they started leaving a gap like every other NATO country does.


----------



## calculus

Video of HMS Glasgow under construction. It's just some dude filming from the far side of the Clyde river with a zoom lens, but it does give a sense of scale in several of the pans. It is definitely a big ship. Other than the bulbous bow, it looks pretty close to being ready for the water.


----------



## calculus

Looks like DND has upgraded the CSC Fact Sheet - now showing 24 MK 41 VLS. Drawing has the new main mast, so this appears to be very recent.



			http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/fleet/csc-fact-sheet-eng.pdf


----------



## Underway

It's like I knew this change was coming when I started talking about the missile change numbers....  lol

Yah, they are cramming everything into this warship. There are certainly margin costs, and one of those is VLS numbers.  However don't forget that CAMM (Sea Ceptor) are 6 more VLS that hold 24 more missiles and are not listed on this fact sheet.

Also notice that they don't say who is providing the 30mm.  That's still up for grabs from what I understand.


----------



## MTShaw

calculus said:


> Looks like DND has upgraded the CSC Fact Sheet - now showing 24 MK 41 VLS. Drawing has the new main mast, so this appears to be very recent.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.navy-marine.forces.gc.ca/assets/NAVY_Internet/docs/en/fleet/csc-fact-sheet-eng.pdf


I’ve noticed what might be a electronic warfare effector forward of the DS30M.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> I’ve noticed what might be a electronic warfare effector forward of the DS30M.


I've looked around and tried to figure out what that was for ages, as its an odd shape.  It may very well be a decoy or EW device of some sort. My going theory is that is a floating inflatable decoy.  But really no idea.


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:


> I've looked around and tried to figure out what that was for ages, as its an odd shape.  It may very well be a decoy or EW device of some sort. My going theory is that is a floating inflatable decoy.  But really no idea.


OnStar antenna, so the NavO can call for directions.


----------



## Underway

dapaterson said:


> OnStar antenna, so the NavO can call for directions.


Possibly!  

If it's an antenna its orientation is weird. Horizontal barrel shape parallel to the side of the ship?  Not a normal orientation.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> Possibly!
> 
> If it's an antenna its orientation is weird. Horizontal barrel shape parallel to the side of the ship?  Not a normal orientation.


I was referring to the square thing, not the decoy thing.


----------



## dapaterson

Underway said:


> Possibly!
> 
> If it's an antenna its orientation is weird. Horizontal barrel shape parallel to the side of the ship?  Not a normal orientation.


Look, it's a MARS O directing the OnStar install.  Can't expect them to understand satellites and radios and all that MARE mumbo jumbo.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> I was referring to the square thing, not the decoy thing.


I went over the ship and a lot of the EW stuff seems to be missing from the model.  It's been stripped.  Either because they are still working on it or because they don't really need it advertised.

The requirements for EW are very robust and likely performance-driven.  Proving that performance may be difficult and I'm sure there is a big bun fight on what constitutes proof.  This means they might not have settled on a product or the product LM wants to submit still need to jump through the performance hoops.

Not sure what the square thing is.  Zooming in doesn't really help define it.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> I went over the ship and a lot of the EW stuff seems to be missing from the model.  It's been stripped.  Either because they are still working on it or because they don't really need it advertised.
> 
> The requirements for EW are very robust and likely performance-driven.  Proving that performance may be difficult and I'm sure there is a big bun fight on what constitutes proof.  This means they might not have settled on a product or the product LM wants to submit still need to jump through the performance hoops.
> 
> Not sure what the square thing is.  Zooming in doesn't really help define it.


May


Underway said:


> I went over the ship and a lot of the EW stuff seems to be missing from the model.  It's been stripped.  Either because they are still working on it or because they don't really need it advertised.
> 
> The requirements for EW are very robust and likely performance-driven.  Proving that performance may be difficult and I'm sure there is a big bun fight on what constitutes proof.  This means they might not have settled on a product or the product LM wants to submit still need to jump through the performance hoops.
> 
> Not sure what the square thing is.  Zooming in doesn't really help define it.


Raven ECM?









						Electronic Warfare CA
					

Lockheed Martin Canada is proudly providing the next generation of modern ECM systems to the Royal Canadian Navy while continuing to provide essential Electronic Warfare support services.




					www.lockheedmartin.com


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> It's like I knew this change was coming when I started talking about the missile change numbers....  lol
> 
> Yah, they are cramming everything into this warship. There are certainly margin costs, and one of those is VLS numbers.  However don't forget that CAMM (Sea Ceptor) are 6 more VLS that hold 24 more missiles and are not listed on this fact sheet.
> 
> Also notice that they don't say who is providing the 30mm.  That's still up for grabs from what I understand.


With regards to the Sea Cepter, it is listed on the fact sheet under CIADS (provided by MBDA).  The listing is in the same column as the torpedo suite and 30mm units.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> With regards to the Sea Cepter, it is listed on the fact sheet under CIADS (provided by MBDA).  The listing is in the same column as the torpedo suite and 30mm units.


Yah but I wanted to point out the numbers more then anything.  But you are correct, its there, just not the full capability limitation.


Of interesting note look at the ship numbers at the bottom of the factsheet.  Posted here for ease of reading.



This is heavier then the Type 26 (~7000 ton) but lighter then the Hunter class (8800 ton or more). Its also 1.5m longer than the Type 26.

I have heard that the Hunter class is pushing 10000 tons full load is at risk of being to heavy and to slow.  One wonders if thats due to design changes that they needed to do to fit in all of the equipment that they want.  It makes me wonder what design changes or comprimises the Hunter needs to do to fit in 32 VLS.  

I know Canada wanted to get the 32VLS, but somewhere they made a comprimise for other capabilities.  What's the cost to the Hunter?  Is it range, speed and weight (all related to each other) on the same engine?  Did they have to lengthen the ship to fit in the VLS?  Are they comprmising on their massive CEAFAR/CEAMOUNT radar?


----------



## FSTO

Alan Williams is not letting this go.









						Navy desperately needs new ships, but not at any price: Alan Williams
					






					www.hilltimes.com
				




*Navy desperately needs new ships, but not at any price: Alan Williams*​*My proposal to limit the current process to the construction of three of these ships and conduct an open, fair and transparent competitive process to build the remaining 12 CSC is feasible and cost effective.*

^^
He may be right in his proposal, he is supposedly an expert in this field.
But in what LSD induced universe is having 3 platforms of a certain type the right call? There are two coasts (soon to be three if predictions are correct) a continent apart so just having 3 platforms are close to useless. 
We got rid of HMCS Huron as a cost saving exercise, not as a sober look at capability requirements.


----------



## Good2Golf

Don’t subscribe to The Hill, but I look at anything Alan Williams says with a jaundiced eye. I fell he historically cherry picks after the fact, and paints his previous actions as ADM(Mat) from pragmatic to virtuous. I still don’t believe the ‘participation in the JSF Program never explicitly nor implicitly was tied to actually buying the F-35’ argument, while at the same time he expected Canadian aerospace industry to continue to receive preferential contracts…


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:


> Alan Williams is not letting this go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy desperately needs new ships, but not at any price: Alan Williams
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.hilltimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Navy desperately needs new ships, but not at any price: Alan Williams*​*My proposal to limit the current process to the construction of three of these ships and conduct an open, fair and transparent competitive process to build the remaining 12 CSC is feasible and cost effective.*
> 
> ^^
> He may be right in his proposal, he is supposedly an expert in this field.
> But in what LSD induced universe is having 3 platforms of a certain type the right call? There are two coasts (soon to be three if predictions are correct) a continent apart so just having 3 platforms are close to useless.
> We got rid of HMCS Huron as a cost saving exercise, not as a sober look at capability requirements.


Alan  "I'm not a paid consulatant at all and this is just my professional opinion" Williams is getting old.

I'm sure if the bidder he worked for had won he'd be defending it as a fair and transparent process that got the right winner.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> Don’t subscribe to The Hill, but I look at anything Alan Williams says with a jaundiced eye. I fell he historically cherry picks after the fact, and paints his previous actions as ADM(Mat) from pragmatic to virtuous. I still don’t believe the ‘participation in the JSF Program never explicitly nor implicitly was tied to actually buying the F-35’ argument, while at the same time he expected Canadian aerospace industry to continue to receive preferential contracts…


He just needs to let this go. He was wrong; he lost.


----------



## Happy Guy

ADM(MAT) only buys equipment for the Environments but it doesn't decide the requirements. The user (RCN/CA/RCAF/Joint decides on what it needs and when.  Besided on the information given by the user and in consulation with the user, ADM(MAT) decides and implements the procurement strategy.  As far as I know Mr. Williams never served in the navy, has not received any Naval warfare/strategy education and is thus not a qualified expert to help decide what the RCN needs.


----------



## Good2Golf

Yup.  Current ADM(Mat), Troy Crosby, absolutely gets the ‘the Sponsor (operators) set the validated requirements and assign their portion of capital funding envelope to the project’ while ‘ADM(Mat) Group supports the programmatics of the acquisition project in concert with other GoC Central Agencies (PCO, TB(S), Finance, DoJ and GAC).

Agree that Williams need to pipe down, he’s yesterdays man…


----------



## Uzlu

"Much of the design work for the CSC has been completed, with initial construction starting next year."


----------



## Underway

Maybe?  I could see them starting to cut steel.  A lot of the structural design is done, but they are a long way from Final Design Review.  I think the goal is to have that done in about two to three years.

They also have to build the shore testing facility.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Perhaps a test block and some of the blocks that have been designated as "no change"?


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Perhaps a test block and some of the blocks that have been designated as "no change"?


For sure.  That's what I was thinking as well.


----------



## FSTO

Are there certain sections, the bow maybe, that can be done by an outside yard? Similar to what was done for JSS? Just to get the ball rolling and show some/any progress?


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> Are there certain sections, the bow maybe, that can be done by an outside yard? Similar to what was done for JSS? Just to get the ball rolling and show some/any progress?


The bow for the AOPS is done in a different yard and then brought across the harbour as well.  I'm sure that CSC will do the same.  The thing that will take all the time isn't the hull, its the cabling, electrical, the combat suite and the internal/external coms.


----------



## Dana381

Underway said:


> The bow for the AOPS is done in a different yard and then brought across the harbour as well.  I'm sure that CSC will do the same.  The thing that will take all the time isn't the hull, its the cabling, electrical, the combat suite and the internal/external coms.



Would the cabling and plumbing be installed in each module then coupled when the module is welded together or installed after and run straight through the ship?


----------



## Underway

Dana381 said:


> Would the cabling and plumbing be installed in each module then coupled when the module is welded together or installed after and run straight through the ship?


Cable pulling is done after the ship is together.  Plumbing (if I understand the process correctly) is a bit of a combination where some is done before the blocks are together or as the blocks are assembled and others are done after its all finished.  For example, a sink install is done later in the build.


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504079995362324483








						Next-generation warships help protect the Fleet – and the environment
					

Giant ‘catalytic converters’ are being fitted on the Navy’s new generation of warships to dramatically reduce their impact on the environment.




					www.royalnavy.mod.uk


----------



## Maxman1

Better be careful where they tie up, or those catalytic converters might get stolen.


----------



## Stoker

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1504079995362324483
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next-generation warships help protect the Fleet – and the environment
> 
> 
> Giant ‘catalytic converters’ are being fitted on the Navy’s new generation of warships to dramatically reduce their impact on the environment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.royalnavy.mod.uk


I believe the Harry DeWolf Class has that.


----------



## Flinders

are other sites, which don't require a subscription, showing the article by Alan Williams?
"Navy desperately needs new ships, but not at any price"


----------



## TacticalTea

Call me self-interested, but do we have any detailed information on living spaces, accommodations, messes, gyms, WCs, anticipated manning and watch rotations, etc? 

That's the stuff I really care about!


----------



## Pelorus

TacticalTea said:


> Call me self-interested, but do we have any detailed information on living spaces, accommodations, messes, gyms, WCs, anticipated manning and watch rotations, etc?
> 
> That's the stuff I really care about!



I'm not sure if any of this kind of stuff has been finalized yet into the design, and I can only speak second-hand from people I know involved in the project, but from what they've told me the project is taking quality of life issues such as the above very seriously.

I would be surprised if we ever get to Asterix or AOPS-level QoL due to space limitations, but it should be a noticeable improvement from the _Halifax_-class.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Stoker said:


> I believe the Harry DeWolf Class has that.


Pretty common on a lot of new ships on how to meet IMO tier 3 regulations (and I think JSS has something similar).


----------



## Maxman1

TacticalTea said:


> Call me self-interested, but do we have any detailed information on living spaces, accommodations, messes, gyms, WCs, anticipated manning and watch rotations, etc?
> 
> That's the stuff I really care about!


----------



## TacticalTea

Maxman1 said:


>


You know, if that's what I had to sleep on, transiting East to take the fight to Russia, I wouldn't mind at all. We've all had worst, I'm sure!

But in peace time, when a career sailor spends a good portion of his life at sea, it has to be a comfortable, healthy, and sustainable life.


----------



## OceanBonfire

TacticalTea said:


> Call me self-interested, but do we have any detailed information on living spaces, accommodations, messes, gyms, WCs, anticipated manning and watch rotations, etc?
> 
> That's the stuff I really care about!



Here's the sole picture of a full-scale mock up of the accommodation cabins on the Type 26 back in 2019:







__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1161638719125970946


----------



## Underway

TacticalTea said:


> Call me self-interested, but do we have any detailed information on living spaces, accommodations, messes, gyms, WCs, anticipated manning and watch rotations, etc?
> 
> That's the stuff I really care about!


AFAIK the largest messdeck has 6-8 pers and there are more onsuite heads than on the current frigates.  I believe that the showers will be more like the MCDV's with private booths that are not separated by male/female.  Just lockable floor to ceiling, with a change area and a shower.  They are building in a dedicated gym space.  Don't quote me on that though.  I'll ask around for more detailed information.

The outfitting and furnishing step of the build won't be known for at least two years.  Those are some of the later items that get organized after the general spaces are assigned.  Each space is organized by role and equipment. So a mess deck of 6 pers has to have 6 racks, 6 footlockers, 6 lockers, 1 phone, etc.... 

As for manning crewing max 200 crew including air det.  The watch rotations stuff will likely be based on current practices but will have to be changed as the crew size is different.  

There is an effort to adjust based on the new technology, information, tools and number of people for the new ships.

JSS for example will trial at some point a distributed ERT vs the current model as the ship is huge and the internal comms are better.  The ship is expected a few years from now, and I'm already seeing changes to the CSE section.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> AFAIK the largest messdeck has 6-8 pers and there are more onsuite heads than on the current frigates.  I believe that the showers will be more like the MCDV's with private booths that are not separated by male/female.  Just lockable floor to ceiling, with a change area and a shower.  They are building in a dedicated gym space.  Don't quote me on that though.  I'll ask around for more detailed information.
> 
> The outfitting and furnishing step of the build won't be known for at least two years.  Those are some of the later items that get organized after the general spaces are assigned.  Each space is organized by role and equipment. So a mess deck of 6 pers has to have 6 racks, 6 footlockers, 6 lockers, 1 phone, etc....
> 
> As for manning crewing max 200 crew including air det.  The watch rotations stuff will likely be based on current practices but will have to be changed as the crew size is different.
> 
> There is an effort to adjust based on the new technology, information, tools and number of people for the new ships.
> 
> JSS for example will trial at some point a distributed ERT vs the current model as the ship is huge and the internal comms are better.  The ship is expected a few years from now, and I'm already seeing changes to the CSE section.


Nice to see a headcount reduction of around 15% compared to the Halifax's, every bit will help when the navy's short 1k sailors.


----------



## FSTO

^^
Let's hope they have built in personnel surge capacity. Because aspirational targets always meets the brick wall of reality...cough LCS cough.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> ^^
> Let's hope they have built in personnel surge capacity. Because aspirational targets always meets the brick wall of reality...cough LCS cough.


With all the stuff they are cramming into that ship I'm not confident that this is a design constraint (restraint perhaps but not a constraint).  Though the mission space I(flex deck etc...) seems large enough to take three to four of the MCDV habitation "pods" which adds about 18-24 or so bunks.

If you really had to you could probably find spaces for extra people.  Again I'll have to ask around.  A lot harder when the office is still reduced COVID staffing and most people (myself included) work from home most of the time.


----------



## TacticalTea

Underway said:


> With all the stuff they are cramming into that ship I'm not confident that this is a design constraint (restraint perhaps but not a constraint).  Though the mission space I(flex deck etc...) seems large enough to take three to four of the MCDV habitation "pods" which adds about 18-24 or so bunks.
> 
> If you really had to you could probably find spaces for extra people.  Again I'll have to ask around.  A lot harder when the office is still reduced COVID staffing and most people (myself included) work from home most of the time.


To your point:

People have been sleeping in storage spaces on the AOPS. 

Sometimes of their own volition.


----------



## NavyShooter

On CHA, we had a junior officer sleeping in the After Gyro compartment....we can shoehorn people in almost anywhere.


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:


> On CHA, we had a junior officer sleeping in the After Gyro compartment....we can shoehorn people in almost anywhere.


I'm not going to lie, this would be an amazing place to sleep.  So quiet, low in the ship.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> which adds about 18-24 or so bunks.


or enough space for a LI Platoon...


----------



## Navy_Pete

I hate the practice of cramming people in everywhere, and you come up with all kinds of basic safety items when you don't allow for an excess crew and things like training bunks.

Very basic things like sufficient life rafts, proper fire detection/protection for accomodation spaces, adequate fresh/grey/black water capacity etc. All really basic stuff that you can easily sort out at build but becomes a forever shitshow when you try and bolt it on later.


----------



## Dana381

That is a double edged sword, if you plan for all that at build then it makes the ship too expensive. Then you dont get new ships, or as many.


----------



## dapaterson

Are you suggesting that clean water for eating and ablutions is overrated?


----------



## NavyShooter

So is having EEBDs in the area to enable escape in a smoke filled environment.


----------



## Lumber

NavyShooter said:


> On CHA, we had a junior officer sleeping in the After Gyro compartment....we can shoehorn people in almost anywhere.


And FWD gyro, and FWD SIS, and the dive locker, and #1 Sonobuoy stores...


----------



## Navy_Pete

Dana381 said:


> That is a double edged sword, if you plan for all that at build then it makes the ship too expensive. Then you dont get new ships, or as many.


We build margins in everywhere else but personnel and accommodations. We frequently retire classes that still have equipment margins (usually means they are running less efficiently in real terms) but have never run into the case of 'we have too many empty bunks'.

Why we don't explicitly have excess capacity for people I will never know; we don't even have training bunks, it's so silly. I can basically guarantee that we will very quickly have to start figuring out who to leave behind, especially when the initial ships are trying to do directed group training and all the dog and pony shows, or get deployed with a bunch of riders and staff weenies.

Much easier to have a few extra bunks and lockers, and bigger water and sewage tanks are always an operational benefit, regardless of how many people you have on board.


----------



## Halifax Tar

NavyShooter said:


> On CHA, we had a junior officer sleeping in the After Gyro compartment....we can shoehorn people in almost anywhere.



On FRE I had six watch keepers sleeping in the ailes of 2 Stores.  

Made the operation of my warehouse almost impossible.  For supply it's like having people set up racks in the MCR or Ops Room.


----------



## Underway

NavyShooter said:


> So is having EEBDs in the area to enable escape in a smoke filled environment.



EEBD's are a nightmare to place in the Outfitting and Furnishing Diagrams.

The modelers have no clue what to do with them. I've spent more time trying to get them into places that are accessible and not in the way of the workspace.  And its still probably wrong.  And its not even my job!  But as a sailor you just can't look at it and let it go, you have to say something.  It's the sort of thing on a new ship that makes people crazy if they are not in a good spot.


----------



## KevinB

Navy_Pete said:


> We build margins in everywhere else but personnel and accommodations. We frequently retire classes that still have equipment margins (usually means they are running less efficiently in real terms) but have never run into the case of 'we have too many empty bunks'.
> 
> Why we don't explicitly have excess capacity for people I will never know; we don't even have training bunks, it's so silly. I can basically guarantee that we will very quickly have to start figuring out who to leave behind, especially when the initial ships are trying to do directed group training and all the dog and pony shows, or get deployed with a bunch of riders and staff weenies.
> 
> Much easier to have a few extra bunks and lockers, and bigger water and sewage tanks are always an operational benefit, regardless of how many people you have on board.


A rope to them them on, and some space on the deck


----------



## Rd651

Halifax Tar said:


> On FRE I had six watch keepers sleeping in the ailes of 2 Stores.
> 
> Made the operation of my warehouse almost impossible.  For supply it's like having people set up racks in the MCR or Ops Room.


LOL on Freddy in 2015, I slept in FYLCO for 3 weeks as the Snr FFtr when FRE became Flag Ship... I didn't mind waking up and looking out the windows at the Med....it was a great change, but got old after a while because of noise in foreign port as that was my rack location....lol


----------



## Underway

Rd651 said:


> LOL on Freddy in 2015, I slept in FYLCO for 3 weeks as the Snr FFtr when FRE became Flag Ship... I didn't mind waking up and looking out the windows at the Med....it was a great change, but got old after a while because of noise in foreign port as that was my rack location....lol


Oooh corner apartment in the busy street. Very nice!  lol  People pay a lot of money for a cruise ship bunk like that!


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> EEBD's are a nightmare to place in the Outfitting and Furnishing Diagrams.
> 
> The modelers have no clue what to do with them. I've spent more time trying to get them into places that are accessible and not in the way of the workspace.  And its still probably wrong.  And its not even my job!  But as a sailor you just can't look at it and let it go, you have to say something.  It's the sort of thing on a new ship that makes people crazy if they are not in a good spot.


Are those permanent fitment EEBDs at certain stations?  Is there a place for personal-carry EEBDs for certain pers/spaces to have nearby, should the need present itself?


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> Are those permanent fitment EEBDs at certain stations?  Is there a place for personal-carry EEBDs for certain pers/spaces to have nearby, should the need present itself?


Well all EEBD's have carry straps.  But normal SOP is to have minimum enough EEBD for how may people normally work in that particular space.  So a mess deck with 8 people will have min 8 EEBD's in there somewhere, and OPS that during Action Stations has 12 people will have min 12 EEBD's either beside an exit or your workstation.

There are always extra EEBD's to be found in flats and surge spaces (like MCR) as well.  I don't really the exact REQ as written in the Design Specs.

JSS is actually a lot easier to escape then the frigates in a smoke environment.  There are doors all over the place and multiple egress points in an emergency.  Not everyone will be filling out two or three hatches.


----------



## Navy_Pete

JSS and AOPs do have massive zones though; proper confinement is going to be critical to prevent loss of massive areas of the ship pretty quickly just from smoke, so there are always tradeoffs when you have multiple egress points. Frigates are actually pretty decent for evacuation routes, and every area has at least two exits.

I'm 100% confident that we'll have to stay on top of the autoclosing doors to prevent people from jerry rigging around the magnetic latches. We already have that issue with escape hatches getting blocked and routes getting cut off by improper storage of equimpent.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> JSS and AOPs do have massive zones though; proper confinement is going to be critical to prevent loss of massive areas of the ship pretty quickly just from smoke, so there are always tradeoffs when you have multiple egress points. Frigates are actually pretty decent for evacuation routes, and every area has at least two exits.
> 
> I'm 100% confident that we'll have to stay on top of the autoclosing doors to prevent people from jerry rigging around the magnetic latches. We already have that issue with escape hatches getting blocked and routes getting cut off by improper storage of equimpent.


RCN fire fighting, is different from German Naval (BV) Standards, and different from what Lloyd's Naval Rules expect, and JSS has all three, though the differences are standardized (ie:  all magazines are built to BV standards).  So its going to be interesting for the first crew figuring out how to attack a fire in every space.


----------



## Underway

Some details on the F-110 Frigate being built by Spain.  It will be same generation as CSC and has some interesting features.  I'm wondering how they are going to do cyber security on a digital twin.  I suspect it will be a pull data collection hard drives and replace when it gets into harbor instead of a constant data tether back home, that would be insane bandwidth and EMCON wise.

Also, Indra is just supplying the transceivers for the radar.  It's in no way an Indra radar.  LM is just ensuring that a local company gets the subcontract to make radar parts.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> Some details on the F-110 Frigate being built by Spain.  It will be same generation as CSC and has some interesting features.  I'm wondering how they are going to do cyber security on a digital twin.  I suspect it will be a pull data collection hard drives and replace when it gets into harbor instead of a constant data tether back home, that would be insane bandwidth and EMCON wise.
> 
> Also, Indra is just supplying the transceivers for the radar.  It's in no way an Indra radar.  LM is just ensuring that a local company gets the subcontract to make radar parts.


Navantia 0-2 scorecard in battles for warship sinkings in the last few years.  

Cruise ship v OPS
Tanker v Destroyer


----------



## Spencer100

Spencer100 said:


> Navantia 0-2 scorecard in battles for warship sinkings in the last few years.
> 
> Cruise ship v OPS
> Tanker v Destroyer


I know its not really their fault.  

The cruise ship v the OPS is funny though.

The battle of Tortuga 2020!  (boo wikipedia removed it!  it was there)









						Venezuela loses naval battle against a cruise ship - The Independent Citizen
					

A Venezuelan Navy patrol vessel sank in the Caribbean… after losing a battle against a cruise ship. On March 30, 2020, a Columbia Cruise Services cruise ship–the Resolute–was carrying out routine engine maintenance in international waters, about 15 miles from the Venezuelan island of La Tortuga...




					independentcitizen.com


----------



## Jacky Tar

Lumber said:


> And FWD gyro, and FWD SIS, and the dive locker, and #1 Sonobuoy stores...


Hell, on ALG at one time we had someone living in the VDS Op compartment for a few days. Though that was more by their choice. Hard to blame them, since the alternative was Fart Central, aka 1 Mess


----------



## calculus

Interesting update on the U.S. Constellation class:









						Video: Day 1 at Sea Air Space 2022 - Constellation-class Frigate and Weapon Systems - Naval News
					

Day 1 video coverage at the Sea Air Space 2022 exposition near Washington DC. In this video we first talked to Fincantieri to get an update on the Constellation-class frigate program. We then discussed naval weapon systems with MSI Defence, Lockheed Martin, BAE Systems and Kongsberg.




					www.navalnews.com


----------



## FSTO

Jacky Tar said:


> Hell, on ALG at one time we had someone living in the VDS Op compartment for a few days. Though that was more by their choice. Hard to blame them, since the alternative was Fart Central, aka 1 Mess


Hmm, during OP APOLLO we had a "guest" stay in the fwd alcove of the VLS compartment. Although that was not their choice at all.


----------



## calculus

And more bad news from Australia re. Hunter class:









						Hunter-class frigates won’t meet the RAN’s needs | The Strategist
					

Since the British Type 26 was announced as the reference design for Royal Australian Navy’s nine Hunter-class frigates, the program has been controversial. The recent leaked report on the system design review was extremely negative, ...




					www.aspistrategist.org.au
				




The Aussie's don't have a great record when it comes to recapitalizing their Navy. I can't think of a single ship in the past 30 years that wasn't either late, or over budget (or both). I never understood why they are held up as a model for Canada to emulate.


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> And more bad news from Australia re. Hunter class:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunter-class frigates won’t meet the RAN’s needs | The Strategist
> 
> 
> Since the British Type 26 was announced as the reference design for Royal Australian Navy’s nine Hunter-class frigates, the program has been controversial. The recent leaked report on the system design review was extremely negative, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.aspistrategist.org.au
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Aussie's don't have a great record when it comes to recapitalizing their Navy. I can't think of a single ship in the past 30 years that wasn't either late, or over budget (or both). I never understood why they are held up as a model for Canada to emulate.


Mainly because they seem to have all party support, a plan and funding.  They know exactly what their "Naval Grand Strategy" is and communicate it very well.  I would not hold up their procurement model as amazing.  Their "build the hull elsewhere" worked to an extent but they lost out on strategic industrial expertise and are just now recapitalizing that industry with the Hunter Class.  They even let their sub expertise lapse.

There is a lot of similarities between us.  The NSPS is an Australian idea that we happily copied (permanent ship building to avoid fleet rust out).


----------



## Underway

Quote from the article:



> So, what does the navy require of its surface combatants and will the Hunter be able to deliver it? This is a critical issue in an era where large warships have become a threatened species. Analyst Hugh White recently said, ‘Finding a ship is now a cinch and sinking it is now trivial.’ Some other experts agree.



This has some similarities to the "End of the Tank" arguments.



> Australia’s Hobart-class destroyers, equipped with Aegis, SPY-1 radar and 48 VLS cells, are the only non-US ships that participate in CEC. The Hunter is designed to follow in the Hobart’s footsteps and, despite its limited firepower (32 VLS cells), will possess one significant advantage, not only over the Hobart class but over the standard-setting Arleigh Burke as well. The Hunter will employ the fully digital CEAFAR2 active phased-array radar, using leading-edge Australian technology.



I find this a little hilarious and classic Australian.  CEAFAR2 is better than a SPY1?  No, no it is not.  It's different, not better.  What CEAFAR is the best at is publicity.


----------



## FSTO

Our office is discussing this article today. Here is my reply to one of our gang talking about "room for growth"

Quote “Considering we plan for ships to have a 30 year service life but then go on to drive them for half a century”

This is an unsustainable policy. You’d think that since we have spent all this money initiating the National Shipbuilding Strategy (or whatever its called now) that we’d plan for a 25-30 year lifecycle and forego the major refit at 20 years and just sell the bloody things and build new?



Anyone remember that place we poured billions into in the 80’s? Are we going to do that again?




I’ll just shut up now, and go back to grumbling.


----------



## Underway

I get the concern.  However, the NSPS (NSP or whatever each new government wants to call it) is a program with no end.  It's a continuous build for as long as we need ships.  The first 15 CSC are going to be built over 20-25 years at which point the first ship will be retired to be replaced by ship 16. It saves the government billions to do it that way in maintenance and refit costs as no ship ever goes past midlife (or midlife is moved to year 12.5).

It's an entirely new way of doing business (and ensuring votes in Halifax).   The paradigm of build and sail for 50 years at least for combat vessels is supposed to be over.

We won't know until I'm well retired if they stick to it, but that's the plan and what the RCN pitched in the business plan to the government when it was implemented.  This is similar to the LAV fleet, GDLS just keeps getting LAV contracts, why wouldn't ISI be the same?


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A asset cascading agreement to supply the older ship when it reaches it's planned retirement date to an ally (Chile, Philippines, etc )with a partial refit and a reduced price would be great. That means ITAR and other like issues could be dealt with ahead of time and the receiving navy can cross train in the last year of service.


----------



## FSTO

Underway said:


> I get the concern.  However, the NSPS (NSP or whatever each new government wants to call it) is a program with no end.  It's a continuous build for as long as we need ships.  The first 15 CSC are going to be built over 20-25 years at which point the first ship will be retired to be replaced by ship 16. It saves the government billions to do it that way in maintenance and refit costs as no ship ever goes past midlife (or midlife is moved to year 12.5).
> 
> It's an entirely new way of doing business (and ensuring votes in Halifax).   The paradigm of build and sail for 50 years at least for combat vessels is supposed to be over.
> 
> We won't know until I'm well retired if they stick to it, but that's the plan and what the RCN pitched in the business plan to the government when it was implemented.  This is similar to the LAV fleet, GDLS just keeps getting LAV contracts, why wouldn't ISI be the same?


I'll likely be long dead when that decision (re replacing the CSC) comes to pass. 
Back when Ottawa III was being put together we knew that PRO/PRE were on their last legs and 280'S were well on the way to razor blade city. And we had a worked up yard and expertise to carry on with a continuous build and we let it fritter away. 

I'm fearful and convinced we will do this again. I really really hope I'm wrong and that I'll have to eat crow. But I highly doubt it.


----------



## Underway

FSTO said:


> I'll likely be long dead when that decision (re replacing the CSC) comes to pass.
> Back when Ottawa III was being put together we knew that PRO/PRE were on their last legs and 280'S were well on the way to razor blade city. And we had a worked up yard and expertise to carry on with a continuous build and we let it fritter away.
> 
> I'm fearful and convinced we will do this again. I really really hope I'm wrong and that I'll have to eat crow. But I highly doubt it.


I totally get it. Once bitten (well more like mauled) and all that.  But me being positive: we did shipbuilding NSPS style before.  From 1949-1989 we commissioned over 50 ships into the navy with the steamers, Cadillacs, carriers, minesweepers, hydrofoils and others.  There was always a new ship being built and new technologies being pushed/tried.

The current fleet is basically a 1990 to present situation, where we built the frigates and MCDV's and stopped.

CSC is a long build.  The frigates were built over the course of 9 years.  Right now AOPS build has reached 6 years.  The CSC is slated to go for 20 years after this.  Who's going to be the government that cuts high paying high skilled trades union jobs out of the heart of Halifax after 30 years. CPC are pro-military.  Liberals and NDP fight for the Halifax area seats.  I think it's as safe as GDLS in London is and their constant LAV contracts.


----------



## Fabius

Given that its not just ship build but also ship design capability that we are looking to maintain would we not expect to see work on the next class of ship ( CSC replacement or next flight) start in the early/mid 2030s?
If NSPS is truly going to roll out as planned would we not actually see the ship program and design for the MCDV replacement start almost immediately after the first flight of CSC starts construction as well? We should be able to see that really get rolling in the mid to late 2020s.


----------



## Underway

Fabius said:


> Given that its not just ship build but also ship design capability that we are looking to maintain would we not expect to see work on the next class of ship ( CSC replacement or next flight) start in the early/mid 2030s?
> If NSPS is truly going to roll out as planned would we not actually see the ship program and design for the MCDV replacement start almost immediately after the first flight of CSC starts construction as well? We should be able to see that really get rolling in the mid to late 2020s.


The first batch of CSC is basically three ships and the land-based test facility (stone frigate).   I expect that the design will change with every batch as lessons are learned and engineering changes are submitted on the first batch.


----------



## lenaitch

Maybe at some point find a spot (and the power) for a CEW:


----------



## Fabius

What will be the next hard concrete indication that NSPS will actually result in a continuous build? I think it needs to be something other than the CSC blocks/flights.


----------



## Pelorus

lenaitch said:


> Maybe at some point find a spot (and the power) for a CEW:



Energy weapons are likely the future as far as defensive weapons for a ship go IMO. If your only cost in an engagement is energy & wear and tear, you can stay out doing the business for a lot longer. While it may take a long, long, time to make them viable against a modern anti-ship missile, they should at least be viable against UCAV/drones, etc. in the nearer term.

I'm not an engineer by any stretch, but the COD(E)LOG-based plant should in my mind mean that in a combat scenario you're probably driving on the Gas Turbine, and the DGs should be beefy enough that you're capable of producing a significant amount of excess power over what you require for radars/weapons and other systems.

Once the tech becomes viable, if the ships were installed with sufficiently robust capacitor banks or some other sort of quick-discharge power storage system, you should be able to support energy weapons without radical changes to the plant I would think. I'm not saying that such a change would be easy by any means, but likely _easier_ than in the current generation of warships out there.


----------



## Underway

Fabius said:


> What will be the next hard concrete indication that NSPS will actually result in a continuous build? I think it needs to be something other than the CSC blocks/flights.


Come talk to me in 20 years and we'll see if a new ship to replace all the CSC is being planned.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:


> I totally get it. Once bitten (well more like mauled) and all that.  But me being positive: we did shipbuilding NSPS style before.  From 1949-1989 we commissioned over 50 ships into the navy with the steamers, Cadillacs, carriers, minesweepers, hydrofoils and others.  There was always a new ship being built and new technologies being pushed/tried.
> 
> The current fleet is basically a 1990 to present situation, where we built the frigates and MCDV's and stopped.
> 
> CSC is a long build.  The frigates were built over the course of 9 years.  Right now AOPS build has reached 6 years.  The CSC is slated to go for 20 years after this.  Who's going to be the government that *cuts high paying high skilled trades union jobs out of the heart of Halifax after 30 years*. CPC are pro-military.  Liberals and NDP fight for the Halifax area seats.  I think it's as safe as GDLS in London is and their constant LAV contracts.



I question the long term survival of the plan and its success if we are dependent on the type of agreements we have signed with Irving, Seaspan and to a lessor degree Davie. What cost control or certainty is going to come with assigning builds as we have done to the shipyards and then looking to negotiate the price? Is that sustainable? Can that survive the political/public and accountants knife? Can the plan survive with the three yards actually competing amongst each other for the work? Realistically thats 20 or 30 years down the road maybe so I wont be alive but I wonder


----------



## MilEME09

Underway said:


> Come talk to me in 20 years and we'll see if a new ship to replace all the CSC is being planned.


We would, but you'll probably be retired, not care, and we would owe you more beer then we can afford


----------



## CBH99

Underway said:


> Come talk to me in 20 years and we'll see if a new ship to replace all the CSC is being planned.


You’re banking a lot on life extending future medicine, aren’t you?  😉


----------



## Underway

CBH99 said:


> You’re banking a lot on life extending future medicine, aren’t you?  😉


More likely the wife would have killed me well before then. Justifiably I'm sure.  Even saints can only put up with so much before they snap!


----------



## Prairie canuck

With the UK and US turning to focus on the Pacific and restructuring accordingly I'm wondering if the CSC is ready for the Pacific. According to many sources the Pacific naval engagements will be dominated by long range missiles and in huge numbers. That being said should some of the CSC's be re-designed to abandon their air asset and hangar so that more VLS stations can be added? A dedicated missile defense frigate?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Pelorus said:


> Energy weapons are likely the future as far as defensive weapons for a ship go IMO. If your only cost in an engagement is energy & wear and tear, you can stay out doing the business for a lot longer. While it may take a long, long, time to make them viable against a modern anti-ship missile, they should at least be viable against UCAV/drones, etc. in the nearer term.
> 
> I'm not an engineer by any stretch, but the COD(E)LOG-based plant should in my mind mean that in a combat scenario you're probably driving on the Gas Turbine, and the DGs should be beefy enough that you're capable of producing a significant amount of excess power over what you require for radars/weapons and other systems.
> 
> Once the tech becomes viable, if the ships were installed with sufficiently robust capacitor banks or some other sort of quick-discharge power storage system, you should be able to support energy weapons without radical changes to the plant I would think. I'm not saying that such a change would be easy by any means, but likely _easier_ than in the current generation of warships out there.


With the safety precautions we require for a simple laser pointer, my mind boggles at how complicated we would make it. 

The energy weapons are pretty interesting, but they seem to have a lot of really intricate and delicate components to work properly, so not holding my breath that we'll see practical applications of them in the near future, in power ranges that we can reasonably support. Aside from the power generation, needs a pretty beefy distribtion system, and the large gauge cables, etc add a lot of weight up high. You can carry a heck of a lot of ammo for all that, with proven, reliable systems, and some kind of drone based countermeasure is another good way to extend the envelope away from the ship.

I imagine they will roll out to fixed land based systems first, then start to figure out if they can be mobilized/marinized.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> With the safety precautions we require for a simple laser pointer, my mind boggles at how complicated we would make it.
> 
> The energy weapons are pretty interesting, but they seem to have a lot of really intricate and delicate components to work properly, so not holding my breath that we'll see practical applications of them in the near future, in power ranges that we can reasonably support. Aside from the power generation, needs a pretty beefy distribtion system, and the large gauge cables, etc add a lot of weight up high. You can carry a heck of a lot of ammo for all that, with proven, reliable systems, and some kind of drone based countermeasure is another good way to extend the envelope away from the ship.
> 
> I imagine they will roll out to fixed land based systems first, then start to figure out if they can be mobilized/marinized.


I honestly think the opposite.  The power generation a ship can provide on-demand is much greater assuming you have the margins (as we both know, many ships will not).  But I agree generally that the only DEW we will be using is focused Electronic Warfare that we already have.  UAS large enough to carry ordinance that can hurt the ship can be shot down with an equivalent cost missile. Any UAS that is smaller than that has to get close to do its job, so we can just shoot it down with shells.

At some point in time lasers will be good enough for some applications at close ranges.  Right now those systems' best use is their amazing optics and tracking, not their kinetics.

The UAV problem at sea is really straightforward right now.  How close is it and how big is it?  Then you just treat it like any other aircraft.  The real issue is proliferation, not necessarily the solution.  A warship is designed from the ground up to detect and shoot down flying things.  UAVs are far harder to deal with ashore as they are harder to detect and there are not as many effectors in the area to deal with them effectively right now.


----------



## Navy_Pete

@Underway That sounds like getting danger close to the start of the frequent MSE/CSE discussion on dirty power!

I think it will be great option (eventually), just mean it's a lot more than just slapping a laser on if you are looking to replace conventional systems (vice add it in alongside them). The optical tracking and threat identification is cool to see in real time, but I guess if we are talking about anti missile systems it would be another tool in the toolbox, and if it's gotten to within that close of the ship doesn't hurt to throw yet another countermeasure on it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:


> @Underway That sounds like getting danger close to the start of the frequent MSE/CSE discussion on dirty power!
> 
> I think it will be great option (eventually), just mean it's a lot more than just slapping a laser on if you are looking to replace conventional systems (vice add it in alongside them). The optical tracking and threat identification is cool to see in real time, but I guess if we are talking about anti missile systems it would be another tool in the toolbox, and if it's gotten to within that close of the ship doesn't hurt to throw yet another countermeasure on it.


Dirty power. My favourite shipboard subject. And what dirty power does to expensive, modern electronics (not infrequently attached to a helicopter)….


----------



## Underway

I don't even bother talking about it anymore. Half the time you just spend 10min arguing about what dirty power actually is...


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> I don't even bother talking about it anymore. Half the time you just spend 10min arguing about what dirty power actually is...


Over voltage, under voltage, over frequency, under frequency…just off the top of my head.


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> Over voltage, under voltage, over frequency, under frequency…just off the top of my head.



Next you'll complain about water and rust flakes mixed in JP8.  There's just no pleasing some people.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> Over voltage, under voltage, over frequency, under frequency…just off the top of my head.


lalallalalalalal Can't hear you!

Jokes aside we've tried to take this into account on JSS.  It's a known issue. There are a lot of power conditioners and UPS that are between the equipment and the generators...  Our hope is that the new generation DG's are better and there will be fewer issues.

Have you sailed with the new HFX gensets?  Any word on their power output?  I know there were great hopes and initial trials came back cautiously optimistic.


----------



## suffolkowner

You can get a lot of dirty power from the grid so lots of sensitive commercial operations have to clean it up. I never had that problem exactly but have gotten some pretty brutal voltage from the grid and even some medium sized DG (300hp) have trouble maintaining a sine wave. I imagine its kinda important on a warship


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> lalallalalalalal Can't hear you!
> 
> Jokes aside we've tried to take this into account on JSS.  It's a known issue. There are a lot of power conditioners and UPS that are between the equipment and the generators...  Our hope is that the new generation DG's are better and there will be fewer issues.
> 
> Have you sailed with the new HFX gensets?  Any word on their power output?  I know there were great hopes and initial trials came back cautiously optimistic.


Nope- have not had the pleasure.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> Next you'll complain about water and rust flakes mixed in JP8.  There's just no pleasing some people.


If there is JP8 onboard a ship, we have a lot bigger problems than water and rust flakes.

JP5 is the approved shipboard aviation fuel. That said, there is talk about moving away from that, as it is really hard to source in certain parts of the world.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:


> I honestly think the opposite.  The power generation a ship can provide on-demand is much greater assuming you have the margins (as we both know, many ships will not).  But I agree generally that the only DEW we will be using is focused Electronic Warfare that we already have.  UAS large enough to carry ordinance that can hurt the ship can be shot down with an equivalent cost missile. Any UAS that is smaller than that has to get close to do its job, so we can just shoot it down with shells.
> 
> At some point in time lasers will be good enough for some applications at close ranges.  Right now those systems' best use is their amazing optics and tracking, not their kinetics.
> 
> The UAV problem at sea is really straightforward right now.  How close is it and how big is it?  Then you just treat it like any other aircraft.  The real issue is proliferation, not necessarily the solution.  A warship is designed from the ground up to detect and shoot down flying things.  UAVs are far harder to deal with ashore as they are harder to detect and there are not as many effectors in the area to deal with them effectively right now.


So you think the 127mm will be the primary response to all UAV's? What missile would you expend on a TB2/Reaper? It seems like ESSM and CAMM would be too much missile and too much money? The 30mm's are a last ditch response? Do we need another missile?

PS. I know weve gone over this before just looking for clarification. 

PSS One of the reasons I wanted to see the Russian navy under attack in the Black Sea is to get some idea of what happens in the real world (not that I would be privy to anything technical, but also it is hard to hide what happened too)

PSS. loitering munitions too? Doesnt seem to be in as wide a use in the Ukraine as I expected. Maybe Russian loitering munitions suck? And Israel is not allowing Turkey to transfer Harpy/Harop?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> lalallalalalalal Can't hear you!
> 
> Jokes aside we've tried to take this into account on JSS.  It's a known issue. There are a lot of power conditioners and UPS that are between the equipment and the generators...  Our hope is that the new generation DG's are better and there will be fewer issues.
> 
> Have you sailed with the new HFX gensets?  Any word on their power output?  I know there were great hopes and initial trials came back cautiously optimistic.


The gensets themselves are doing great, the issue will always be in you dump a lot of load on/off a generator it will slow down/speed up. There is an allowed tolerance in the specs for them to settle back down (with min/max frequency variations). Happens a lot less with improved generator reliability but still built into the basic system, and part of the milspec tolerances when you do generator acceptance testing (so you can deal with sudden load surges from battle damage). I can't remeber the actual numbers, but there was some kind of min/max frequency under designated load conditions, like going from 50% to 100%, with a specified max time to hit the normal speed (which has a small +/- anyway).

If new equipment needs 60.0 Hz power and can't handle variation, a, it's a just a bad design to not filter the incoming power. It's really only the CSE equipment that is that sensitive, so really weird to get shock tested fancy new combat gear that doesn't account for real world conditions and the actual power distribtution system. Glad to hear JSS is taking that into account.

IMHO that's not dirty power; that's the system operating within specs. Totally different from when you have AVR or speed control issues, which causes legitimate power fluctuation issues (like dropping down to 50 Hz, or swinging between 380 and 500 volts)


----------



## Navy_Pete

SeaKingTacco said:


> If there is JP8 onboard a ship, we have a lot bigger problems than water and rust flakes.
> 
> JP5 is the approved shipboard aviation fuel. That said, there is talk about moving away from that, as it is really hard to source in certain parts of the world.


JP8 isn't allowed because it doesn't meet the minimum flashpoint for shipboard fuel (60 C). That's a standard marine requirement, and there are all kinds of additional requirements if you want to store fuel below that. It's a non-trivial change that would require a re-design of the storage and transfer system for JP5. It can require a lot of additional infrastructure on the ship that we just don't have room for.

Honestly JP5 availability is the best reason to have AORs, as it's a lot easier to find a POL that meets the marine diesel specs. The number of days I've spent tracking JP5 usage and working with AirO, LogO and CmbtO to plan around that is pretty significant, and we changed port visits and otherwise made sure we RASd with a US tanker way out of our way specifically to get JP5.


----------



## Swampbuggy

suffolkowner said:


> So you think the 127mm will be the primary response to all UAV's? What missile would you expend on a TB2/Reaper? It seems like ESSM and CAMM would be too much missile and too much money? The 30mm's are a last ditch response? Do we need another missile?
> 
> PS. I know weve gone over this before just looking for clarification.
> 
> PSS One of the reasons I wanted to see the Russian navy under attack in the Black Sea is to get some idea of what happens in the real world (not that I would be privy to anything technical, but also it is hard to hide what happened too)
> 
> PSS. loitering munitions too? Doesnt seem to be in as wide a use in the Ukraine as I expected. Maybe Russian loitering munitions suck? And Israel is not allowing Turkey to transfer Harpy/Harop?


My guess is that the 30mm does the bulk of the work on drones inside a 5k envelope? I was under the impression that the reason it was chosen over the 25mm is it's greater elevation/range specifically for that application.


----------



## suffolkowner

"legitimate power fluctuation issues (like dropping down to 50 Hz, or swinging between 380 and 500 volts"

This is what we had to deal with from Ontario Hydro from 380 all the way up to 780 I believe. Actually wasn't a problem for us with simple electic motors but I still think the old motors handled all the crap thrown at them better than the new stuff. Of course that new stuff to me is now 20 yrs old. We had capacitor problems for a few months there and that is how I found out what our power input situation was.


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> So you think the 127mm will be the primary response to all UAV's? What missile would you expend on a TB2/Reaper? It seems like ESSM and CAMM would be too much missile and too much money? The 30mm's are a last ditch response? Do we need another missile?
> 
> PS. I know weve gone over this before just looking for clarification.
> 
> PSS One of the reasons I wanted to see the Russian navy under attack in the Black Sea is to get some idea of what happens in the real world (not that I would be privy to anything technical, but also it is hard to hide what happened too)
> 
> PSS. loitering munitions too? Doesnt seem to be in as wide a use in the Ukraine as I expected. Maybe Russian loitering munitions suck? And Israel is not allowing Turkey to transfer Harpy/Harop?


The response to a UAV will be whatever the response is to an air threat.  If it's a long way away then CAMM, ESSM may be the proper response.  If it's closer 127mm or 30mm may be the appropriate response.  Or maybe the CSC has EW assets that just jam its communications back to base and it's essentially useless until it runs out of fuel.

I'm not overly concerned about cost of missiles. Spend the money to keep the ship alive. But if you want to compare, TB2 costs about $1-2 million US (not including any payloads).  ESSM costs about $1.8 million US.  So in military terms, they are equal price.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:


> The response to a UAV will be whatever the response is to an air threat.  If it's a long way away then CAMM, ESSM may be the proper response.  If it's closer 127mm or 30mm may be the appropriate response.  Or maybe the CSC has EW assets that just jam its communications back to base and it's essentially useless until it runs out of fuel.
> 
> I'm not overly concerned about cost of missiles. Spend the money to keep the ship alive. But if you want to compare, TB2 costs about $1-2 million US (not including any payloads).  ESSM costs about $1.8 million US.  So in military terms, they are equal price.


I am thinking more along the lines of say 9 Harops from a single launcher with a 1000km range and 8 hr endurance and 20kg warhead. 

Hard to peg a reliable cost but South Korea paid $500,000 for harpy in 2000. 

Depends if its the munition and or the launcher and or controller for a man in the loop or if its running on its AI. So some quote $10 million or $1million or $100,000. $100,000 per munition seems cheap and a $1 million per munitiion seems expensive and 10 million is crazy


----------



## Underway

Any "missile" (Harpy is a missile basically) that goes 115mph is literally the easiest thing in the world to shoot down if you detect it.  It's propellor driven so it will be detected.  Loitering munitions are interesting given their long ranges but normally their payload and their penetration aids are just not good enough in a naval environment. 

I suppose they could be used to attrit ammunition, but 115mph is just so damn slow.  From detection at the horizon to impact on the ship it's going to be almost 15 minutes!  It doesn't maneuver to evade fire, it just flies directly at you.  The ship can just sail away and make that take even longer.  Hell, a 50cal NRWS could shoot down a Harpy on a closing bearing easily.

I'm even betting that its sensors are not good enough to detect the ship at ranges the ship can detect it.  We'll just find it and sail away.


----------



## suffolkowner

Underway said:


> Any "missile" (Harpy is a missile basically) that goes 115mph is literally the easiest thing in the world to shoot down if you detect it.  It's propellor driven so it will be detected.  Loitering munitions are interesting given their long ranges but normally their payload and their penetration aids are just not good enough in a naval environment.


Are they going to be super easy to detect though? Especially in a complex environment.


Underway said:


> I suppose they could be used to attrit ammunition, but 115mph is just so damn slow.  From detection at the horizon to impact on the ship it's going to be almost 15 minutes!  It doesn't maneuver to evade fire, it just flies directly at you.  The ship can just sail away and make that take even longer.  Hell, a 50cal NRWS could shoot down a Harpy on a closing bearing easily.


I'm assuming ammo attrition is one aim. 
If it is operator controlled it could try some evasive manouvers? Although I'm guessing this would be subject to jamming and I think operator control is limited to 200km
I would think as slow as it is a ship is still way slower and will not have moved much relative to launch? 
Open source says it ceiling is limited to 15000 ft which is the effective horizontal range of the 30mm, correct? 
What elevation angle is the 30mm capable of and what altitude would it be effective out to?


Underway said:


> I'm even betting that its sensors are not good enough to detect the ship at ranges the ship can detect it.  We'll just find it and sail away.


My understanding is they can be 
1. flown into target by operator
2. be used in an anti-radiation mode
3. or identify target via AI

Im not trying to be a jerk I'm just genuinely curious and this is the one of the best places to figure out the answer to these questions

I think Israel has sold 3 naval units now to SE Asia so someone envisions a use for them somewhere and somehow. 
Shore bombardment? seems unlikely
attacking small surface vessels?
flying them into other aerial targets like missiles or planes? seems redundant


----------



## dapaterson

SeaKingTacco said:


> If there is JP8 onboard a ship, we have a lot bigger problems than water and rust flakes.
> 
> JP5 is the approved shipboard aviation fuel. That said, there is talk about moving away from that, as it is really hard to source in certain parts of the world.


That actually makes sense - there are limits to the quantity of dangerous and volatile things you can store onboard, and you've probably already maxxed out on that with the supply of NWOs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> I'm not overly concerned about cost of missiles. Spend the money to keep the ship alive. But if you want to compare, TB2 costs about $1-2 million US (not including any payloads).  ESSM costs about $1.8 million US.  So in military terms, they are equal price.


Your not, but it's a factor in defense purchase, I don't expect or want a answer, but can we give full missile loads to all our ships plus 2-3 reloads with our current stock?


----------



## lenaitch

Pelorus said:


> Energy weapons are likely the future as far as defensive weapons for a ship go IMO. If your only cost in an engagement is energy & wear and tear, you can stay out doing the business for a lot longer. While it may take a long, long, time to make them viable against a modern anti-ship missile, they should at least be viable against UCAV/drones, etc. in the nearer term.
> 
> I'm not an engineer by any stretch, but the COD(E)LOG-based plant should in my mind mean that in a combat scenario you're probably driving on the Gas Turbine, and the DGs should be beefy enough that you're capable of producing a significant amount of excess power over what you require for radars/weapons and other systems.
> 
> Once the tech becomes viable, if the ships were installed with sufficiently robust capacitor banks or some other sort of quick-discharge power storage system, you should be able to support energy weapons without radical changes to the plant I would think. I'm not saying that such a change would be easy by any means, but likely _easier_ than in the current generation of warships out there.


I am neither an engineer, but am reminded that, when the OPP developed its first mobile laser for forensic identification purposes in the mid/late1980s, it was mounted on a 3-ton truck which housed its dedicated power supply and cooling system.  It now lives in a Pelican box and plugs into a standard outlet.  Obviously different power levels and applications, just an illustration on technical advances.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Navy_Pete said:


> The gensets themselves are doing great, the issue will always be in you dump a lot of load on/off a generator it will slow down/speed up. There is an allowed tolerance in the specs for them to settle back down (with min/max frequency variations). Happens a lot less with improved generator reliability but still built into the basic system, and part of the milspec tolerances when you do generator acceptance testing (so you can deal with sudden load surges from battle damage). I can't remeber the actual numbers, but there was some kind of min/max frequency under designated load conditions, like going from 50% to 100%, with a specified max time to hit the normal speed (which has a small +/- anyway).
> 
> If new equipment needs 60.0 Hz power and can't handle variation, a, it's a just a bad design to not filter the incoming power. It's really only the CSE equipment that is that sensitive, so really weird to get shock tested fancy new combat gear that doesn't account for real world conditions and the actual power distribtution system. Glad to hear JSS is taking that into account.
> 
> IMHO that's not dirty power; that's the system operating within specs. Totally different from when you have AVR or speed control issues, which causes legitimate power fluctuation issues (like dropping down to 50 Hz, or swinging between 380 and 500 volts)


You are, of course, assuming the stuff in the helicopter was properly milspec’d…


----------



## Underway

suffolkowner said:


> Are they going to be super easy to detect though? Especially in a complex environment.
> 
> I'm assuming ammo attrition is one aim.
> If it is operator controlled it could try some evasive manouvers? Although I'm guessing this would be subject to jamming and I think operator control is limited to 200km
> I would think as slow as it is a ship is still way slower and will not have moved much relative to launch?
> Open source says it ceiling is limited to 15000 ft which is the effective horizontal range of the 30mm, correct?
> What elevation angle is the 30mm capable of and what altitude would it be effective out to?
> 
> My understanding is they can be
> 1. flown into target by operator
> 2. be used in an anti-radiation mode
> 3. or identify target via AI
> 
> Im not trying to be a jerk I'm just genuinely curious and this is the one of the best places to figure out the answer to these questions
> 
> I think Israel has sold 3 naval units now to SE Asia so someone envisions a use for them somewhere and somehow.
> Shore bombardment? seems unlikely
> attacking small surface vessels?
> flying them into other aerial targets like missiles or planes? seems redundant


Like anything else in a complex littoral environment, they might be able to hide.  People over-rate new tech all the time.  Loitering munitions add one capability.  They are just missiles that can hang around in a spot for a long period of time.  That's it.  That's their thing.  They don't have better penetration aids, they aren't faster, they can maybe go further than other small missiles but that's all.  They might be a little more stealthy but there are radars that are designed (or have a function) to detect propellers.

In terms of sinking a bluewater ship with proper air defense, you would be better off just buying a proper anti-ship missile for likely the same cost. 

As far as 30mm you can find that info yourself. Just google-fu it and look for the glossy brochure PDF's.  I wouldn't use a 30mm for that though.  Those missiles are going to be dead a long way before they even get near the ship hopefully.  30mm is likely a last gasp against a low and slow like that.


----------



## lenaitch

suffolkowner said:


> "legitimate power fluctuation issues (like dropping down to 50 Hz, or swinging between 380 and 500 volts"
> 
> This is what we had to deal with from Ontario Hydro from 380 all the way up to 780 I believe. Actually wasn't a problem for us with simple electic motors but I still think the old motors handled all the crap thrown at them better than the new stuff. Of course that new stuff to me is now 20 yrs old. We had capacitor problems for a few months there and that is how I found out what our power input situation was.


Within limits, most 'old style' electric motors will tolerate a fairly wide range of voltages and frequencies, although their performance will suffer.  Fancy new motors and their supporting components, such as ECMs, not so much and may simply refuse to run.  It's an issue for many homeowners with new generation HVAC systems and portable generators. 

The grid is relatively stable simply because of its inertia, the distributed nature of loads and sources and the fact that a lot of the loads are fairly tolerant.  I can well imagine widely fluctuating high-tech loads and one or two gensets on a warship would not play nice together.


----------



## suffolkowner

Colin Parkinson said:


> Your not, but it's a factor in defense purchase, I don't expect or want a answer, but can we give full missile loads to all our ships plus 2-3 reloads with our current stock?


Pretty sure I've read many open sources including from that which is not allowed here that we do not have full missile loads for all our ships now. I expect if we needed them we would get them from the states quick enough. I gather that the 127mm would be the preferred choice to take down a cheap UAV at distance unless we can quad pack something cheaper? How much does a CAMM cost? Or maybe something like Iron Dome's Tamir which is supposed to be pretty cheap


----------



## lenaitch

Underway said:


> I suppose they could be used to attrit ammunition, but 115mph is just so damn slow.


I have read that the the RN's Fairy Swordfish flew so slowly that German naval fire control systems couldn't compensate and ranged their weapons far ahead of them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

suffolkowner said:


> Pretty sure I've read many open sources including from that which is not allowed here that we do not have full missile loads for all our ships now. I expect if we needed them we would get them from the states quick enough. I gather that the 127mm would be the preferred choice to take down a cheap UAV at distance unless we can quad pack something cheaper? How much does a CAMM cost? Or maybe something like Iron Dome's Tamir which is supposed to be pretty cheap


As will every other allied nation and every USN ship that can carry them, can you see the issue?


----------



## Underway

lenaitch said:


> I have read that the the RN's Fairy Swordfish flew so slowly that German naval fire control systems couldn't compensate and ranged their weapons far ahead of them.


Yah, that's a common oversimplification of what really was the problem.  The Germans were never really happy with the fire control directors, with their aft one being unstabilized.  As such while weaving to avoid the air attacks their guns were having a hard time tracking the swordfish.  Also, two of their main forward AA guns were blocked aft by cranes and didn't have good fire arcs.  There is more to the story here but suffice to say, modern systems don't have those sorts of problems with fire control solutions and predictive tracking.


Colin Parkinson said:


> Your not, but it's a factor in defense purchase, I don't expect or want a answer, but can we give full missile loads to all our ships plus 2-3 reloads with our current stock?


Even if I knew I couldn't tell you.  Where do you arrive at 2-3 reloads and all ships?  There are always going to be at least 4 ships out of rotation because of required work periods, even in wartime ships need to be fixed and refit.  And how many missiles are you expecting to expend.  For the current ship I have full confidence that the 57mm and CIWS can do the work on loitering munitions even if the ESSMs were to run dry.

CSC however was the original question and that story is still being written.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> Yah, that's a common oversimplification of what really was the problem.  The Germans were never really happy with the fire control directors, with their aft one being unstabilized.  As such while weaving to avoid the air attacks their guns were having a hard time tracking the swordfish.  Also, two of their main forward AA guns were blocked aft by cranes and didn't have good fire arcs.  There is more to the story here but suffice to say, modern systems don't have those sorts of problems with fire control solutions and predictive tracking.
> 
> Even if I knew I couldn't tell you.  Where do you arrive at 2-3 reloads and all ships?  There are always going to be at least 4 ships out of rotation because of required work periods, even in wartime ships need to be fixed and refit.  And how many missiles are you expecting to expend.  For the current ship I have full confidence that the 57mm and CIWS can do the work on loitering munitions even if the ESSMs were to run dry.
> 
> CSC however was the original question and that story is still being written.


Assuming a conflict with China, you could be fighting and defending for 6 months against a lot of threats, I suspect that every ship we have will have to go to sea for that time period, I can imagine that much of our fleet would have to provide escorts to vessels going to theatre as well. Spare missiles would likely be shipped to near the theatre and hopefully not sunk along the way or taken out during the reloading phase. I am guessing that they would go with an intense attack in the beginning with less intense but longer period as both side attempt to husband missile stocks. We would learn very quickly if China has built "Q ships" armed with Anti-ship missiles and placed amongst their fishing/dredging fleets.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> Assuming a conflict with China, you could be fighting and defending for 6 months against a lot of threats, I suspect that every ship we have will have to go to sea for that time period, I can imagine that much of our fleet would have to provide escorts to vessels going to theatre as well. Spare missiles would likely be shipped to near the theatre and hopefully not sunk along the way or taken out during the reloading phase. I am guessing that they would go with an intense attack in the beginning with less intense but longer period as both side attempt to husband missile stocks. We would learn very quickly if China has built "Q ships" armed with Anti-ship missiles and placed amongst their fishing/dredging fleets.


IF China survives the next 10 years (hint, it won't, it's already under collapse, but that's a different conversation) then in any war with them RCN ships will be fully integrated into US Task Groups.  We'll just get our missiles from their resupply, pay the cost and carry on. Just like we do for JP5.  The reason is that any missile we expend defends the whole Task Group and US ships.  So they are happy to share the ammo.

My question was what math did you do, but I understand now you were picking an arbitrary number to make a point about war stocks needing to be robust.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Underway said:


> IF China survives the next 10 years (hint, it won't, it's already under collapse, but that's a different conversation) then in any war with them RCN ships will be fully integrated into US Task Groups.  We'll just get our missiles from their resupply, pay the cost and carry on. Just like we do for JP5.  The reason is that any missile we expend defends the whole Task Group and US ships.  So they are happy to share the ammo.
> 
> My question was what math did you do, but I understand now you were picking an arbitrary number to make a point about war stocks needing to be robust.


I’d like to know more about your thoughts on why CPC won’t survive the next 10yrs, willing to shed some insight?


----------



## Underway

Czech_pivo said:


> I’d like to know more about your thoughts on why CPC won’t survive the next 10yrs, willing to shed some insight?


Not on this thread.  I derail enough of them already!


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> IF China survives the next 10 years (hint, it won't, it's already under collapse, but that's a different conversation) then in any war with them RCN ships will be fully integrated into US Task Groups.  We'll just get our missiles from their resupply, pay the cost and carry on. Just like we do for JP5.  The reason is that any missile we expend defends the whole Task Group and US ships.  So they are happy to share the ammo.
> 
> My question was what math did you do, but I understand now you were picking an arbitrary number to make a point about war stocks needing to be robust.


I am guessing a ramp up of attacks on Taiwan for a month, followed by some sort of feint to distract the US/Allies, followed by a direct assault in attempt to get a beachhead, likley with similar results we are seeing now, China has a smallish beachhead, which they are reinforcing using naval and civilian ships, taking heavy causalities, they try to enforce a no-go zone around the island which the US and West are trying to reinforce and resupply. I would estimate a heavy two months of fighting and naval/Air engagements, with 4 further months sporadic fighting as both sides nurse their wounds, losses and attempt to restock high end weapon systems. This is a of course a WAG. China is likley to scale back airborne/airmobile assaults and concentrate on amphibious assaults, accepting heavy initial causalities. I would guess they use their fishing fleets to screen the east coast of Taiwan to report and interfere with the Allies efforts, along with a lot of sub activity.


----------



## KevinB

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am guessing a ramp up of attacks on Taiwan for a month, followed by some sort of feint to distract the US/Allies, followed by a direct assault in attempt to get a beachhead, likley with similar results we are seeing now, China has a smallish beachhead, which they are reinforcing using naval and civilian ships, taking heavy causalities, they try to enforce a no-go zone around the island which the US and West are trying to reinforce and resupply. I would estimate a heavy two months of fighting and naval/Air engagements, with 4 further months sporadic fighting as both sides nurse their wounds, losses and attempt to restock high end weapon systems. This is a of course a WAG. China is likley to scale back airborne/airmobile assaults and concentrate on amphibious assaults, accepting heavy initial causalities. I would guess they use their fishing fleets to screen the east coast of Taiwan to report and interfere with the Allies efforts, along with a lot of sub activity.


China just got a first hand look at the fact NATO C4ISR and weapons let the Ukrainian Army lay a pretty rough shellacking on Russia. 
    Taiwan is a much tougher nut, China knows that.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Logic would dictate that Argentina did not need to invade the Falklands, or Saddam invading Kuwait. Nor is there any western logic to the attack on Ukraine. Who knows how far Xi and his followers are willing to go, it's pretty clear that causalities are not a huge concern. I do wish we had some CSC already in the fleet, they would be very useful in such a conflict.


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> China just got a first hand look at the fact NATO C4ISR and weapons let the Ukrainian Army lay a pretty rough shellacking on Russia.
> Taiwan is a much tougher nut, China knows that.


That's not what scares China (though their timelines for "taking Taiwan" may have been extended).  The _brutal,_ _comprehensive, and punishing sanctions _scare China.  80% of China's economy is dependent on value-added trade with the West.  They are seeing a first-hand demonstration that the world will not ignore them going into Taiwan, place some pretend sanctions, and move on.  The West has demonstrated that we are willing to take some economic pain ourselves to make a point.  If China cannot afford to import food, fertilizer, or oil the game is over.  500 million starve to death in the first year.

This is why I'm not worried about China aside from perhaps a single naval battle.  As soon as the US decides you are not on their side they will ice cream scoop you out of globalization, and no one relies on globalization more than China does.  China knows it now more than ever.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> That's not what scares China (though their timelines for "taking Taiwan" may have been extended).  The _brutal,_ _comprehensive, and punishing sanctions _scare China.  80% of China's economy is dependent on value-added trade with the West.  They are seeing a first-hand demonstration that the world will not ignore them going into Taiwan, place some pretend sanctions, and move on.  The West has demonstrated that we are willing to take some economic pain ourselves to make a point.  If China cannot afford to import food, fertilizer, or oil the game is over.  500 million starve to death in the first year.
> 
> This is why I'm not worried about China aside from perhaps a single naval battle.  As soon as the US decides you are not on their side they will ice cream scoop you out of globalization, and no one relies on globalization more than China does.  China knows it now more than ever.


Great points.

But China does have a much larger "fifth column" in the west than Russia.  Plus when the phones stop working and the power is down in North America I don't think the US has the stomach for a conflict.  The CCP will be using the Ukraine war as a learning operation and retool.  I am sure they are looking at all the Russian weapons and saying we need to look at this system closely.  Some of the weapons in themselves are not bad its the user.


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Great points.
> 
> But China does have a much larger "fifth column" in the west than Russia.  Plus when the phones stop working and the power is down in North America I don't think the US has the stomach for a conflict.  The CCP will be using the Ukraine war as a learning operation and retool.  I am sure they are looking at all the Russian weapons and saying we need to look at this system closely.  Some of the weapons in themselves are not bad its the user.


China has always played the long game. 
    They tend to prefer economic strategies backed up by the Military as opposed to overt Military action.  

They aren’t even real Communists anymore.  They are more autocratic capitalists in their actual workings.  They have learned what the real measure of power is in the world, defended economic might.


----------



## Czech_pivo

KevinB said:


> China just got a first hand look at the fact NATO C4ISR and weapons let the Ukrainian Army lay a pretty rough shellacking on Russia.
> Taiwan is a much tougher nut, China knows that.


The Taiwanese are on a fricking island - there is no border with Poland et al to send their women and children, its a death match. If you're on the island, you'll either live or die on the island.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Czech_pivo said:


> The Taiwanese are on a fricking island - there is no border with Poland et al to send their women and children, its a death match. If you're on the island, you'll either live or die on the island.


Which is a both a good thing and bad thing. Likely Taiwan would have month to evacuate citizens, mainly women, children and ones needing higher care. One would hope that governments both there and abroad will have at least tabletopped this one, but I doubt it. I don't see any attempt in the next 5 years possibly ten as they digest the lessons from the current conflict and implement them. So if we are lucky we have at least one CSC in the water and 1-2 AOR's and hopefully stationed in the Pacific, with another partly built. How many Halifax's we have operational at that time, who knows?


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:


> Great points.
> 
> But China does have a much larger "fifth column" in the west than Russia.  Plus when the phones stop working and the power is down in North America I don't think the US has the stomach for a conflict.  The CCP will be using the Ukraine war as a learning operation and retool.  I am sure they are looking at all the Russian weapons and saying we need to look at this system closely.  Some of the weapons in themselves are not bad its the user.


What does the US do when you screw with them?  They hysterically over-react with no sense of scale or proportion.  Hitting the US with domestic China-linked "terrorism" is quite literally game over for China.

I don't believe for a second that China has a big 5th Column in the "west" that is willing to do physical damage, nor if they did they have anything close to resembling the capacity to do so. They are like the French.  All about stealing industrial secrets and technology.


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> *What does the US do when you screw with them?  They hysterically over-react with no sense of scale or proportion.*  Hitting the US with domestic China-linked "terrorism" is quite literally game over for China.
> 
> I don't believe for a second that China has a big 5th Column in the "west" that is willing to do physical damage, nor if they did they have anything close to resembling the capacity to do so. They are like the French.  All about stealing industrial secrets and technology.


Nice to be on the same side/continent as them.


----------



## Underway

This may have been posted before but it bears repeating.  A good article on the Land Based Test Facility for CSC from the Maritime Engineering Journal.

The LBTF is expected to start summer 2022 and finish being built 2025.  Frankly this is going to be a great facility, allowing a lot of the ship systems to be trialed and placed together before they make their way onto the ship proper.  Should remove some risk from the project.


----------



## Good2Golf

The grand daddy of all DITMCO testers!


----------



## OceanBonfire

Irving met with the team building HMS Glasgow:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1522310176019263494


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A cautionary tale for Canada









						Frigate factory could be coming to the Clyde
					

With the news that welds on the first Type 26 Frigate are 'deforming' because the ship is being assembled outside, more information has emerged over plans to build a 'frigate factory' on the Clyde.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk


----------



## Underway

Interesting.  There is no more room at ISI yard to build another assembly building that I can tell.  Unless they put one over the pad they already have.

Weld deforming can be compensated for a number of ways.  This is a good news situation for us, as now that a gremlin is out in the open you can plan for it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> Interesting.  There is no more room at ISI yard to build another assembly building that I can tell.  Unless they put one over the pad they already have.
> 
> Weld deforming can be compensated for a number of ways.  This is a good news situation for us, as now that a gremlin is out in the open you can plan for it.


They might have room on the Dartmouth side to put a building. Maybe the old refinery site?


----------



## YZT580

SeaKingTacco said:


> They might have room on the Dartmouth side to put a building. Maybe the old refinery site?


Or just perhaps rebuild in St. John NB.  May sound out in left field but Irving still owns the land and the drydock is still there.  That would certainly buy Trudeau votes in NB and give them lots of room to spend money for the military without actually buying a gun.


----------



## Underway

Wonder if weld deformation was the issue with HDW not lining up properly between two megablocks.  If so they compensated quite well as there hasn't been a misalignment since and Max B is almost done.


----------



## Stoker

Underway said:


> Interesting.  There is no more room at ISI yard to build another assembly building that I can tell.  Unless they put one over the pad they already have.
> 
> Weld deforming can be compensated for a number of ways.  This is a good news situation for us, as now that a gremlin is out in the open you can plan for it.


What I'm hearing is the building will be modified somehow after AOPS is completed.


----------



## Underway

Stoker said:


> What I'm hearing is the building will be modified somehow after AOPS is completed.


Makes sense.  They probably have some lessons learned in workflow and the blocks they are building for CSC are going to be a bit different.  Reorg how some of the cranes work, stations etc...

  It would be tough to have them out in the weather throughout 3 or 4 winters, though the wraps usually do ok to keep the worst off of them.


----------



## suffolkowner

BAE to construct new shipbuilding facility in Glasgow
					

It is understood that the wet basin at Govan will be drained and a 'covered build hall' will be constructed on the site, allowing for later Type 26 frigates to be built indoors.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk
				




not sure if this is the same article as colin posted above as I cant get it to load but lots of back and forth in the comments. Glued on bolt head issues suggests its not only Canada with shipbuilding QC/QA



Colin Parkinson said:


> A cautionary tale for Canada
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Frigate factory could be coming to the Clyde
> 
> 
> With the news that welds on the first Type 26 Frigate are 'deforming' because the ship is being assembled outside, more information has emerged over plans to build a 'frigate factory' on the Clyde.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ukdefencejournal.org.uk


----------



## Underway

I was watching recently watching a lot of Carrier shows while doing other things around the house.  Both the one on the HMS Queen Elizabeth and USS Ford kept coming back to the same argument discussion.

When you build a phone or a car you do dozens if not hundreds of prototypes.  But a ship is too expensive and large to do a prototype.  It's the initial production run and the prototype at the same time.  This means there will always be problems and issues with the product that you have to work out.  Building a ship is a huge risk, particularly if it doesn't work out as expected.

The QE had problems with welds on the GT ventilation cracking, a huge problem with crack thrust block on their main shaft line that could have been a disaster, fuel flooding in one of the machinery spaces, and other things.

Ford has had famously their new catapult and arrestor gear not work as advertised, and some serious elevator issues.


----------



## DBNSG

YZT580 said:


> Or just perhaps rebuild in St. John NB.  May sound out in left field but Irving still owns the land and the drydock is still there.  That would certainly buy Trudeau votes in NB and give them lots of room to spend money for the military without actually buying a gun.


I believe the Irving's still do own the land with the old shipyard space a wallboard factory or some other part of the integrated Empire


----------



## DBNSG

Underway said:


> Makes sense.  They probably have some lessons learned in workflow and the blocks they are building for CSC are going to be a bit different.  Reorg how some of the cranes work, stations etc...
> 
> It would be tough to have them out in the weather throughout 3 or 4 winters, though the wraps usually do ok to keep the worst off of them.


How do the wraps deal with humidity control, or do they?


----------



## Rainbow1910

YZT580 said:


> Or just perhaps rebuild in St. John NB.  May sound out in left field but Irving still owns the land and the drydock is still there.  That would certainly buy Trudeau votes in NB and give them lots of room to spend money for the military without actually buying a gun.


While it is an option, would that be entirely wise? I assumed that through the NSS, the government wanted to consolidate work in a few specific shipyards to ensure that they would be kept busy for the foreseeable future. With the HDW class eventually finishing up in Halifax in the coming years, moving CSC production partially or entirely to NB would go against what NSS is trying to do? I can't think of what work Halifax would have coming down the pipeline. There is very rough rumors about a Kingston replacement but can the yard and its workers survive waiting around for a few years until the project is ready to go? I'm not especially sure. Seaspan is going to have Coast Guard contracts and the JSS to work on while Davie is seemingly gearing up to jump in with regard to ice capable Coast Guard vessels. Could both Irving yards survive long term on splitting the contract up?



Stoker said:


> What I'm hearing is the building will be modified somehow after AOPS is completed.


That could be a way to deal with these issues but how plausible is that? From what I understand, the plan was for Irving to transition from the HDW class to the CSC as smoothly as possible. Obviously there is going to be adjusting to a new, larger and more militarized design but is that enough of a gap to do major work on the yard groups to accommodate the CSC? I am not entirely sure. Perhaps I have too much stock put into government planning or what I assume is the governments plan.

As Underway said above, it seems the British are dealing with the issue without jumping directly into changing their yard drastically. If it's a matter of adapting to these issues with various construction methods and equipment on site, our ties being a partner with BAE and the RN should allow us to be well informed on the issue. Regardless, I hope for smooth sailing in regard to CSC and the rest of our procurements.


----------



## OceanBonfire

PSPC and National Defence joined Irving:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1531356025386897409


----------



## OceanBonfire

Official Government of Canada designation for SPY-7 radar: AN/SPY-7 (V)3


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1532398941567868928





						The Canadian Surface Combatant SPY-7 Radar Earns Official Government of Canada Designation, Setting a New Standard in Airspace Threat Detection
					

Ottawa, ON, June 2, 2022 – Lockheed Martin’s (NYSE: LMT) advanced SPY-7 radar received its Government of Canada official nomenclature – AN/SPY-7 (V)3 – formally recognizing the radar’s...




					lockheedmartin.ca.mediaroom.com


----------



## Underway

> “This designation marks our commitment to ensuring these ships are well integrated into North American continental defence,



From that article this says to me they are reading the same tea leaves I am regarding where the next batch of Gov't defence money is going to go.  Seems they are positioning for a run at whatever the next northern defence or NORAD radar systems might be.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> From that article this says to me they are reading the same tea leaves I am regarding where the next batch of Gov't defence money is going to go.  Seems they are positioning for a run at whatever the next northern defence or NORAD radar systems might be.


I very much like where this is heading.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> I very much like where this is heading.


I can't disagree.  I know we all love the away game here on this forum.  We're proud of the histories that the CAF's various services have created in fighting European and Asian wars.  Enjoy talking about the cool and interesting kit to go over there and do the business.

But if the CAF focus is on the home game going forward and that's a result of better funding then I'm all in.  Defence of Canada is our number one priority, followed by being a good continental ally.  And if that means (relatively) boring stuff like big radars, satellites, communications systems, patrol assets, and cyber warriors so be it.

The Spy 7's first job is on a shore based facility in Alaska, providing long-range surveillance/traking for NORAD and BMD.  It's not a stretch to see it being implemented/repeated in a few strategic places around Canada to do the same.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> I can't disagree.  I know we all love the away game here on this forum.  We're proud of the histories that the CAF's various services have created in fighting European and Asian wars.  Enjoy talking about the cool and interesting kit to go over there and do the business.
> 
> But if the CAF focus is on the home game going forward and that's a result of better funding then I'm all in.  Defence of Canada is our number one priority, followed by being a good continental ally.  And if that means (relatively) boring stuff like big radars, satellites, communications systems, patrol assets, and cyber warriors so be it.


The boring stuff is an absolute necessity to ensure the sexy stuff can work effectively and get somewhere to be used.


----------



## Underway

Some CSC information from CANSEC.


  Safran is providing the New Generation Dagaie System which launches decoys. They are providing one system per ship two launchers total, one port one starboard fitted above the flex deck space on the ASM deck by the looks of things. 

They can launch the standard IR and RF decoys (chaff and flare), but can also do an Active Offboard Decoy which is an interesting touch. I expect that last one creates emissions that simulate a ship and can pull radar homing missiles away.  It's also able to deploy Anti Torp decoys but I expect that the torp decoy system will be dedicated (I believe ULTRA electronics is providing that).

The Safran vendor told me however the MDA was dealing with the ammunition that it would use, which the MDA vendor didn't know too much about, but that might have been a language barrier (the Safran vendor was very Parisian and between her accented English and my terrible French there might have been a breakdown). 


  Speaking of MDA they are providing quite a bit of stuff.  X-band fire control radar, laser warning detector, laser dazzler/defence system (not for people but to counter laser targeting), and the ESM communications suite.  I was told that they are also optimizing the antenna for the RAVEN ECM. MDA is also integrating the entire EW suite together, or perhaps they are second fiddle to LMC for that integration work. That was a bit unclear to me. 


 IrvinGQ is providing a floating decoy.


Leonardo is going to provide the MARLIN-WS 30mm as the guns for the quarters above the hangar. I'm guessing that they bid both the 30mm and 127mm together beating out BAE for the package. 

What is interesting to me is the three options available either Remote Controled, Coax Camera or Independent Line of Sight.  If I had to pick an option it would be ILOS.  The fact that the gun can take external targeting information from CMS is very interesting. This opens up the potential of the Xband FC radar giving information to the gun which will then automatically swivel and shoot with the appropriate rounds (dual feed so you can select one of two options).  

The elevation is -19 to +70 and it has airburst munitions which are the best option vs boat swarms and small UAV's/loitiering munitions


----------



## calculus

Underway said:


> Some CSC information from CANSEC.
> 
> 
> Safran is providing the New Generation Dagaie System which launches decoys. They are providing one system per ship two launchers total, one port one starboard fitted above the flex deck space on the ASM deck by the looks of things.
> 
> They can launch the standard IR and RF decoys (chaff and flare), but can also do an Active Offboard Decoy which is an interesting touch. I expect that last one creates emissions that simulate a ship and can pull radar homing missiles away.  It's also able to deploy Anti Torp decoys but I expect that the torp decoy system will be dedicated (I believe ULTRA electronics is providing that).
> 
> The Safran vendor told me however the MDA was dealing with the ammunition that it would use, which the MDA vendor didn't know too much about, but that might have been a language barrier (the Safran vendor was very Parisian and between her accented English and my terrible French there might have been a breakdown).
> 
> 
> Speaking of MDA they are providing quite a bit of stuff.  X-band fire control radar, laser warning detector, laser dazzler/defence system (not for people but to counter laser targeting), and the ESM communications suite.  I was told that they are also optimizing the antenna for the RAVEN ECM. MDA is also integrating the entire EW suite together, or perhaps they are second fiddle to LMC for that integration work. That was a bit unclear to me.
> 
> 
> IrvinGQ is providing a floating decoy.
> 
> 
> Leonardo is going to provide the MARLIN-WS 30mm as the guns for the quarters above the hangar. I'm guessing that they bid both the 30mm and 127mm together beating out BAE for the package.
> 
> What is interesting to me is the three options available either Remote Controled, Coax Camera or Independent Line of Sight.  If I had to pick an option it would be ILOS.  The fact that the gun can take external targeting information from CMS is very interesting. This opens up the potential of the Xband FC radar giving information to the gun which will then automatically swivel and shoot with the appropriate rounds (dual feed so you can select one of two options).
> 
> The elevation is -19 to +70 and it has airburst munitions which are the best option vs boat swarms and small UAV's/loitiering munitions


The Canadian T26 variant is starting to diverge significantly from its English and Australian cousins...


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> The Canadian T26 variant is starting to diverge significantly from its English and Australian cousins...


It is on the combat system side for sure.  Marine systems are still very similar in a lot of cases AFAIK.  Personally, I think the bias' of the navies involved is showing.  Australia is expecting a missile war with China and UK is making a ship that fits a specific role in their carrier TG.  Canada is trying to thread the needle for a true multirole frigate with good AAW and good ASW.


----------



## Good2Golf

…and BMD. 😉


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> …and BMD. 😉


JSS is implementing "Space and Land Tracks" into our CMS.  Land makes sense as JSS will be providing logistical support to forces ashore in any number of circumstances.  Space though... I wonder why we could be doing that?  We don't have effectors...


----------



## OceanBonfire

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534222471305502720








						Workshop focuses on design for future Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) | Trident Newspaper
					

How do you design a warship with its future sailors in mind, given that many of those future sailors are just ten years old, or even younger?




					tridentnewspaper.com


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> JSS is implementing "Space and Land Tracks" into our CMS.  Land makes sense as JSS will be providing logistical support to forces ashore in any number of circumstances.  Space though... I wonder why we could be doing that?  We don't have effectors...


If it’s allowed to poke out of the VLS launcher by 6’, how about SM-6?

That (only half-jokingly) said, just feeding into the ACS tracking/engagement data sphere with the SPY-7(V)3 data would be valuable to like-minded maritime nations.


----------



## MTShaw

Good2Golf said:


> If it’s allowed to poke out of the VLS launcher by 6’, how about SM-6?
> 
> That (only half-jokingly) said, just feeding into the ACS tracking/engagement data sphere with the SPY-7(V)3 data would be valuable to like-minded maritime nations.


All of the vls launchers will be strike length. So they could fit a SM3 if wanted.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> If it’s allowed to poke out of the VLS launcher by 6’, how about SM-6?
> 
> That (only half-jokingly) said, just feeding into the ACS tracking/engagement data sphere with the SPY-7(V)3 data would be valuable to like-minded maritime nations.



You've hit the nail on the head. SPY 7 is designed for BMD and Hypersonics.  Even if you can't engage the target the US ships in company likely could.  Everyone sharing their targeting information reduces that tracking error.



MTShaw said:


> All of the vls launchers will be strike length. So they could fit a SM3 if wanted.


Yep, 24 x Mk41 VLS strike length.  Almost every current US ship-launched missile fits in them.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> You've hit the nail on the head. SPY 7 is designed for BMD and Hypersonics.  Even if you can't engage the target the US ships in company likely could.  Everyone sharing their targeting information reduces that tracking error.
> 
> 
> Yep, 24 x Mk41 VLS strike length.  Almost every current US ship-launched missile fits in them.


I know that SPY6 is based on two foot cube phased arrays. How does the SPY7 work In relation to the SPY6?


----------



## Underway

How did we miss this?  It was out in March.  Likely to much Ukraine/Russia fixations. But I'm glad I can talk about a bunch of this stuff now.  MTF as I'm researching @MTShaw 's question on SPY 7...


----------



## Good2Golf

MTShaw said:


> I know that SPY6 is based on two foot cube phased arrays. How does the SPY7 work In relation to the SPY6?


Different TRM layout.  I understand the SPY-7 is scalable in manufacture, and has provisions for rapid RE&RE for individual TRMs, while the SPy-6’s modules advertise scalability, but I understand the TRMs are not as easily replaceable individually, so the replacement block is a multi-TRM 2ft.sq module.  I would note that unless the SPY-6’s inter-module alignment is perfect, there will likely be less coherence across the plane than the 7.

Edit:  I’m looking for open source material giving details of the TRM/antenna array difference between 7 and 6.  I just remember that what I had seen previously, the RF guy in my had a warm spot for the 7.


----------



## Underway

@MTShaw and @Good2Golf , I think this was posted a long time ago but page 30 of this edition of Canadian Naval Review is pretty good for SPY-7 information.

https://navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol15_3.pdf

The TRM's (transmitter receiver modules) called sub-arrays are small and built directly into the backside of the radar array's surface.  These subarrays are modular and can be easily removed for repair (30 seconds in some cases).

The Spy 6 sub-arrays are 2'x2'x2' and the Spy 7 sub-arrays are shoebox sized (so significantly smaller) and arranged perpendicular to the surface (the small face of the shoebox points outwards).

Adding more subarrays increases the range and sensitivity of the radar (identical to the Spy 6).  Both radars can replace a sub-array without shutting down the other ones.

The capability is that CSC will get SPY-1D ranges from a much smaller footprint.


----------



## Good2Golf

Thanks @Underway, hadn’t seen that dit before.  I’m remembering something else, but it was FOUO and I wanted to be careful about not outing any details improperly. In the end, I think the 7 will be a very capable system, not just for each CSC afloat, but for putting us into serious player space with our cousins south of the 49th.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Speaking of CSC visuals, not sure if this was ever shared here but I have seen it bouncing around naval discussion boards for awhile now. Sea Ceptor launcher is humorously mislabeled but otherwise a good showcase of tech aboard.


----------



## Underway

Rainbow1910 said:


> View attachment 71251
> Speaking of CSC visuals, not sure if this was ever shared here but I have seen it bouncing around naval discussion boards for awhile now. Sea Ceptor launcher is humorously mislabeled but otherwise a good showcase of tech aboard.


Oh good it's out. I've had that for months but it was part of an ADM(Mat) presentation and I was lothe to share it outside of the DWAN.

The thing that I think is the highest risk for the project is the CMS 330 and Aegis twinned combat management systems.


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> Thanks @Underway, hadn’t seen that dit before.  I’m remembering something else, but it was FOUO and I wanted to be careful about not outing any details improperly. In the end, I think the 7 will be a very capable system, not just for each CSC afloat, but for putting us into serious player space with our cousins south of the 49th.


Here is something I just remembered. It was the only radar system that was fully compliant with the requirements during the bidding process. I don't know what the REQ's were,  but that says a lot for the radar.  If even CEAFAR didn't meet the REQ's that's one very good system.


----------



## calculus

Rainbow1910 said:


> View attachment 71251
> Speaking of CSC visuals, not sure if this was ever shared here but I have seen it bouncing around naval discussion boards for awhile now. Sea Ceptor launcher is humorously mislabeled but otherwise a good showcase of tech aboard.


Small point, but the label in the above infographic for the MK-41 VLS should read "SM-2 Block 3 *C*", vice "3 *B*". 






						Canada approved for SM-2 Block IIIC missile purchase
					

Canada has been approved to buy the latest medium-range active version of the US Navy’s (USN’s) Standard Missile-2 (SM-2) anti-air missile for its next-generation...



					www.janes.com
				









						Canada – Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) Block IIIC Missiles | Defense Security Cooperation Agency
					






					www.dsca.mil


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> @MTShaw and @Good2Golf , I think this was posted a long time ago but page 30 of this edition of Canadian Naval Review is pretty good for SPY-7 information.
> 
> https://navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol15_3.pdf
> 
> The TRM's (transmitter receiver modules) called sub-arrays are small and built directly into the backside of the radar array's surface.  These subarrays are modular and can be easily removed for repair (30 seconds in some cases).
> 
> The Spy 6 sub-arrays are 2'x2'x2' and the Spy 7 sub-arrays are shoebox sized (so significantly smaller) and arranged perpendicular to the surface (the small face of the shoebox points outwards).
> 
> Adding more subarrays increases the range and sensitivity of the radar (identical to the Spy 6).  Both radars can replace a sub-array without shutting down the other ones.
> 
> The capability is that CSC will get SPY-1D ranges from a much smaller footprint.


Thanks @Underway


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> Thanks @Underway


No problems.

Going forward with CSC I'd like to see no X band illuminator and use that margin for more SPY 7 subassemblies.  The Air Warfare Missiles will all be active homing by the time ship four comes out.  And the main gun can be directed with the SPY 7 instead of an illuminator.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> No problems.
> 
> Going forward with CSC I'd like to see no X band illuminator and use that margin for more SPY 7 subassemblies.  The Air Warfare Missiles will all be active homing by the time ship four comes out.  And the main gun can be directed with the SPY 7 instead of an illuminator.


I love your optimism that they will be a fourth ship!   LOL


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:


> I love your optimism that they will be a fourth ship!   LOL


Its both optimism and cynicism.  Optimistically we need frigate replacements so there are going to be more ships.  The cynic in me says ISI is the definition of a military-industrial complex.  Which party is going to cancel Union jobs in the voter-rich area of Halifax?  That shipyard will be building ships forever now to pork-barrel ridings in the Maritimes.

You could argue they might not be CSC and that's possible.  But there will be ships.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> Its both optimism and cynicism.  Optimistically we need frigate replacements so there are going to be more ships.  The cynic in me says ISI is the definition of a military-industrial complex.  Which party is going to cancel Union jobs in the voter-rich area of Halifax?  That shipyard will be building ships forever now to pork-barrel ridings in the Maritimes.
> 
> You could argue they might not be CSC and that's possible.  But there will be ships.


I think you are right.  The jobs plus the Irvings make a good combo to keep things moving.

Years ago before the Harper premiership I remember one CPC strategist (Kory Teneycke I think?) saying if you want equipment and support the CAF we should buy and build in Canada even if twice the price.  You get the workers support and the companies lobbying too.  Thus the NSS was born. 

As a crass political game I think that should be the case too.  Just look at the GDLS London workers conundrum.  Unifor (CAW) years and years of NDP support.  But the NDP didn't really support their sale of equipment to SA.  What to do to.  So the GDLS receives the contract for the LAV 6 replacing, Bisons etc.   

I am always two sides of this build it here but then for the good of service buy the best and cheapest.


----------



## Weinie

Spencer100 said:


> I think you are right.  The jobs plus the Irvings make a good combo to keep things moving.
> 
> I am always two sides of this build it here but then for the good of service buy the best and cheapest.


You can buy best, or cheapest. Choose. And I would suggest that Canada, in an effort to spread IRB's, achieves neither.


----------



## Underway

It won't be the cheapest, but it has a shot at the "best".  If not "best" it will be no slouch.  The advantage of the project is that you can iteratively improve on each new hull. I've already heard discussions on how the second batch will change from the first.


----------



## Spencer100

Weinie said:


> You can buy best, or cheapest. Choose. And I would suggest that Canada, in an effort to spread IRB's, achieves neither.


Yes the IRB do not achieve much but spread some money around to Canadian firms.  I think what is need is like the GDLS example a large plant with the knowledge in Canada.  Irving after this will have that.  Yes some will be retained by BAE and Lockheed but on the whole it is building in Irving.


----------



## Weinie

Spencer100 said:


> Yes the IRB do not achieve much but spread some money around to Canadian firms.  I think what is need is like the GDLS example a large plant with the knowledge in Canada. * Irving after this will have that. * Yes some will be retained by BAE and Lockheed but on the whole it is building in Irving.


Yeah. I recall that the CPF narrative for shipbuilding (SJS/Irving) would generate off-shore buys for the next generation frigate and would position Canadian shipbuilding to be leaders in a competitive market.                     crickets       crickets.


----------



## FSTO

Weinie said:


> Yeah. I recall that the CPF narrative for shipbuilding (SJS/Irving) would generate off-shore buys for the next generation frigate and would position Canadian shipbuilding to be leaders in a competitive market.                     crickets       crickets.


Oh yea, we talk a big game.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> No problems.
> 
> Going forward with CSC I'd like to see no X band illuminator and use that margin for more SPY 7 subassemblies.  The Air Warfare Missiles will all be active homing by the time ship four comes out.  And the main gun can be directed with the SPY 7 instead of an illuminator.


Yup, S-band can do fine, especially with such a big aperture, even without using additional margin; the angular resolution will be no slouch.  Keeping it in S-band would also provide greater range for multi-static illumination for another platform’s semi-active homers….if as you note, Underway, there are any of those left.  ESSM Block II already has both semi and fully-active seeking.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

We can maintain even 3 shipyards, if the government does not insist on running the DND and CCG vessel for their lifespan +20 years. What we need is a rule/law that no government ship will be older than 20 years and must be replaced by then. That will reduce running costs and keep the fleets and the yards modern.


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Yeah. I recall that the CPF narrative for shipbuilding (SJS/Irving) would generate off-shore buys for the next generation frigate and would position Canadian shipbuilding to be leaders in a competitive market.                     crickets       crickets.


There is no discussion of this for warships at this point.  However, LMC has done a good job of getting midlife refit/combat systems modernization work. 

Chile and NZ both had their frigates upgraded by LMC in Victoria, with similar systems that Halifax Class had.  And its fed back into the CSC project.  Without the Sea Ceptor experience LMC gained working on the Type 23's and ANZAC's they might not have bid them for the CIADS.


----------



## Retired AF Guy

Rainbow1910 said:


> View attachment 71251
> Speaking of CSC visuals, not sure if this was ever shared here but I have seen it bouncing around naval discussion boards for awhile now. Sea Ceptor launcher is humorously mislabeled but otherwise a good showcase of tech aboard.


Tomahawks? I know there was some speculation before about them being employed; so does this confirm that they will mounted?


----------



## Weinie

Underway said:


> There is no discussion of this for warships at this point.  However, LMC has done a good job of getting midlife refit/combat systems modernization work.
> 
> Chile and NZ both had their frigates upgraded by LMC in Victoria, with similar systems that Halifax Class had.  And its fed back into the CSC project.  Without the Sea Ceptor experience LMC gained working on the Type 23's and ANZAC's they might not have bid them for the CIADS.


Ok. But there was this.

Defence contractors upgrading NZDF warships locked in legal battle

As a former PAO, I was asked to buff a turd numerous times. I refused. Is there a risk that LMC will be in a similar sit re the CSC? Who knows? I am a pragmatist.


----------



## Underway

Weinie said:


> Ok. But there was this.
> 
> Defence contractors upgrading NZDF warships locked in legal battle
> 
> As a former PAO, I was asked to buff a turd numerous times. I refused. Is there a risk that LMC will be in a similar sit re the CSC? Who knows? I am a pragmatist.


Sure.  Contractors and subcontractors fight all the time. 80% of their jobs is being jerks to each other.  

I fully expect that ISI, BAE, and LMC will have, if they don't already have, a tense relationship, particularly for the first ship.  The contract is just oddly organized.  I'm sure BAE would much rather just own the yard themselves.  If the relationship wasn't tense at times I would question whether the requirements were written correctly!


----------



## Underway

Retired AF Guy said:


> Tomahawks? I know there was some speculation before about them being employed; so does this confirm that they will mounted?


Not until they are purchased, but I see them constantly publishing this as warming the turn and getting the public ready for them.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Interesting to see the finer details getting sorted out. I was wondering, as I haven't seen anything in any of the publications to date, whether there will be.50cal RWS mounted to the ship as well as the Marlin? I would assume so, but haven't seen or heard a peep about it.


----------



## Underway

Swampbuggy said:


> Interesting to see the finer details getting sorted out. I was wondering, as I haven't seen anything in any of the publications to date, whether there will be.50cal RWS mounted to the ship as well as the Marlin? I would assume so, but haven't seen or heard a peep about it.


No idea.  There is an argument to be made that if you have 30mm you don't need a 50 cal.  I can see mounts for a 50 though, amidships and on the bridge wings for going into and out of harbor in a higher force protection state.  Should do it like the UK though.  Get a 7.62 minigun.


----------



## Swampbuggy

Underway said:


> No idea.  There is an argument to be made that if you have 30mm you don't need a 50 cal.  I can see mounts for a 50 though, amidships and on the bridge wings for going into and out of harbor in a higher force protection state.  Should do it like the UK though.  Get a 7.62 minigun.


I read somewhere that the.50 was the best choice against small boats/swarm attacks, but have no idea if that still holds true. I can certainly see how the higher firing rate would be an advantage over the larger calibre RWS, but obviously wouldn't pack the same punch.


----------



## Underway

30mm airburst is really good against small boats.  Three-round burst, move to next target...


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> No idea.  There is an argument to be made that if you have 30mm you don't need a 50 cal.  I can see mounts for a 50 though, amidships and on the bridge wings for going into and out of harbor in a higher force protection state.  Should do it like the UK though.  Get a 7.62 minigun.


.50 Minigun, because it’s a ship, and WhyTF not


----------



## Underway

KevinB said:


> .50 Minigun, because it’s a ship, and WhyTF not


Collateral damage to the neighbourhood as its for entry and exits of harbour, but I would love to see it.  So badass.


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> Collateral damage to the neighbourhood as its for entry and exits of harbour, but I would love to see it.  So badass.


If you need to fire a Minigun in a harbor / I’m pretty sure stuff has gone seriously pear shaped.  
   I’d use a DMR first then C6 - if that isn’t solving the issue then escalate to GAU-19 and then 30mm for the win.


----------



## Good2Golf

GAU-19/A is a very reasonable ‘middle ground.’
👍🏼


----------



## RedFive

Colin Parkinson said:


> We can maintain even 3 shipyards, if the government does not insist on running the DND and CCG vessel for their lifespan +20 years. What we need is a rule/law that no government ship will be older than 20 years and must be replaced by then. That will reduce running costs and keep the fleets and the yards modern.


Only if the will is there to follow the policy/law/rule.

To my knowledge, the RCMP has a policy that our vehicles shall be replaced at 160,000kms or 10 years of age, whichever comes first. I'll let you guess how much of the fleet is actually compliant...


----------



## KevinB

RedFive said:


> Only if the will is there to follow the policy/law/rule.
> 
> To my knowledge, the RCMP has a policy that our vehicles shall be replaced at 160,000kms or 10 years of age, whichever comes first. I'll let you guess how much of the fleet is actually compliant...


That’s crazy - especially for hiway cars.  
   Most Fed entities down here are under 50k miles (some under 20) OR three years.


----------



## NavyShooter

Using a DMR would assume that anyone in the Navy knows how to shoot...


----------



## Underway

Good2Golf said:


> GAU-19/A is a very reasonable ‘middle ground.’
> 👍🏼


Lol.  With the NRWS a normal 50 is quite accurate. Certainly much better than manual stabilization from a bobbing moving ship using an Mk1 Eyeball tracking of a bobbing moving boat.  You only need one bullet to hit one of those boats to ruin the day of everyone onboard so a burst from an RWS does some work.  The squishy person is the main target, but we'll take a blown-out engine or sizable hole in the boat as well.

A GAU-19 on an NRWS equivalent likely loses some of its advantages (beaten zone) as it becomes stabilized and accurate.  But god damn it would be amazing to see.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> A GAU-19 on an NRWS equivalent likely loses some of its advantages (beaten zone) as it becomes stabilized and accurate. But god damn it would be amazing to see.


Underway, valid point, but don’t worry, GDAS thought about the beaten zone and can custom adjust the barrels alignment to shape the beaten zone at any particular range you want. 

I saw the GAU-19/A live fired at GDAS’ Ethan Allen Range in Vermont.   The /A variant was dual-rate selectable: 1000 or 2000 rd/min. At 1000, it’s a beast. At 2000, it’s beyond beast like, yet incredibly smooth and balanced in the mount.


----------



## KevinB

I’ve only used the GAU off a GMV, but the beaten zone isn’t a need for a Minigun as you can be very selective with short bursts. 

A friend of mine (now retired) was hand loading Mk211 (Raufoss) belts for missions, with 1:1 Mk221 to M20 (API-T). 
  Was very impressive - but that’s probably the only unit willing to pay for that on the planet.


----------



## Good2Golf

Any SLAP?


----------



## KevinB

Good2Golf said:


> Any SLAP?


Didn’t sound like it.  They just Javelin anything bigger than a truck


----------



## Uzlu

> Bigger warships will require big investment in Halifax Shipyard
> 
> It’s not just the bill that’s growing; the boats are getting bigger, too.
> 
> And the proposed design of the replacement for our aging frigates has outgrown the facilities to build, launch and repair them, so those will need expensive upgrades or replacements.
> 
> According to statements made by Irving Shipbuilding president Kevin Mooney, the money for those upgrades will need to come quite soon if it is to begin cutting steel on schedule in 2024.
> 
> “Basically it’s a larger ship, it’s a more complex ship,” Mooney said at a recent defence conference in Ottawa.
> 
> “So we have to upgrade portions of the shipyard to be able to handle both the capability and the capacity. And, also, we don’t want to bring a very high risk to the construction process.”
> 
> Irving representatives refused to comment on details of any request at an announcement of provincial funding for skilled trades held at the Halifax Shipyard on Wednesday.
> 
> The federal government, meanwhile, won’t acknowledge that it has received such a request to allow construction to begin on the Canadian surface combatant in 2024, let alone for how much.
> 
> “PSPC remains committed to working with our shipbuilding partners to ensure (National Shipbuilding Strategy) projects are delivered in a timely and efficient manner,” reads a written response to Chronicle Herald questions by Public Services and Procurement Canada.
> 
> “This includes continuously assessing potential risks facing shipbuilding projects, and putting in place effective mitigation strategies where needed. At this stage, we cannot comment on specific requests from shipyards.”
> 
> While Irving and the federal government won’t tell the taxpayer how much they’re being asked to pay, what it’s for or whether we’re going to pay it, Timothy Choi has some idea. The fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute has followed and written on the surface combatant program as the ships’ size, capabilities and cost have grown.
> 
> “The biggest cost factor for the expansion is how we get the ships into the water,” said Choi.
> 
> The Arctic and offshore patrol ships being built by Irving are launched using a barge that can sink down in the water, allowing the completed vessel to float off. The semi-submersible barge is leased from Norway and is not big enough to launch the larger Type 26 ship.
> 
> “Irving was looking at something more permanent, a synchro-lift,” said Choi.
> 
> “It’s what we currently have to raise subs and frigates onto dry land in Halifax. The ship sails in and the bottom of the dock lifts up like a giant elevator.”
> 
> While the main construction building is large enough for the Type 26, Choi said some processes and equipment will have to be moved or upgraded.
> 
> Beyond the building and launching of the new ships there will be the issue of the facilities to maintain them. The current dry dock was originally built in the 1800s and, according to Choi, is “barely adequate” for the Halifax-class frigates.
> 
> A new one will be needed for maintaining the ships after they go in the water. The first of the new generation of ships is not anticipated to be operational until the early 2030s, so the upgraded dry dock might not come right away.
> 
> Choi was hesitant to give figures but posited the required upgrades (dry dock included) “could” be within the $500-million range.
> 
> “There’s been a lack of investment over several decades,” said Choi.
> 
> “We’re building ships that exceed the parameters of the facility. So that infrastructure needs to be renewed and it’s coming along with the ships themselves. That will cost a heck of a lot.”
> 
> *The ship dimensions*
> 
> “This is arguably not even a destroyer; this is a cruiser, is what it is,” said Ken Hansen, retired navy commander and current defence analyst, of what we know of the evolving plan for the new ship.
> 
> For his part, Choi would argue that the new ships don’t warrant the larger cruiser designation.
> 
> Regardless, the new ships will be a lot bigger and more capable than the 12 frigates (4,700 tonnes displacement) and four already retired Iroquois Class destroyers (5,100 tonnes) they are replacing.
> 
> They’ve grown in size so far to an official estimate of 8,080 tonnes. But the design isn’t complete and, according to the MacDonald-Laurier Institute publication No Other Option released last December, the decision to use a larger, more advanced radar system will bring displacement up to over 9,000 tonnes when the ship is fully loaded.
> 
> The Lockheed-Martin Spy-7 system will allow the ships to provide area ballistic missile defence for itself and nearby ships. The radar, which looks like a big pyramid, allows the ships to track and shoot down multiple targets at once with missiles packed into 30 bays.
> 
> While the Halifax- and Iroquois-class ships carried surface-to-air and surface-to-surface missiles, this new ship will also be capable of carrying Tomahawk cruise missiles that can hit targets 1,700 kilometres away.
> 
> The growing size and capabilities led the Parliamentary Budget Officer to estimate the cost of the 15 ships at $77.3 billion.
> 
> “That price is going to go up,” said Hansen.
> 
> “I’ve seen their spreadsheets. . . . The length and weight (increases) will drive it up, plus the extra power, then the Spy-7 radar system will be eye-wateringly expensive.”
> 
> Hansen argues that Canada could have saved money by having the Spy-7 system on three or four ships and less advanced radar on the others.
> 
> He said Canada previously maintained a “tiered fleet structure” with more advanced guided missile destroyers and accompanying frigates, like our allies.
> 
> “Which is normal because no one can afford it to all be at the highest level,” said Hansen.
> 
> “But in Canada nothing else will do.”
> 
> Others, including Choi and the MacDonald-Laurier Institute, argue that having all the ships with advanced capabilities will provide economies of scale while also allowing Canada to maintain constant readiness on both coasts.
> 
> “To maintain a constant state of readiness you will have one ship deployed, one in maintenance and one in training,” said Choi.
> 
> “If the purpose of the military is to be an insurance police then you should build it to be a credible insurance policy, not something that is halfway.”











						Bigger warships will require big investment in Halifax Shipyard | SaltWire
					

It’s not just the bill that’s growing; the boats are getting bigger, too. And the proposed design of the replacement for our aging frigates has outgrown ...




					www.saltwire.com


----------



## MTShaw

Uzlu said:


> Bigger warships will require big investment in Halifax Shipyard | SaltWire
> 
> 
> It’s not just the bill that’s growing; the boats are getting bigger, too. And the proposed design of the replacement for our aging frigates has outgrown ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.saltwire.com


I hoped that we wouldn’t have to go back for the reasoning behind the single-surface-combatant: The only way to have the load out you want is for the changes only to occur in the VLS.

4-5 billion a year is a good deal for our SPY-7 NORAD/nato obligations.


----------



## Underway

I think if you run a search with the keywords "_Ugh, Ken Hansen_" on this board there would be more than one hit for sure.

Ken needs to go back to school and understand how ships are classified (tip: It's not by how big they are, it's about what their role is).

The criticism about a tiered fleet is valid to an extent.  The destroyer + frigate + AOR fleet mix is a valuable one, but because of the RCN two fleet structure, you run the risk of not having one of the tiers available.  The RCN has just had the experience of losing two capabilities because of a tiered fleet structure.  Moving forward we are not going to have that happen again.

Timothy puts out some good info. I was not thinking about drydock and synchro lift compatibility. 

I have a lot of time for Timothy Choi.  One of the few military writers in Canada who doesn't seem to have an agenda and writes a balanced perspective that is often more facts based.


----------



## Czech_pivo

Uzlu said:


> Bigger warships will require big investment in Halifax Shipyard | SaltWire
> 
> 
> It’s not just the bill that’s growing; the boats are getting bigger, too. And the proposed design of the replacement for our aging frigates has outgrown ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.saltwire.com


Has Irving won the maintenance contract on the new frigates?


_Beyond the building and launching of the new ships there will be the issue of the facilities to maintain them. The current dry dock was originally built in the 1800s and, according to Choi, is “barely adequate” for the Halifax-class frigates.

A new one will be needed for maintaining the ships after they go in the water. The first of the new generation of ships is not anticipated to be operational until the early 2030s, so the upgraded dry dock might not come right away._

The drydocks at Davie's facility are large enough today to accommodate the yet to be built frigates, the rest of their facilities might need to be refurbished, the drydocks are big enough - At 351m, the Champlain Dry Dock is Canada's largest graving dock. The Champlain Dry Dock is 36.57m wide - you can actually fit 2 Type 26's  end to end in that Dry Dock....


----------



## Underway

No they haven't AFAIK, but you can't have a fleet on the coast without a super easy maintenance drydock adjacent.  Sometimes a ship just needs to go into the ditch quickly.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> No they haven't AFAIK, but you can't have a fleet on the coast without a super easy maintenance drydock adjacent.  Sometimes a ship just needs to go into the ditch quickly.


I wonder if the solution for Halifax is a floating drydock? The shoreline real estate situation there is not exactly conducive to a brand new, in ground drydock. Unless maybe the low side of Shearwater gets dug up.


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> I wonder if the solution for Halifax is a floating drydock? The shoreline real estate situation there is not exactly conducive to a brand new, in ground drydock. Unless maybe the low side of Shearwater gets dug up.


A floating drydock or a synchro lift of the appropriate size would be valuable.  Its a good idea for sure.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

BC has the Panamax floating drydock in North Van at 201m and the Esquimalt graving dock at 357m


----------



## DBNSG

Does anyone know the plans for the space below the Mac Donald Bridge at the old Annex site. Could that be rebuilt for a second Drydock?


----------



## Dana381

There used to be a couple floating dry docks in Halifax, this was 1995 or so. I was 15 and I didn't know who owned them but I seen them from the Bridge and it was explained to me what they were and how they worked. I'm pretty sure one of them was quite large for the Iroquois class. Are they still there and if so are they too small for the CSC?


----------



## DBNSG

Dana381 said:


> There used to be a couple floating dry docks in Halifax, this was 1995 or so. I was 15 and I didn't know who owned them but I seen them from the Bridge and it was explained to me what they were and how they worked. I'm pretty sure one of them was quite large for the Iroquois class. Are they still there and if so are they too small for the CSC?


The last one was cut in two and towed to Tampa Bay a number of years ago. Bit of a shock getting off a Cruise ship and seeing it in the Harbor down there.


----------



## Grimey

NavyShooter said:


> Using a DMR would assume that anyone in the Navy knows how to shoot...


Hmmm.  Always the Swim-ex conundrum.  Do I take my chances with the shark, or the aim of LSBN Bloggins?


----------



## dimsum

Grimey said:


> Hmmm.  Always the Swim-ex conundrum.  Do I take my chances with the shark, or the aim of LSBN Bloggins?


As an aside, I saw that and thought "why didn't we just go with that when the RCN did its 'sailor' name change?"


----------



## Grimey

dimsum said:


> As an aside, I saw that and thought "why didn't we just go with that when the RCN did its 'sailor' name change?"


You could start a whole new thread on that, but bolted horses/closing barn doors comes to mind.

Really though, who in the RCN brain trust thought that Sailor 1st class et al sounded better than Leading Marine Engineering Mechanic?  Oh, and look!!!  It's gender neutral.


----------



## dimsum

Grimey said:


> Really though, who in the RCN brain trust thought that Sailor 1st class et al sounded better than Leading Marine Engineering Mechanic?  Oh, and look!!!  It's gender neutral.


Maybe it doesn't sound right en francais?


----------



## MTShaw

Strange rendering of the CSC along with info about DeLOG. Type 45 for all.






						BAE and Lockheed Martin may have submitted the wrong bid for the CSC program – Canadian Naval Review
					

By Mikael Perron, 1 April 2022 I was reading a status report of the Daring-class destroyer and looking at the pictures, and I realised how well the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) mast would fit where the main mast featuring the SAMPSON radar is located on these ships.




					www.navalreview.ca


----------



## MTShaw

from:





						Further CSC graphics – Canadian Naval Review
					

By David Dunlop, 18 January 2022 The Lockheed Martin Canada web page is showing a top-view of the CSC design (seen above). Recent computer graphics of the CSC frigate on the LM website seem to bear out the recent changes to the CSC design.




					www.navalreview.ca


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> Strange rendering of the CSC along with info about DeLOG. Type 45 for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BAE and Lockheed Martin may have submitted the wrong bid for the CSC program – Canadian Naval Review
> 
> 
> By Mikael Perron, 1 April 2022 I was reading a status report of the Daring-class destroyer and looking at the pictures, and I realised how well the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) mast would fit where the main mast featuring the SAMPSON radar is located on these ships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navalreview.ca


I love how people get a pencil out and think that they can just swap a few things and voila!  New ship type.  The acoustic signature management for the Type 26 goes far beyond just putting diesels in acoustic enclosures.  There is the hull noise, the fact plumbing is designed to keep laminar flow throughout, how drains, intakes and discharges work/are located.

If we wanted a noisy ship then we should have taken the Alion bid...


----------



## Good2Golf

I thought the “we could have had a modified Type 45” arm chair quarterbacking/what-iffing  was a bit misguidedly irrelevant/wasteful of one’s time.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Good2Golf said:


> I thought the “we could have had a modified Type 45” arm chair quarterbacking/what-iffing  was a bit misguidedly irrelevant/wasteful of one’s time.


Especially after the handful the RN has had sorting out the “boutique“ hybrid propulsion system…


----------



## Halifax Tar

Has any space be allocated yet to warehousing of parts and food, or office space for Log ? 

Just wondering about the layout.


----------



## Underway

Halifax Tar said:


> Has any space be allocated yet to warehousing of parts and food, or office space for Log ?
> 
> Just wondering about the layout.


The ship spaces are allocated for the most part.  There wasn't enough room for Log or stores on the ship proper so they are going to tow a Logistics Barge behind the ship, the project has taken to calling it a "Log Boom".


----------



## Halifax Tar

Underway said:


> The ship spaces are allocated for the most part.  There wasn't enough room for Log or stores on the ship proper so they are going to tow a Logistics Barge behind the ship, the project has taken to calling it a "Log Boom".



By god that's a wonderful idea lol

The sad thing is it's almost believable lol


----------



## KevinB

Underway said:


> The ship spaces are allocated for the most part.  There wasn't enough room for Log or stores on the ship proper so they are going to tow a Logistics Barge behind the ship, the project has taken to calling it a "Log Boom".


Loyal Quartermaster


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> I love how people get a pencil out and think that they can just swap a few things and voila!  New ship type.  The acoustic signature management for the Type 26 goes far beyond just putting diesels in acoustic enclosures.  There is the hull noise, the fact plumbing is designed to keep laminar flow throughout, how drains, intakes and discharges work/are located.
> 
> If we wanted a noisy ship then we should have taken the Alion bid...


It seems the best idea he has that the 45 hull size allows for more growth than the 26 and allows for more weapons. It does seem that the 26 hull is not quite big enough for what everyone wants it to do. But your right that a "redesign" even using the same hull form is really an entirely new ship.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> The ship spaces are allocated for the most part.  There wasn't enough room for Log or stores on the ship proper so they are going to tow a Logistics Barge behind the ship, the project has taken to calling it a "Log Boom".


And you can already buy the design off the shelf.  Easy button 









						216-Foot Toy Hauler Yacht Makes Transporting Helicopters and Submarines Very Simple
					

You're gonna need more than a winning lottery ticket to afford this.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## Halifax Tar

Spencer100 said:


> And you can already buy the design off the shelf.  Easy button
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 216-Foot Toy Hauler Yacht Makes Transporting Helicopters and Submarines Very Simple
> 
> 
> You're gonna need more than a winning lottery ticket to afford this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.thedrive.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 71516



Yes please, the logistics dept will be more than happy with this set up 

Imagine, submarine logistics capability!  I've always wanted my dolphins lol


----------



## Good2Golf

Colin Parkinson said:


> It seems the best idea he has that the 45 hull size allows for more growth than the 26 and allows for more weapons. It does seem that the 26 hull is not quite big enough for what everyone wants it to do. But your right that a "redesign" even using the same hull form is really an entirely new ship.


The 26 is within feet of AOL and beam of the 45 and two feet greater draft.  What ‘growth’ does the 26 need?


----------



## dapaterson

Good2Golf said:


> The 26 is within feet of AOL and beam of the 45 and two feet greater draft.  What ‘growth’ does the 26 need?


Don't see a hot tub for the Captain anywhere.


----------



## Spencer100

Halifax Tar said:


> Yes please, the logistics dept will be more than happy with this set up
> 
> Imagine, submarine logistics capability!  I've always wanted my dolphins lol


I have always thought an underwater logistics capacity would be  good way to go.  A large tanking sub would pop up and fuel the fleet.  (I know WWII milk cow)  Dive and go back to refill.   After watching the Ukraine and other wars I think secret or stealth or hidden logistics maybe a thing in the future.  If you can't see the tail you have trouble destroying it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good2Golf said:


> The 26 is within feet of AOL and beam of the 45 and two feet greater draft.  What ‘growth’ does the 26 need?


As I understand it the 45 has about 500-1,000 more tons of displacement depending on configuration?


----------



## Underway

I think the Type 45 doesn't have a proper integrated ASW capability. At least in comparison to the Type 26.  Tradeoffs for the AAW suite.  The helicopter and hull-mounted sonar are pretty much all they have.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> I think the Type 45 doesn't have a proper integrated ASW capability. At least in comparison to the Type 26.  Tradeoffs for the AAW suite.  The helicopter and hull-mounted sonar are pretty much all they have.


The T-45's Ultra MFS-7000 are not even in working order or fitted it is rumoured.  

The article did say something fitting a bow sonar.   The more I read and learn about ships its is not a case of ok just throw a VLS in there and sonar here oh and put a great big radar up top.  It all sounds like one change and you end up doing a thousand other changes. Length and speed are calculation.  Weight higher up changes the center of gravity. on and on.  

I thought the Lego idea of ships would be good.  ASW destroyer today AAW frigate tomorrow change out the mission mod.  But that has not seemed to work in real life.  I thought the Stanflex thing would be the future.  build just a hull with powerplant, hotel services, shipkeeping areas and a flex CIC.  Everything would be plug and play.  You would in time have everything on different replacement and upgrade schedules.  Guns don't need updating as fast as torpedo's and radars etc.  Going to Haiti pull out the missiles insert the HADR box.


----------



## Underway

Spencer100 said:


> The T-45's Ultra MFS-7000 are not even in working order or fitted it is rumoured.



One of my good Naval Architect friends got back from working at US yards recently.  There was Aussie, Brit and US pers in the office.  All the navies have the exact same problems.  Not enough people, ships worked too hard on operations falling apart without proper maintenance, and equipment being borrowed and stolen from ships out of rotation to fit on ships that are going to sea.  No one knows how bad all the problems are because they are so huge that they can't track everything.

Exact same story in every fleet, Canada included.


----------



## Spencer100

Underway said:


> One of my good Naval Architect friends got back from working at US yards recently.  There was Aussie, Brit and US pers in the office.  All the navies have the exact same problems.  Not enough people, ships worked too hard on operations falling apart without proper maintenance, and equipment being borrowed and stolen from ships out of rotation to fit on ships that are going to sea.  No one knows how bad all the problems are because they are so huge that they can't track everything.
> 
> Exact same story in every fleet, Canada included.


You read about this in every online thread.  The same type of stuff in all the allies navies even in the USN but a different scale and different level.  USNI, Navy Lookout etc.  In the west we are putting out our warts and all. Plus the complains and gripes about this stuff mainly not classified.  You don't hear anything about the PLAN and little about say Russia.  But the Russians have just shown the world that they are in worse shape then we thought.  The big question is the PLAN.  Their new ships do look impressive and they are building them fast too.  But are like Chinese made cell phones or items from the Dollar Store?  The largest question of the age.


----------



## Uzlu

Spencer100 said:


> The big question is the PLAN.  Their new ships do look impressive and they are building them fast too.  But are like Chinese made cell phones or items from the Dollar Store?











						Pakistan Navy's 'Made In China' Warships Are Failing To Fire Missiles; US Security Expert Decodes The Flaw
					

The Pakistan Navy is facing problems with at least four of its Chinese-made multi-role frigates, according to a recent analysis by Geopolitica. Earlier, there were reports that Pakistan was facing issues with naval warships and even with JF-17 fighters that Islamabad acquired from China...




					eurasiantimes.com


----------



## Spencer100

Uzlu said:


> Pakistan Navy's 'Made In China' Warships Are Failing To Fire Missiles; US Security Expert Decodes The Flaw
> 
> 
> The Pakistan Navy is facing problems with at least four of its Chinese-made multi-role frigates, according to a recent analysis by Geopolitica. Earlier, there were reports that Pakistan was facing issues with naval warships and even with JF-17 fighters that Islamabad acquired from China...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eurasiantimes.com


Fair enough. But those are 13 year old ships and the planes are 1950s tech.  I think the PLAN is also learning.  I always read people saying they have not had a war in 40 years, the don't have the knowledge etc.  I still think they are closer to IPhone quality than dollar store.  But I guess we only know after the ball goes up. On second thought I wish it remain a mystery.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

These seem to be almost modernised Halifax's


----------



## Uzlu

Spencer100 said:


> But those are 13 year old ships and the planes are 1950s tech.


The PAC/CAC JF-17 Thunder is a fourth-generation fighter—design concepts from the 1970s.  Second-generation fighters are associated with 1950s’ technology.


----------



## OceanBonfire

OceanBonfire said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1534222471305502720
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Workshop focuses on design for future Canadian Surface Combatants (CSC) | Trident Newspaper
> 
> 
> How do you design a warship with its future sailors in mind, given that many of those future sailors are just ten years old, or even younger?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tridentnewspaper.com



A focus on the Ops Room:









						Workshop focuses on Canadian Surface Combatants’ Ops Room for future sailors
					

The Royal Canadian Navy (RCN) is taking a novel approach to ensure its future warship – the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) – will meet the needs of the next generation of sailors.




					www.canada.ca


----------



## Spencer100

Uzlu said:


> The PAC/CAC JF-17 Thunder is a fourth-generation fighter—design concepts from the 1970s.  Second-generation fighters are associated with 1950s’ technology.


The Nanchang looks more like a WWII plane.  This one of the planes in the story.









						Nanchang CJ-6 - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## KevinB

Uzlu said:


> The PAC/CAC JF-17 Thunder is a fourth-generation fighter—design concepts from the 1970s.  Second-generation fighters are associated with 1950s’ technology.


4th is a serious overstatement.  3rd is generously accurate.
* I don't care what Wiki says - its a rip off mishmash of several 70's and 80's era fighters, but not as capable as the parent designs.


----------



## Uzlu

KevinB said:


> 4th is a serious overstatement.  3rd is generously accurate.


Why?  It appears to meet a lot of the requirements for fourth-generation and 4.5 generation fighters such as:

•    In service from around 1990 to now (JF-17 introduction in 2007)
•    Broad multi-role capability
•    Fly-by-wire
•    Digital instead of analogue computers
•    Digital instead of analogue avionics
•    Thrust-to-weight ratio greater than unity
•    Infrared search-and-track
•    Active electronically scanned array
•    Diverterless supersonic inlet


----------



## calculus

Interesting. At the bottom of this article (Workshop focuses on Canadian Surface Combatants’ Ops Room for future sailors) is an indication that construction of the first CSC will commence in 2023. This would be good news, if true. That seems to be a year earlier than has been reported lately (Liberals mull giving Irving an extra $300 million to build warships).


----------



## MTShaw

calculus said:


> Interesting. At the bottom of this article (Workshop focuses on Canadian Surface Combatants’ Ops Room for future sailors) is an indication that construction of the first CSC will commence in 2023. This would be good news, if true. That seems to be a year earlier than has been reported lately (Liberals mull giving Irving an extra $300 million to build warships).


Cool. Though it is one of the articles that want the Conservatives to give all of the work to Davie.


----------



## Navy_Pete

calculus said:


> Interesting. At the bottom of this article (Workshop focuses on Canadian Surface Combatants’ Ops Room for future sailors) is an indication that construction of the first CSC will commence in 2023. This would be good news, if true. That seems to be a year earlier than has been reported lately (Liberals mull giving Irving an extra $300 million to build warships).


That is likely a typo or someone on the PA side misunderstanding something; it's still in the preliminary design phase with equipment/materials being selected.

Probably even premature to do something like doing test welds on the specific steel to figure out the warping/deformation.

If they were a year out from construction wouldn't be tabletopping ops room setups, this is all early design type work.


----------



## Weinie

Navy_Pete said:


> That is likely a typo *or someone on the PA side misunderstanding something;* it's still in the preliminary design phase with equipment/materials being selected.
> 
> Probably even premature to do something like doing test welds on the specific steel to figure out the warping/deformation.
> 
> If they were a year out from construction wouldn't be tabletopping ops room setups, this is all early design type work.


Sigh. All PA's only report on what we are told. If you feed us crap, we present crap. GIGO.


----------



## dapaterson

I suspect that someone mistook "ordering some long lead items" with "starting construction".


----------



## MTShaw

So when are we calling the concrete ship built to test the electronics a prototype for some sort of Canadian “Aegis Ashore”.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> That is likely a typo or someone on the PA side misunderstanding something; it's still in the preliminary design phase with equipment/materials being selected.
> 
> Probably even premature to do something like doing test welds on the specific steel to figure out the warping/deformation.
> 
> If they were a year out from construction wouldn't be tabletopping ops room setups, this is all early design type work.



CSC has completed the initial design review and has a few years to go before they get to the final design review.  Given that the engineering side for the most part is identical to the UK version of the ship they can start the build of the spaces that are not changing, usually the keel level blocks, and cut the steel for other places.  There also might be a test block to build as well.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> So when are we calling the concrete ship built to test the electronics a prototype for some sort of Canadian “Aegis Ashore”.


Never except maybe as a joke.  It's only going to be operated when it needs to be for testing or training.  It's not supposed to be an operational detection system.


----------



## GR66

Underway said:


> Never except maybe as a joke.  It's only going to be operated when it needs to be for testing or training.  It's not supposed to be an operational detection system.


Depending on what is decided for the NORAD modernization program could that possibly change?  Sounds like potentially a missed opportunity if the location/capabilities makes sense for integration into the new system.


----------



## NavyShooter

When your main shipboard RADAR is powerful enough that you're not allowed to turn it on within X miles of land or other habitation....having a shore station that is not in a remote location would be impossible....and having it in a remote location would make it very difficult to use as a training location for crews, or testing.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> CSC has completed the initial design review and has a few years to go before they get to the final design review.  Given that the engineering side for the most part is identical to the UK version of the ship they can start the build of the spaces that are not changing, usually the keel level blocks, and cut the steel for other places.  There also might be a test block to build as well.


Initial design review is still ongoing to some extent, with compartment changes and some major design decisions still TBD. The engineering design isn't changing, but still need to do equipment selection for that design.

If I was a betting man don't see basic construction starting for another 3-4 years, and doing a test block isn't starting construction. That just figures out some background data for how to do the production engineering with those grades/thickness of steels and the different types of welds.


----------



## NavyShooter

...

After we give ISI another $300 million bucks....or so....


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> Initial design review is still ongoing to some extent, with compartment changes and some major design decisions still TBD. The engineering design isn't changing, but still need to do equipment selection for that design.
> 
> If I was a betting man don't see basic construction starting for another 3-4 years, and doing a test block isn't starting construction.


Yah there is always some system or space that is lagging.  For JSS there were a few things even in final design review that needed to be pushed back.  Mostly stuff that relied upon acceptance of another design first (knock-on effects).

Starting construction is a very vague statement and the numbers can be played with.  There is usually the steel cutting ceremony where some photo-opers get to push the big red button to start the plasma cutter or something dumb like that.  Is that start of construction?  Is start of construction when they weld one piece to the next? When they weld the ship's coin to the keel?  When long lead items are beginning to be built by subcontractors?



Navy_Pete said:


> That just figures out some background data for how to do the production engineering with those grades/thickness of steels and the different types of welds.


Wait... you actually think ISI is using modern shipbuilding techniques?  I would be shocked, absolutely shocked if they did that.  The BAE Rep has the worst job in the world trying to get them to think modern.


----------



## Rainbow1910

CSC render posted by the RCN Facebook page yesterday.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Wait aminute. Are we actually going back to two anchors ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Wait aminute. Are we actually going back to two anchors ?



Being a Storesman my steamship isn't BWK standard. What are the advantages of 1 vs 2 anchors, and vice versa?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Oh! All sorts of things, from mediterranean moorings in harbours where you can only put your stern to the wharf, to actual mooring (anchoring with two anchors spread so you middle the two) in a narrow bay or harbour, to using them to manoeuver off a wharf or jetty in bad wind condition, to helping with stable anchoring in bad holding ground, to emergency stopping the ship while checking stern swing, to avoid it going aground, etc. etc.

Single anchor ships were the death of good anchor work.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Wait... you actually think ISI is using modern shipbuilding techniques?  I would be shocked, absolutely shocked if they did that.  The BAE Rep has the worst job in the world trying to get them to think modern.


They did it for AOPs where it was easier with the thicker plate, they will definitely have to do it for CSC. That's part of the basic target state requirements for all the shipyards actually, and why Seaspan did the same thing (and Davie will need to as well). It was one of the FMI requirements for any NSS yard.

Aside from doing the test modules, they also do it for things like running through their own auto welding line to make the longitudinals. It's pretty critical for modular building as all that gets built into the module/block/megablock assembly, and they further refine it in each iteration of the modules/blocks to reduce corrections. Saves them a huge amount of time and money.


----------



## NavyShooter

There are test modules in the laydown area in front of the main doors of D-206 in dockyard right now for testing deck covering I think.


----------



## Underway

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> Oh! All sorts of things, from mediterranean moorings in harbours where you can only put your stern to the wharf, to actual mooring (anchoring with two anchors spread so you middle the two) in a narrow bay or harbour, to using them to manoeuver off a wharf or jetty in bad wind condition, to helping with stable anchoring in bad holding ground, to emergency stopping the ship while checking stern swing, to avoid it going aground, etc. etc.
> 
> Single anchor ships were the death of good anchor work.


The first anchorage I ever planned as a wee barely shaving subbie was a med mooring/stern in with  Brandon.  The jetty we were going to had a low tide very near the keel, so the CO decided that we should just have the stern in as that's the shallowest point.  It just blew my mind as I was researching it, and that we did it without tugs is a testament to how manouverable the MCDV actually is.

What I like with the Type 26 style is the prow-mounted anchor .  Should simplify the mechanics of the tow line forward, as well as any attaching to a buoy.   As opposed to an anchor on both bows.


----------



## calculus

Being reported that the President of ISI, Kevin Moonie, who replaced Kevin McCoy, is retiring.









						Irving Shipbuilding president Kevin Mooney resigns | SaltWire
					

HALIFAX, N.S. — Kevin Mooney, the president of Irving Shipbuilding Inc., has resigned for personal reasons. Ross Langley, vice-chairman of the company, ...




					www.saltwire.com
				




Wonder what, if any, effect this will have on the program.


----------



## calculus

And the new President of ISI is:



			Dirk Lesko Appointed President of Irving Shipbuilding - Canadian Defence Review | Canadian Defence Review


----------



## JMCanada

Royal Navy changes course on interim anti-ship missile for a second time | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com
				




T26​Vice-Admiral Sir Chris Gardner, Director General (Ships) at DE&S confirmed the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow was 12 months behind schedule. This has been caused by three main issues: COVID, _“Inadequate engineering maturity”_ and problems with the supply chain.

While the impact of COVID was unavoidable, the engineering issues are harder for BAE Systems to explain. The five OPVs built in Glasgow at an inflated price were supposed to subsidise the yard to re-baseline its shipbuilding skills. After the serious construction mistakes with HMS Forth, promises were made that “_lessons would be learned”_ and BAES were also very keen to highlight how its digital shipyard technologies would drive efficiency. The 10-year construction plan for HMS Glasgow was already pretty leisurely. An optimist might hope that if the integration work at Scotstoun goes more smoothly than the construction phase, the ship could still meet the 2026/7 delivery schedule.

The supply chain issue mainly relates to the late delivery of the gearboxes built by David Brown Santasalo in Huddersfield. As long-lead items, the development of these sophisticated and ultra-quiet gearboxes has been underway for many years, including constructing a land-based test rig. Late delivery meant HMS Glasgow was rolled out of the build hall without the gearboxes which had to be fitted by cutting the hull open and skidding them into place on the hard standing. The Defence Secretary said they had been in touch with the supplier [David Brown] and _“read them the riot act”_ as their products are fundamental to the whole Type 26 project, including in Australia and Canada.


----------



## suffolkowner

Type 26 Frigate project update, first in water this year
					

BAE Systems has confirmed that HMS Glasgow is set to enter the water for the first time this year and has also discussed the status of the other ships in the class.




					ukdefencejournal.org.uk
				




"In terms of dimensions, the proposed shipbuilding hall will be approximately 81 metres wide, 170 metres long and 49 metres high to the building ridge line."

big building room at Irving for the same?


----------



## Kirkhill

Opportunity for Canada?

Increased demand



> The Polish government, for instance, is asking for its first frigate of three new warships to be delivered ahead of time, according to people close to the negotiations. Babcock won the key contract to supply Poland in March, beating Germany’s Thyssenkrupp.
> 
> When it comes to the UK’s preparation for the return of industrial war, the Government plans to order a replacement to the Type-45 missile destroyer and a new fleet of frigates. This could offer opportunities to both Babcock and BAE.
> 
> “There will be some ships in the longer term,” says BAE’s Woodburn. “There's quite a range of opportunities to be pursued in the UK.



Existing capacity



> “People are learning lessons as we speak,” says Woodburn, who took the helm in 2017. “One of the takeaways is that ramping up a hot production line is a lot easier than trying to restart a cold production line, particularly one that in some cases may have been turned off for several years.”



If the Poles, and others, want the Type 31s faster then is it possible that the Brits could lay off some of the Type 26 work to Canadian or Aussie yards?  Would that encourage ISY and its supply chain to work faster  and could that have a knock on effect on the Canadian NSS plan?

And thinking of opportunities - "hot production lines" in Canada obviously include GDLSC LAVs (LAV II,III and 6) as well as GDOTC Ammunition and Colt Canada.

How cold is the Magellan Bristol Aerospace CRV-7 line?  Could that be spooled up?  Could Winnipeg become a Canadian centre of missile excellence?









						The British-made weapons helping Eastern Europe prepare for a new Cold War
					

BAE Systems is expecting a flood of new orders from countries preparing for the return of industrial war




					www.telegraph.co.uk
				




I know jumping on opportunity is not the Canadian Way ....


----------



## Spencer100

Kirkhill said:


> Opportunity for Canada?
> 
> Increased demand
> 
> 
> 
> Existing capacity
> 
> 
> 
> If the Poles, and others, want the Type 31s faster then is it possible that the Brits could lay off some of the Type 26 work to Canadian or Aussie yards?  Would that encourage ISY and its supply chain to work faster  and could that have a knock on effect on the Canadian NSS plan?
> 
> And thinking of opportunities - "hot production lines" in Canada obviously include GDLSC LAVs (LAV II,III and 6) as well as GDOTC Ammunition and Colt Canada.
> 
> How cold is the Magellan Bristol Aerospace CRV-7 line?  Could that be spooled up?  Could Winnipeg become a Canadian centre of missile excellence?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The British-made weapons helping Eastern Europe prepare for a new Cold War
> 
> 
> BAE Systems is expecting a flood of new orders from countries preparing for the return of industrial war
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.telegraph.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know jumping on opportunity is not the Canadian Way ....


The T-26 and T-31 are different ship yards.  The UK is doing their own NSS plan with shipyards.  Very little for Irving to help. Plus Irving is not even ready for our T-26's.  

GDLS-C could build more LAV's as the production is on going.  I think the ones we have given to them will be replaced at the end of the current build (But I don't bet on it) 
Colt can build more but would the new owners not want to build in Europe and order from there?

I have no idea about Bristol.

And Yes the Canadian is way is never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.


----------



## Spencer100

Just an interesting graphic for comparison


----------



## Underway

Is that HMS Belfast? IIRC she's a WW2 light cruiser.


----------



## Gorgo

Underway said:


> Is that HMS Belfast? IIRC she's a WW2 light cruiser.



That's her.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Underway said:


> Is that HMS Belfast? IIRC she's a WW2 light cruiser.


At about 7,000 tons the Type 26 is edging up to the displacement of Canada's last cruiser, HMCS Ontario (8,800 tons).


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Uganda and Belfast were very similar, with Uganda being shy one turret aft.


----------



## Spencer100

Colin Parkinson said:


> Uganda and Belfast were very similar, with Uganda being shy one turret aft.


interesting the growth of different classes.  Frigates the size of WWII light cruisers.  Destroyers even bigger.  The new USN destroyers will be even larger than the current cruisers.  And it all the way down too. They came up with OPS to replace corvettes as the smallest combatants (some will say their are not combatants)  Corvettes are the size of frigates. Etc.

I do understand the type of ship is named more on the role.  OPS is a constabulary patrol ship. Corvette smallest combatant, Frigate is a ASW or escort ship. Destroyer is a AAW ship or all around combatant.  Cruisers are AAW ships with command and control.   Plus many country play with the names depending on the politics of their country and/or the politics of there adversaries.  

One more thought.  The RCN wants ships to be a jack of trades plus long endurance with better crew quarters than most at the time.   So it then seems like the RCN ships are underarmed for size.   Example is the Israeli navy SAAR 5/6 vs our frigates.


----------



## TacticalTea

Spencer100 said:


> interesting the growth of different classes.  Frigates the size of WWII light cruisers.  Destroyers even bigger.  The new USN destroyers will be even larger than the current cruisers.  And it all the way down too. They came up with OPS to replace corvettes as the smallest combatants (some will say their are not combatants)  Corvettes are the size of frigates. Etc.
> 
> I do understand the type of ship is named more on the role.  OPS is a constabulary patrol ship. Corvette smallest combatant, Frigate is a ASW or escort ship. Destroyer is a AAW ship or all around combatant.  Cruisers are AAW ships with command and control.   Plus many country play with the names depending on the politics of their country and/or the politics of there adversaries.
> 
> One more thought.  The RCN wants ships to be a jack of trades plus long endurance with better crew quarters than most at the time.   So it then seems like the RCN ships are underarmed for size.   Example is the Israeli navy SAAR 5/6 vs our frigates.


Right off the bat, any comparison with the Israeli navy brings to mind some radical differences in purpose.

Single, hot body of water VS a navy and cabinet with blue water ambitions including the Arctic.

One of the shortest coastlines in the world VS literally the longest one.

High threat environment where the motherland defends itself alone against multiple threats and types of threats VS principally diplomatic missions or operations in allied task group contexts.

Etc.

So without even looking into the details, the comparison seems off.

Not saying there isn't any value in this thought exercise, just that it may not be the best first example to bring up.


----------



## Spencer100

TacticalTea said:


> Right off the bat, any comparison with the Israeli navy brings to mind some radical differences in purpose.
> 
> Single, hot body of water VS a navy and cabinet with blue water ambitions including the Arctic.
> 
> One of the shortest coastlines in the world VS literally the longest one.
> 
> High threat environment where the motherland defends itself alone against multiple threats and types of threats VS principally diplomatic missions or operations in allied task group contexts.
> 
> Etc.
> 
> So without even looking into the details, the comparison seems off.
> 
> Not saying there isn't any value in this thought exercise, just that it may not be the best first example to bring up.


I think you made my point off the bat.  That the two ships are very different and the Canadian one seem under armed to the Israeli.  That was my point different needs create different outcomes.  But you see all the time look how great the SAAR6 is.....our ships have nothing etc.  (I see this in RN and USN chats)


----------



## TacticalTea

Spencer100 said:


> I think you made my point off the bat.  That the two ships are very different and the Canadian one seem under armed to the Israeli.  That was my point different needs create different outcomes.  But you see all the time look how great the SAAR6 is.....our ships have nothing etc.  (I see this in RN and USN chats)


I might've misunderstood the intent of your comment, then. My apoplexies.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> interesting the growth of different classes.  Frigates the size of WWII light cruisers.  Destroyers even bigger.  The new USN destroyers will be even larger than the current cruisers.  And it all the way down too. They came up with OPS to replace corvettes as the smallest combatants (some will say their are not combatants)  Corvettes are the size of frigates. Etc.
> 
> I do understand the type of ship is named more on the role.  OPS is a constabulary patrol ship. Corvette smallest combatant, Frigate is a ASW or escort ship. Destroyer is a AAW ship or all around combatant.  Cruisers are AAW ships with command and control.   Plus many country play with the names depending on the politics of their country and/or the politics of there adversaries.
> 
> One more thought.  The RCN wants ships to be a jack of trades plus long endurance with better crew quarters than most at the time.   So it then seems like the RCN ships are underarmed for size.   Example is the Israeli navy SAAR 5/6 vs our frigates.


A lot of the growth is to support things like the big ass radar sitting up 10 stories on the mast; you need a much larger base for that to stay stable.  Does give you room for things like extra missiles etc, but also means you need larger generators, more powerful propulsion etc etc unless you start cutting things like top speed.

When you start doing the math it's crazy how much ballast you need to offset a ton of top weight when it's that high up the mast.


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:


> When you start doing the math it's crazy how much ballast you need to offset a ton of top weight when it's that high up the mast.


Isn't that what POs are for?


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> Isn't that what POs are for?


Funny story, if you suggest that staff officers should be given cabin and office below the center of gravity to at least improve stability and one of them overhears you may end up with extra duties as a junior officer. I guess implying someone is mobile top weight might be offensive to some.


----------



## dapaterson

Q: What's the difference between a Hobbit and a Petty Officer?

A: Hobbits only have two breakfasts.


----------



## NavyShooter

Hey there...be nice.

There's always room for more breakfast at sea!


----------



## FSTO

Navy_Pete said:


> Funny story, if you suggest that staff officers should be given cabin and office below the center of gravity to at least improve stability and one of them overhears you may end up with extra duties as a junior officer. I guess implying someone is mobile top weight might be offensive to some.


Halfkenny?


----------



## Good2Golf

I had a fleet air arm type tell me (a green aviator) that I was a ‘Triple Duffer with a luckily high metabolism’…is that a bad thing or something to be proud of?


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:


> I had a fleet air arm type tell me (a green aviator) that I was a ‘Triple Duffer with a luckily high metabolism’…is that a bad thing or something to be proud of?


You’re a unicorn!


----------



## Good2Golf

FSTO said:


> You’re a unicorn!


Although in fairness to me, I categorize by type, so three Nanaimo bars is a single Duff, right?


----------



## FSTO

Good2Golf said:


> Although in fairness to me, I categorize by type, so three Nanaimo bars is a single Duff, right?


Whatever allows you to sleep at night! So by that metric you could hit the tirfecta of 3xNanaimo Bars/Lemon Squares/Chocolate Brownies!!!


----------



## suffolkowner

Royal Navy changes course on interim anti-ship missile for a second time | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com
				




T26​Vice-Admiral Sir Chris Gardner, Director General (Ships) at DE&S confirmed the first Type 26 frigate, HMS Glasgow was 12 months behind schedule. This has been caused by three main issues: COVID, _“Inadequate engineering maturity”_ and problems with the supply chain.

While the impact of COVID was unavoidable, the engineering issues are harder for BAE Systems to explain. *The five OPVs built in Glasgow at an inflated price were supposed to subsidise the yard to re-baseline its shipbuilding skills.* After the serious construction mistakes with HMS Forth, promises were made that “_lessons would be learned”_ and BAES were also very keen to highlight how its digital shipyard technologies would drive efficiency. *The 10-year construction plan for HMS Glasgow was already pretty leisurely.* An optimist might hope that if the integration work at Scotstoun goes more smoothly than the construction phase, the ship could still meet the 2026/7 delivery schedule.

*The supply chain issue mainly relates to the late delivery of the gearboxes built by David Brown Santasalo in Huddersfield.* As long-lead items, the development of these sophisticated and ultra-quiet gearboxes has been underway for many years, including constructing a land-based test rig. *Late delivery meant HMS Glasgow was rolled out of the build hall without the gearboxes which had to be fitted by cutting the hull open and skidding them into place on the hard standing.* The Defence Secretary said they had been in touch with the supplier [David Brown] and _“read them the riot act”_ as their products are fundamental to the whole Type 26 project, including in Australia and Canada.

*The MoD will contribute to the cost of the new covered build hall at the Govan shipyard*, although BAES is expected to make the main investment. The new facility is intended to allow the construction of 2 complete ships side by side, negating the need for outside working and speeding up the delivery of the second batch of Type 26. Plans to extend the Shipbuilding Outfit Hall to the rear were thwarted by planning restrictions relating to historic buildings. A second option to drain the adjacent wet basin and build a separate larger hall on the site are in an early stage of planning and approvals.

An older update on the UK's type 26. It seems building warships is not easy and that subsidies are everywhere and that hopefully David Brown can get its act together as this is the entire point of its existence


----------



## Colin Parkinson

A French Frigate under construction, interesting hull form


----------



## MTShaw

Colin Parkinson said:


> A French Frigate under construction, interesting hull form


Don’t tell the Americans it doesn’t not work. 🤪


----------



## torg003

When I look at that hull design I can't help but think, "RAMMING SPEED!!"

(that's assuming we are looking at the front end)


----------



## Navy_Pete

France does a great job building ships that other people actually want to buy. Also having an assembly drydock with a retractable roof is a real beauty. They do a great job, really weird we don't work with them more closely. They have a slightly different crewing concept, but would be easier to adapt to compared to the USN model.

Plus their yards are in beautiful spots, so who wouldn't rather visit Toulon or Saint-Nazaire instead of the Clyde yards outside Glasgow? Much better food anyway.


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:


> France does a great job building ships that other people actually want to buy. Also having an assembly drydock with a retractable roof is a real beauty. They do a great job, really weird we don't work with them more closely. They have a slightly different crewing concept, but would be easier to adapt to compared to the USN model.
> 
> Plus their yards are in beautiful spots, so who wouldn't rather visit Toulon or Saint-Nazaire instead of the Clyde yards outside Glasgow? Much better food anyway.


Ask the Australian's the ease of working with Naval Group.  

Plus the cost of putting in American systems and weapons would put it over the top.  I doubt they would even let us use CMS330 in their ships


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> Ask the Australian's the ease of working with Naval Group.
> 
> Plus the cost of putting in American systems and weapons would put it over the top.  I doubt they would even let us use CMS330 in their ships


The same Naval Group that Australia agreed to pay out an final $550 odd million for canceling the contract, that also resulted in the US and UK apologizing to France for creating a diplomatic incident over? You might be better off asking Naval group about working with the previous Aussie government.

The FREMM has been exported to Italy and will be used by the USN for the new Constellation class. The Mistral was set for export to Russia and then Egypt. The destroyers are going to Greece as well. A bunch of smaller shiprs are being used by the Malaysian navy and others. Their conventional subs are used in a number of countries.

So yes, successful at exporting ships.

Not sure how using American systems in a french designed ship would be any different than using American systems in a British designed ships. Ships built for multi purpose are getting set up for a lot of spare capacity to have through life margins, but allows a lot more flexibility at build. CMS 330 will be obsolete when CSC is delivered anyway, so why require old tech?


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:


> The same Naval Group that Australia agreed to pay out an final $550 odd million for canceling the contract, that also resulted in the US and UK apologizing to France for creating a diplomatic incident over? You might be better off asking Naval group about working with the previous Aussie government.
> 
> The FREMM has been exported to Italy and will be used by the USN for the new Constellation class. The Mistral was set for export to Russia and then Egypt. The destroyers are going to Greece as well. A bunch of smaller shiprs are being used by the Malaysian navy and others. Their conventional subs are used in a number of countries.
> 
> So yes, successful at exporting ships.
> 
> Not sure how using American systems in a french designed ship would be any different than using American systems in a British designed ships. Ships built for multi purpose are getting set up for a lot of spare capacity to have through life margins, but allows a lot more flexibility at build. CMS 330 will be obsolete when CSC is delivered anyway, so why require old tech?


The USN did not buy tbe French FREMM they v much on purpose purchased the Italian version. 

I have read that the program was going badly for the Australians and they do blame Naval.  But who knows

Ok not CMS330 current but Lockheed Martin Canada was given the contract for the CMS


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> The same Naval Group that Australia agreed to pay out an final $550 odd million for canceling the contract, that also resulted in the US and UK apologizing to France for creating a diplomatic incident over? You might be better off asking Naval group about working with the previous Aussie government.
> 
> The FREMM has been exported to Italy and will be used by the USN for the new Constellation class. The Mistral was set for export to Russia and then Egypt. The destroyers are going to Greece as well. A bunch of smaller shiprs are being used by the Malaysian navy and others. Their conventional subs are used in a number of countries.
> 
> So yes, successful at exporting ships.
> 
> Not sure how using American systems in a french designed ship would be any different than using American systems in a British designed ships. Ships built for multi purpose are getting set up for a lot of spare capacity to have through life margins, but allows a lot more flexibility at build. CMS 330 will be obsolete when CSC is delivered anyway, so why require old tech?



Is there any documentation about mechanical issues with FREMM ?  I have deployed with them twice on SNMGs.  Both times they continually have to return to port for repairs for something that's broken... One I think was a bent shaft. 

Could just be new ships working out gremlins.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Is there any documentation about mechanical issues with FREMM ?  I have deployed with them twice on SNMGs.  Both times they continually have to return to port for repairs for something that's broken... One I think was a bent shaft.
> 
> Could just be new ships working out gremlins.


Nothing public that I'm aware of; pretty typical for new ships though. T45 and others had some of their own, and we have had the same.

We're now finding new class issues on the CPFs as we pass by the 30 year design life, lost track of the number of times someone said 'I've never seen that before!'

The nice thing with exporting basic design is you get a larger user base, so find problems faster, and learn from each other on the fixes. From what I can tell they seemed to have more common equipment on the mechanical side, and set up to allow different CSE loadouts and customizations, so that's usually pretty good. A lot of the CSE kit can be platform independent, so you can have things like the ESSM user group, but for things like engines, shaftline, hull etc that can be fairly specific to the platform.


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:


> Nothing public that I'm aware of; pretty typical for new ships though. T45 and others had some of their own, and we have had the same.
> 
> We're now finding new class issues on the CPFs as we pass by the 30 year design life, lost track of the number of times someone said 'I've never seen that before!'
> 
> The nice thing with exporting basic design is you get a larger user base, so find problems faster, and learn from each other on the fixes. From what I can tell they seemed to have more common equipment on the mechanical side, and set up to allow different CSE loadouts and customizations, so that's usually pretty good. A lot of the CSE kit can be platform independent, so you can have things like the ESSM user group, but for things like engines, shaftline, hull etc that can be fairly specific to the platform.


Well the T-26 base design will be one of the larger classes of ships in the world.  They are moving away from each other and it will be a toss up if all get built.  But third largest build number in the world.

FREMM at 50 units (most USN which is almost a different ship)  
Type 054A Frigate at 31 units
Type 26 at 22
Type 052 Destroyer at 20+


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Well the T-26 base design will be one of the larger classes of ships in the world.  They are moving away from each other and it will be a toss up if all get built.  But third largest build number in the world.
> 
> FREMM at 50 units (most USN which is almost a different ship)
> Type 054A Frigate at 31 units
> Type 26 at 22
> Type 052 Destroyer at 20+


Uhm, other than the AB's that have 70 built, 7 under construction, and 12 more on order?


----------



## SeaKingTacco

KevinB said:


> Uhm, other than the AB's that have 70 built, 7 under construction, and 12 more on order?


Not including the Japanese Kongos, which are basically Arleigh Burkes…


----------



## Spencer100

KevinB said:


> Uhm, other than the AB's that have 70 built, 7 under construction, and 12 more on order?


Yes you are correct.

I was going for similar sized ships. 

Even with the add of the Burks it puts the T26 in third for build.

Funny thing in modern ship classes same name very different ships from first to last.  In the past I think the Burk build would be called 3 maybe 4 different classes.  I think with procurement system in the west its easier to call something the same thing but build it different to the current requirements.  F-18CD v EF, The LAV 3 v LAv6 etc.  Even our T26 the first will very different from the last.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Spencer100 said:


> Type 26 at 22



I believe you mean "at 32".

UK: 8, AUS: 9, CAN: 15  - that totals 32 when all built.


----------



## Spencer100

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> I believe you mean "at 32".
> 
> UK: 8, AUS: 9, CAN: 15  - that totals 32 when all built.


Math is hard


----------



## calculus

Interesting. This article suggests that in order to accommodate the extra weight, the Hunter class T26 variant will be 0.6 metres wider than the reference UK design. Could we expect a similar change in the CSC design? 









						Hunter class frigate program could be accelerated - APDR
					

On August 26 there was good news during a media briefing in Adelaide by BAE Systems Australia - Maritime CEO Craig Lockhart.




					asiapacificdefencereporter.com


----------



## Stoker

calculus said:


> Interesting. This article suggests that in order to accommodate the extra weight, the Hunter class T26 variant will be 0.6 metres wider than the reference UK design. Could we expect a similar change in the CSC design?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunter class frigate program could be accelerated - APDR
> 
> 
> On August 26 there was good news during a media briefing in Adelaide by BAE Systems Australia - Maritime CEO Craig Lockhart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asiapacificdefencereporter.com


I wouldn't think so we reduced the amount of VLS to 24 vice 32 and our radar and mast is not as heavy or tall.


----------



## MarkOttawa

Meanwhile first new US Navy Fincantieri FREMM-based frigate starts building. In Wisconsin. Sigh:









						Fincantieri Begins Construction of First Constellation-class Frigate - USNI News
					

THE PENTAGON – Fincantieri Marinette Marine will officially start building the first Constellation-class frigate at its yard in Marinette, Wis., today. The start of fabrication comes nearly two and a half years after the Navy issued Fincantieri the detail design and construction award for the...




					news.usni.org
				




Mark Collins


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:


> Meanwhile first new US Navy Fincantieri FREMM-based frigate starts building. In Wisconsin. Sigh:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fincantieri Begins Construction of First Constellation-class Frigate - USNI News
> 
> 
> THE PENTAGON – Fincantieri Marinette Marine will officially start building the first Constellation-class frigate at its yard in Marinette, Wis., today. The start of fabrication comes nearly two and a half years after the Navy issued Fincantieri the detail design and construction award for the...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.usni.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mark Collins


Embarrassed that I had to look up how an FFG would make it to the ocean from Wisconsin, then recalled the sliver of water leaving Green Bay…then did some GooleEarthing which led to the following question?

How does an LCS get up into what looks like a parking lot with no apparent rail/crane assembly to be seen? 🤔 

Dropped pin








						45°05'59.7"N 87°37'09.0"W
					






					maps.app.goo.gl


----------



## Good2Golf

Is that a slipway to the NE of it?


----------



## suffolkowner

calculus said:


> Interesting. This article suggests that in order to accommodate the extra weight, the Hunter class T26 variant will be 0.6 metres wider than the reference UK design. Could we expect a similar change in the CSC design?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunter class frigate program could be accelerated - APDR
> 
> 
> On August 26 there was good news during a media briefing in Adelaide by BAE Systems Australia - Maritime CEO Craig Lockhart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asiapacificdefencereporter.com





Stoker said:


> I wouldn't think so we reduced the amount of VLS to 24 vice 32 and our radar and mast is not as heavy or tall.



according to wikipedia ours are a wee bit longer






						Type 26 frigate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> Interesting. This article suggests that in order to accommodate the extra weight, the Hunter class T26 variant will be 0.6 metres wider than the reference UK design. Could we expect a similar change in the CSC design?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hunter class frigate program could be accelerated - APDR
> 
> 
> On August 26 there was good news during a media briefing in Adelaide by BAE Systems Australia - Maritime CEO Craig Lockhart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> asiapacificdefencereporter.com


Its also 2m longer.  Hence why the Hunter class is 10000 tons and the CSC is 8800.  It's going to impact them on top speed and endurance because they aren't changing the engineering plant.



Good2Golf said:


> How does an LCS get up into what looks like a parking lot with no apparent rail/crane assembly to be seen



Synchro lift or sinking barge along with a self propelled modular transport.  They use the SPMT to move the ship onto the synchro lift/sinking barge, still in its metal chocks.  Then the SMPT comes back ashore.  The barge then sinks slowly into the water freeing the ship.  AOPS were all launched this way.

SPMT link
SPMT moving ship block video


----------



## Rainbow1910

Underway said:


> Its also 2m longer.  Hence why the Hunter class is 10000 tons and the CSC is 8800.  It's going to impact them on top speed and endurance because they aren't changing the engineering plant.


It depends what type of displacement you are using for comparison. The Hunter figure you list is at full displacement while I am not familiar with the CSC figure. Kevin McCoy, former President of Irving Shipbuilding went on record early last year stating that CSC would likely have a full load displacement of roughly 9,400t. There has been quite a period since then, obviously we have seen design changes such as the ships mast configuration and the loss of Mark 41 cells however, that previous info points to the fact that CSC and Hunter likely aren't incredibly far off with regard to full displacement loads. It's to be seen though how both final designs stack up.


----------



## Underway

Rainbow1910 said:


> It depends what type of displacement you are using for comparison. The Hunter figure you list is at full displacement while I am not familiar with the CSC figure. Kevin McCoy, former President of Irving Shipbuilding went on record early last year stating that CSC would likely have a full load displacement of roughly 9,400t. There has been quite a period since then, obviously we have seen design changes such as the ships mast configuration and the loss of Mark 41 cells however, that previous info points to the fact that CSC and Hunter likely aren't incredibly far off with regard to full displacement loads. It's to be seen though how both final designs stack up.


From open source  published data for CSC is 8800, and for Hunter 10000. Its is larger because they needed the space for more VLS.  That's a direct quote from an Town Hall where I asked about how Hunter class was able to fit in more VLS.

But you are completely correct in what displacement they are refering two, design margin, full load, nominal load, empty etc...


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Synchro lift or sinking barge along with a self propelled modular transport. They use the SPMT to move the ship onto the synchro lift/sinking barge, still in its metal chocks. Then the SMPT comes back ashore. The barge then sinks slowly into the water freeing the ship. AOPS were all launched this way.


Cool, thanks Underway!  Amazing what Mammoet (or Chinese knockoffs) can move.  Cheers


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

Good2Golf said:


> How does an LCS get up into what looks like a parking lot with no apparent rail/crane assembly to be seen? 🤔



G2G: look at the building ahead of the LCS in view. By its side along the river, you have all those strips. The LCS is on those multi wheels lorries and is brought to that site, where the "strips" flip it sideways into the water. Pretty spectacular. Here is an example:


----------



## Good2Golf

OGBD, I guess I fell prey to the visual illusion of size vs mass and shat can be moved, and how. 😉 

Pretty impressive to see massive objects moved like this!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver

An aircraft carrier is a massive object. A frigate or LCS is a dinky toy!


----------



## KevinB

They could charge for rides on that…


----------



## Weinie

KevinB said:


> They could charge for rides on that…


I would pay for that, just to experience it.


----------



## TacticalTea

Oldgateboatdriver said:


> G2G: look at the building ahead of the LCS in view. By its side along the river, you have all those strips. The LCS is on those multi wheels lorries and is brought to that site, where the "strips" flip it sideways into the water. Pretty spectacular. Here is an example:


This video is the most awesome of any such launch ceremony I've ever seen!


----------



## tomydoom

It reminds me of launches in Collingwood, when I was a kid back in the 70’s


----------



## calculus

Australia's first Hunter-class frigate to be operational in 2031
					

The expected time frame for the first of the Australian Navy's Hunter-class frigates is 2031, acting Prime Minister and defence minister Richard Marles revealed.




					www.navaltoday.com
				




Anyone care to guess what this means for the first CSC? Also, assuming the above is accurate, looks like the Australians have also dropped the 32-cell Mk 41 (24 is reference in the article).


----------



## Lumber

I didn't see anything in the article that said anything about he Hunter-class experiencing any _new _delays, and besides, at this point any delays are most likely going to be the result in a country's own internal procurement/production/contracting issues.


----------



## Underway

calculus said:


> Australia's first Hunter-class frigate to be operational in 2031
> 
> 
> The expected time frame for the first of the Australian Navy's Hunter-class frigates is 2031, acting Prime Minister and defence minister Richard Marles revealed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navaltoday.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone care to guess what this means for the first CSC? Also, assuming the above is accurate, looks like the Australians have also dropped the 32-cell Mk 41 (24 is reference in the article).


Ours is expected around that time as well according to the project timelines (perhaps 32 I'd have to look again).  However everyone knows it will likely won't be fully operational until likely 2034.

And the drop to 24 VLS is a surprise, but not unexpected considering the Aussies are having a hell of a time with their enlarged hull (or so I've heard).

Edit: from the article...


> The Hunter-class ships will have a 8,800-tonne full load displacement and will be approximately 150 metres long.
> 
> They will be equipped with an advanced anti-submarine warfare (ASW) capability, a 24-cell strike length Mk 41 VLS for long-range strike weapons such as the Tomahawk, a vertical launch silo (VLS) for Sea Ceptor anti-air missiles, a 5-inch gun, and will be capable of landing a Chinook helicopter on its flight deck.


8800 tons and VLS for Sea Ceptor is a cut and paste from the CSC.  Type 26 has the same but a different tonnage.  How much you want to bet they've duffed up the article and mixed up the various programs.


----------



## Underway

Another Article regarding the Hunter class here:



> The changes to the Type 26 design required to meet the Commonwealth’s specifications include a redesigned hull which is in sections slightly larger than that of the reference ship, to accommodate greater margin capacity in support of capabilities such as the CEA Technologies CEAFAR 2 radar, Aegis combat system (with an Australian Interface), additional Vertical Launch System (VLS) cells, changes to the aviation system and the four Nulka decoy system launchers.





> Lockhart says the Hunter-class frigate will have a displacement of around 8,200 tons (light ship). “We’ll get a good indication in October when HMS Glasgow (the first of the Royal Navy’s eight Type 26 vessels) goes into the water; we’ll get a good indication of the conversion of the model weight to the actual weight,” he added.



So Australia thinks their ship will be lighter then the above article and that they are going to get additional VLS out of the design as well.  I fully expected Oz to lenthen the ship by 2m to accomodate more VLS, but we will see what they end up doing.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> 8800 tons and VLS for Sea Ceptor is a cut and paste from the CSC. Type 26 has the same but a different tonnage. How much you want to bet they've *duffed up the article* and mixed up the various programs.


Mmmmmmm…..duuuuuff… 😋


----------



## Rainbow1910

Euronaval 2022: Canadian Surface Combatant preliminary design review nears completion
					

Lockheed Martin Canada is expecting to complete the preliminary design review (PDR) for the country's next-generation surface combatant in the coming months – marking...



					www.janes.com
				












						Canadian Surface Combatant ship to see design review within weeks: Lockheed Martin - Breaking Defense
					

The CSC will replace Canada's Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates.




					breakingdefense.com
				




New CSC info, preliminary design review is nearing completion.


----------



## Kirkhill

Rainbow1910 said:


> Euronaval 2022: Canadian Surface Combatant preliminary design review nears completion
> 
> 
> Lockheed Martin Canada is expecting to complete the preliminary design review (PDR) for the country's next-generation surface combatant in the coming months – marking...
> 
> 
> 
> www.janes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Surface Combatant ship to see design review within weeks: Lockheed Martin - Breaking Defense
> 
> 
> The CSC will replace Canada's Iroquois-class destroyers and the Halifax-class frigates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> breakingdefense.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New CSC info, preliminary design review is nearing completion.




I saw the Breaking Defense article.

Standouts:

1 - Getting closer to a real cost (about 4 BCAD or 3 BUSD apiece) - In a world of billion dollar B2s that doesn't seem unreasonable.



> Canada selected Lockheed’s design in February 2019 and plans to purchase 15 ships for roughly $55 to $60 billion CAD ($40.1 to $43.8 billion USD),



2 - Silence costs money



> “One of the first requirements you have to look at is that Canada asked for a very quiet platform,” he said, adding that some features that would reduce a ship’s noise signature are not necessarily included on all ship designs.



3 - BMD (Ballistic Missile Defence) Commitment?  - For not with?  Plausible deniability?  With the support of the government or just the bureaucracy?



> “Canada [also] made a decision decision that they wanted to be part of the ballistic missile defense capability”


----------



## MilEME09

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583556913341423616


----------



## GR66

MilEME09 said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1583556913341423616


Is that 32-cell VLS in front of the bridge or is the back row 24 x VLS and eight of a different missile type in front?


----------



## Spencer100

GR66 said:


> Is that 32-cell VLS in front of the bridge or is the back row 24 x VLS and eight of a different missile type in front?


It does look like 32 of the same. Most likely an older model reused.  Do get your hopes up.  I think the 24 use pretty much confirmed.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Estimated cost of warship fleet rises to $84B thanks to delays, inflation: PBO









						Estimated cost of warship fleet rises to $84B thanks to delays, inflation: PBO
					

Read the full story and comment on CityNews Halifax.




					halifax.citynews.ca


----------



## KevinB

Halifax Tar said:


> Estimated cost of warship fleet rises to $84B thanks to delays, inflation: PBO​​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Estimated cost of warship fleet rises to $84B thanks to delays, inflation: PBO
> 
> 
> Read the full story and comment on CityNews Halifax.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> halifax.citynews.ca


Don’t forget Canadian accounting methods.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I don't know where things stand now ... a few years actually, sadly, decades ago we found that none of the Library of Parliament (the PBO works for them and they did cost analysis before there even was a PBO), TB, PWGSC (as it was then), the OAG, the media (who matter a lot) and DND either:

1. Didn't understand anything at all about life cycle costing - and didn't care much, either;​2. Or didn't agree what should and should be counted as part of a system life cycle.​
I'm not sure a whole lot has changed.


----------



## Weinie

Edward Campbell said:


> I don't know where things stand now ... a few years actually, sadly, decades ago we found that none of the Library of Parliament (the PBO works for them and they did cost analysis before there even was a PBO), TB, PWGSC (as it was then), the OAG, the media (who matter a lot) and DND either:
> 
> 1. Didn't understand anything at all about life cycle costing - and didn't care much, either;​2. Or didn't agree what should and should be counted as part of a system life cycle.​
> I'm not sure a whole lot has changed.


For the proposed cost of three warships, we could get a Gerald  Ford class carrier.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Weinie said:


> For the proposed cost of three warships, we could get a Gerald  Ford class carrier.


Not even close.

The USN does not add in the cost crew, fuel and maintenance over the entire life of the ship. We do.


----------



## Weinie

SeaKingTacco said:


> Not even close.
> 
> The USN does not add in the cost crew, fuel and maintenance over the entire life of the ship. We do.


Ok. Could we get a GERiatric class of carrier?


----------



## MarkOttawa

CSC's creeping up towards $6 billion each, PBO says:



> Canadian Surface Combatant cost may rise 9% with delays, inflation​The Canadian government has again increased its cost estimate for its next-generation frigate program, with a report by the Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer showing a 9% increase in procurement costs since last year’s approximation.
> 
> The Canadian Surface Combatant program is now expected to cost CA$84.5 billion (U.S. $62.3 billion) to design and buy the 15-ship class...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Canadian Surface Combatant cost may rise 9% with delays, inflation
> 
> 
> Canada's frigate replacement program has seen a string of cost increases since 2017, including a new 9% cost increase since last year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.defensenews.com



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Kirkhill

MarkOttawa said:


> CSC's creeping up towards $6 billion each, PBO says:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa




Or they could cut the cost if they increased the buy rate to two a year.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Kirkhill said:


> Or they could cut the cost if they increased the buy rate to two a year.


To deliver one a year, there will be a few in various stages of production, but that's still a fairly aggressive drumbeat.

In any case, we only have about 5-6 crews at the moment with retention trending downwards, so curious to see what FM the RCN has planned.

Might be optimism and bling, but expect it will be entertaining and ugly AF respectively.

Edit to add: Guess what else delays delivery; these PBO updates! The amount of churn is incredible, and now a significant LOE will be diverted to explaining the details, fighting in DPS and playing politics by the people that would otherwise be providing program oversight and guidance.


----------



## dapaterson

Kirkhill said:


> Or they could cut the cost if they increased the buy rate to two a year.


That would require industry capacity beyond what is available.


----------



## Kirkhill

Navy_Pete said:


> To deliver one a year, there will be a few in various stages of production, but that's still a fairly aggressive drumbeat.
> 
> In any case, we only have about 5-6 crews at the moment with retention trending downwards, so curious to see what FM the RCN has planned.
> 
> Might be optimism and bling, but expect it will be entertaining and ugly AF respectively.
> 
> Edit to add: Guess what else delays delivery; these PBO updates! The amount of churn is incredible, and now a significant LOE will be diverted to explaining the details, fighting in DPS and playing politics by the people that would otherwise be providing program oversight and guidance.



So you have 5 or 6 crews for the Halifaxes - at 225 per ship?

1125 to 1350 sailors?

Type 31 RN - 80-100 sailors
Type 31 Pol - 100-120 sailors
Absolons  - 100 sailors
Huitfeldts - 165 sailors
Type 26 RN - 157 sailors
Type 26 RAN - 180 sailors
Type 26 RCN - 204 sailors

1350 - sailors = 13 Absolons or 8 Huitfeldts

AOPS (in service) - 65 sailors
AOPS (design) - 45 sailors

6 AOPS at design = 120 sailors saved = another Absolon/Huitfeldt.

9-14 CSCs and 6 AOPS.


----------



## dimsum

Kirkhill said:


> So you have 5 or 6 crews for the Halifaxes - at 225 per ship?
> 
> 1125 to 1350 sailors?
> 
> Type 31 RN - 80-100 sailors
> Type 31 Pol - 100-120 sailors
> Absolons  - 100 sailors
> Huitfeldts - 165 sailors
> Type 26 RN - 157 sailors
> Type 26 RAN - 180 sailors
> Type 26 RCN - 204 sailors


Why is there such a big discrepancy between the RN, RAN, and RCN numbers of crew?  

157 vs 204 is pretty significant.


----------



## FSTO

dimsum said:


> Why is there such a big discrepancy between the RN, RAN, and RCN numbers of crew?
> 
> 157 vs 204 is pretty significant.


Is somebody counting or not counting the Air Det? 
Or maybe they are counting the crew when the Command Staff is embarked?


----------



## Navy_Pete

FSTO said:


> Is somebody counting or not counting the Air Det?
> Or maybe they are counting the crew when the Command Staff is embarked?


Or force protection, boarding party etc. Don't forget a lawyer, PAFFO, photographer, padres....

Our basic skeleton crew is about 120. You can easily stack people like cordwood and blow past 250 for an HR deployer if you want to be able to do everything at once.

We're trying to operate 12 ships though with 5-6 crews, you can imagine how well that goes. You still need some crews for docking work periods as well, particularly the out of area ones like Davie.


----------



## KevinB

SeaKingTacco said:


> Not even close.
> 
> The USN does not add in the cost crew, fuel and maintenance over the entire life of the ship. We do.


Which is just beyond asinine . 
  Crew = salaries 
  Fuel, munitions and Maintenance = O&M


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> Which is just beyond asinine .
> Crew = salaries
> Fuel, munitions and Maintenance = O&M


It's a lot of double accounting. All of that is also under the normal DND budget projections for annual spending.

Maybe they should just start including it in the 'Economic benefits'. If they are going to count SWE and associated spin offs for people building the ships, why not for people operating, maintaining and supporting the equipment?

I think if we did that CAF would be a net gain, if we used ISED math.


----------



## MTShaw

Kirkhill said:


> So you have 5 or 6 crews for the Halifaxes - at 225 per ship?
> 
> 1125 to 1350 sailors?
> 
> Type 31 RN - 80-100 sailors
> Type 31 Pol - 100-120 sailors
> Absolons  - 100 sailors
> Huitfeldts - 165 sailors
> Type 26 RN - 157 sailors
> Type 26 RAN - 180 sailors
> Type 26 RCN - 204 sailors
> 
> 1350 - sailors = 13 Absolons or 8 Huitfeldts
> 
> AOPS (in service) - 65 sailors
> AOPS (design) - 45 sailors
> 
> 6 AOPS at design = 120 sailors saved = another Absolon/Huitfeldt.
> 
> 9-14 CSCs and 6 AOPS.


Except our job is to keep the shipping lanes open. That includes a true sub hunter not your idealized Huitfeld. Also the Huitfeld is built like a ferry with guns and missiles rather than a war ship.If we wanted a loud  ship we would have ordered the Alion bid in the first place. 

Why are we afraid to do our job and the spend the necessary money to do our job. 1.2% per GDP is a disgrace. 

I haven’t seen one add for naval recruitment for quite  a while.

84 Billion includes everything include entry level techs how to use new tools and probably eight grades of fasteners of the same type of fastener in 20 different places. It also includes jetty recapitalization at Esqimalt. 









						A/B Jetty Recapitalization
					

DCC is a Crown corporation that delivers infrastructure and environmental projects for the defence of Canada.




					www.dcc-cdc.gc.ca
				




There are many of other things that I’ve been told that inflate the cost of these things. inflation and the holy s**t price increase of transistors and integrated circuits Doesn’t help. 

To suggest that the ships will cost 6-7 billion is either very cynical or painfully naive. I’ve been told 3.5 to 4.


----------



## FSTO

65 Years??? In what cocaine fueled orgy did the PBO come up with 65 goddamn years? Are they starting from 1998 and counting all the wages and reams of paper being used from back then? 

This is an attempt by the PBO to torpedo the entire project.


----------



## FSTO

Here is the report:



			https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/747dfffc97de30adc19e38143f28b6e8334a0f7510c5c3a94c465a41c66cf504
		


CSC life cycle cost estimates, by phase ($ billions) 
Cost Development                                 4.3 
Acquisition                                           80.2
Operations and Sustainment             219.8 
Disposal 1.7 Grand Total                    306.0 

Sources: Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Life cycle phases Development: all activities leading up to the purchase or construction of a given weapon system, such as options analysis, studies, and research and development. 

Acquisition: all activities associated with the purchase or construction of the system and its integration into service and full operational capability. 

Operations and Sustainment: all activities relating to the usage, support, and maintenance of the system, including mid-life upgrades (IMO we should not do this) and technology insertion. This is the red herring, it is money spent no matter what type of ship we buy.

Disposal: activities associated with the withdrawal of the system from service at the end of its useful life


----------



## Furniture

FSTO said:


> 65 Years??? In what cocaine fueled orgy did the PBO come up with 65 goddamn years? Are they starting from 1998 and counting all the wages and reams of paper being used from back then?
> 
> *This is an attempt by the PBO to torpedo the entire project.*


My inner cynic says the PBO is doing exactly what it is intended to do, make large defence projects so politically toxic that no government is ever forced to do their core job and properly fund/equip the CAF. 

If/when the CSCs get scrapped because they are "Cadillacs", there will be minimal public outrage because the public has been fed a line about how outrageously expensive they are.


----------



## Good2Golf

MarkOttawa said:


> CSC's creeping up towards $6 billion each, PBO says:
> 
> 
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


For life-cycle costs/ships.  That’s not unreasonable.

When you use total life-cycle costs, you get huge numbers.

Eg. CH-147F Chinook.  15 for $4.9B total life-cycle cost (which ironically does NOT include fuel and personnel costs over the helicopters’ lifetime).  That makes $327 million PER helicopter….for 20 years. If we prorate that to 65 years, you would get a cost of $1.06B PER Chinook.

$6B per ship over almost half a century doesn’t seem unreasonable.


----------



## KevinB

FSTO said:


> Here is the report:
> 
> 
> 
> https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/747dfffc97de30adc19e38143f28b6e8334a0f7510c5c3a94c465a41c66cf504
> 
> 
> 
> CSC life cycle cost estimates, by phase ($ billions)
> Cost Development                                 4.3
> Acquisition                                           80.2


I would accept all the above - but


FSTO said:


> Operations and Sustainment             219.8


  I prefer calling it O&M, but yeah that shouldn't be factored into the acquisition - as unless you are planning on disbanding the RCN those are sunk costs regardless of what ships are in the fleet.


FSTO said:


> Disposal 1.7 Grand Total                    306.0


 Most entities make money off disposal, as the scrap value of the materials is significant.
  As well some of the systems will be able to be removed and used on other things.
I'm flabbergasted that anyone thinks 1.7B is reasonable for disposal.




FSTO said:


> Sources: Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
> 
> Life cycle phases Development: all activities leading up to the purchase or construction of a given weapon system, such as options analysis, studies, and research and development.
> 
> Acquisition: all activities associated with the purchase or construction of the system and its integration into service and full operational capability.
> 
> Operations and Sustainment: all activities relating to the usage, support, and maintenance of the system, including mid-life upgrades (IMO we should not do this) and technology insertion. This is the red herring, it is money spent no matter what type of ship we buy.
> 
> Disposal: activities associated with the withdrawal of the system from service at the end of its useful life


Insanity...


----------



## Navy_Pete

I'm a really big fan of through life costing and real ownership costs, but we don't do it properly.

It's the only way to look at the quality of initial acquisition and if buying 'better' makes sense. For example, if you buy something that needs less maintenance, it usually costs more up front, but can save a whack of time/money in service, while needing less downtime. But sometimes you get needless additional quality/overspec that doesn't necessarily translate into being 'better' so it's a bit of a balance.

65 years is cracked though; that only makes sense if they mean from project start (a long time ago) to when the final ship is paid off. The individual ships will be 40 years AT BEST. The current RCN plan to run the CPFs to 50 is smoking dope (in a confined space, with some hash oil on a burner, and edibles already down range).

The 280s and tankers did it because we used to to baseline refits and replace a lot of piping etc from 15 years onwards in sections, so over a few refits at midlife you would replace whole systems. We have never done that and there is a lot of 30 year old mechanical systems running hard into a wall.


----------



## KevinB

Navy_Pete said:


> I'm a really big fan of through life costing and real ownership costs, but we don't do it properly.


You can factor that in in a BV Contract without making it part of the contract though.
   The issue I have with formatting it upfront into the contract is the GIANT number people see and get sticker shock.


Navy_Pete said:


> It's the only way to look at the quality of initial acquisition and if buying 'better' makes sense. For example, if you buy something that needs less maintenance, it usually costs more up front, but can save a whack of time/money in service, while needing less downtime. But sometimes you get needless additional quality/overspec that doesn't necessarily translate into being 'better' so it's a bit of a balance.


Agreed, the responses to the RFP should have that in their submissions, in order to properly evaluate any offer.
  *and distrust and verified by the .Gov 


Navy_Pete said:


> 65 years is cracked though; that only makes sense if they mean from project start (a long time ago) to when the final ship is paid off. The individual ships will be 40 years AT BEST. The current RCN plan to run the CPFs to 50 is smoking dope (in a confined space, with some hash oil on a burner, and edibles already down range).
> 
> The 280s and tankers did it because we used to to baseline refits and replace a lot of piping etc from 15 years onwards in sections, so over a few refits at midlife you would replace whole systems. We have never done that and there is a lot of 30 year old mechanical systems running hard into a wall.


The Program Office, or LCCM whatever for the program should have that budgeted into the services annual budgets - things like that can be forecast years in advance so it isn't a shock, but I don't see how or why DND works their contracts the way they do.
  To me it smacks of sloppy accounting, and the lazy way out, as opposed an itemized line item allocation done annually (with 5-10-15 year forecasts as well).

Admittedly more that I look into to how the CAF/DND does business, I am honestly shocked that the RCN isn't in a few Zodiak's rowing around the globe.


----------



## Lumber

FSTO said:


> 65 Years??? In what cocaine fueled orgy did the PBO come up with 65 goddamn years? Are they starting from 1998 and counting all the wages and reams of paper being used from back then?
> 
> This is an attempt by the PBO to torpedo the entire project.


I especially loathe how they mentioned that the Ford-Class "only costs" $13B a piece, without at all mentioning _their_ lifetime costs.


----------



## TacticalTea

Lumber said:


> I especially loathe how they mentioned that the Ford-Class "only costs" $13B a piece, without at all mentioning _their_ lifetime costs.


And since they did not explain exactly what that number was, it's patently obvious that they have no idea what they're talking about. 

Result of a wikipedia search probably.


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> You can factor that in in a BV Contract without making it part of the contract though.
> The issue I have with formatting it upfront into the contract is the GIANT number people see and get sticker shock.
> 
> Agreed, the responses to the RFP should have that in their submissions, in order to properly evaluate any offer.
> *and distrust and verified by the .Gov
> 
> The Program Office, or LCCM whatever for the program should have that budgeted into the services annual budgets - things like that can be forecast years in advance so it isn't a shock, but I don't see how or why DND works their contracts the way they do.
> To me it smacks of sloppy accounting, and the lazy way out, as opposed an itemized line item allocation done annually (with 5-10-15 year forecasts as well).


The estimated support costs do go into DRMIS (there is one for AJISS 40 years out), with the initial procurement ILS info informing that, but unless it's part of the eval criteria the only cost is normally the material. Have done it though, just needed to explain to people the breakdown and why we were doing it (with all the credit going to the project managers, I was just along for the ride).

Worked out really well, and got us the CAT DGs on the CPFs with an ISSC. Was extra work but worth it in that case.



KevinB said:


> Admittedly more that I look into to how the CAF/DND does business, I am honestly shocked that the RCN isn't in a few Zodiak's rowing around the globe.



Sheer stubborness of PS and CAF members working in the system to deliver something _despite_ the processes in place. Some days when hope and optimism have failed, spite keeps the paperwork flowing. Gets a bit darkside with star wars jokes, but is apt


----------



## KevinB

Navy_Pete said:


> The estimated support costs do go into DRMIS (there is one for AJISS 40 years out), with the initial procurement ILS info informing that, but unless it's part of the eval criteria the only cost is normally the material. Have done it though, just needed to explain to people the breakdown and why we were doing it (with all the credit going to the project managers, I was just along for the ride).



Roger thanks for the info.
  Based on my own fairly limited experiences, the amount of effort and experience that goes into to a proper RFP with exceptionally detailed evaluation criteria is a win-win for Industry and the government, as well as the importance of engaging with industry on Draft RFP's prior to release of the actual RFP.
  Companies can make a realistic assessment of their PWin, and not waste the .GOV time in submitting a non competitive bid, and the Government gets better submissions.




Navy_Pete said:


> Worked out really well, and got us the CAT DGs on the CPFs with an ISSC. Was extra work but worth it in that case.
> 
> 
> 
> Sheer stubborness of PS and CAF members working in the system to deliver something _despite_ the processes in place. Some days when hope and optimism have failed, spite keeps the paperwork flowing. Gets a bit darkside with star wars jokes, but is apt


As much as I like to Dog on the CAF/DND, the DoD down here does stuff you really can't fathom either at times.
  Some source selection committees probably should be waterboarded repeatedly for no other reason that their sheer incompetence/corruption.


----------



## Lumber

KevinB said:


> Roger thanks for the info.
> Based on my own fairly limited experiences, the amount of effort and experience that goes into to a proper RFP with exceptionally detailed evaluation criteria is a win-win for Industry and the government, as well as the importance of engaging with industry on Draft RFP's prior to release of the actual RFP.
> Companies can make a realistic assessment of their PWin, and not waste the .GOV time in submitting a non competitive bid, and the Government gets better submissions.



Here's my question/thought experiment:

What if you just completely ignored the entire Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process and instead simply said "we're buying Arleigh-Burkes [or some other major surface combatant], sight-unseen" from the Americans/whoever (but built in Canada)". 

I've worked with and studied the capabilities of just about every other class of major warship in NATO, and I can tell you that ANY one of them could perform literally _every _task/mission that I've ever performed or known a CPF and their crew to have ever performed. Sure, it might not _exactly_ fit the statement of requirements, but consider how much quicker we could get the platforms in the water, and how much time and effort you would save within DND and PWGSC by not going through the massive rigmarole of the Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process.

I know this is wholey unrealistic, but I just _know _that if one day an FREMM or Hobart or DZP showed up in Halifax and someone dropped the keys and said "it's yours", we would get a platform with which we could do 95% of the things that are being asked of it (once they change all the signs to english).

Sure, we would have to modify our training systems and maintenance systems to support such a new platform, but guess what? We're already going to have to do that with the CSC, and in my unrealistic recommendation in paragraph 1, we would still have all the years it would take to build the ships to get all the supporting infrastructure in order.

Let's make COTS actual COTS.


----------



## MTShaw

Furniture said:


> My inner cynic says the PBO is doing exactly what it is intended to do, make large defence projects so politically toxic that no government is ever forced to do their core job and properly fund/equip the CAF.
> 
> If/when the CSCs get scrapped because they are "Cadillacs", there will be minimal public outrage because the public has been fed a line about how outrageously expensive they are.


…
The F35 as an example for the CSC

The reason that we got the F35s was not entirely our choice. ANy of the choices offered to serve Canada’s needs for an interceptor for Russia (and soon to be Chinese) bombers.

The reason we (and German) got F35s in spite of other options was because the Americans  insisted.
…
The Americans will insist the we have a 21st century shipping interdiction platform.  We had the choice of a FREMM or Type 26. The FREMM choice to self select themselves out of the running.

OUr choice only seems that it is a choice. Unless we intend to F@@k the Americans, we really only have one choice. 

We have one job, and that is to keep th shipping lanes open. That is our job for NATO and the AMericans.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Lumber said:


> Here's my question/thought experiment:
> 
> What if you just completely ignored the entire Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process and instead simply said "we're buying Arleigh-Burkes [or some other major surface combatant], sight-unseen" from the Americans/whoever (but built in Canada)".
> 
> I've worked with and studied the capabilities of just about every other class of major warship in NATO, and I can tell you that ANY one of them could perform literally _every _task/mission that I've ever performed or known a CPF and their crew to have ever performed. Sure, it might not _exactly_ fit the statement of requirements, but consider how much quicker we could get the platforms in the water, and how much time and effort you would save within DND and PWGSC by not going through the massive rigmarole of the Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process.
> 
> I know this is wholey unrealistic, but I just _know _that if one day an FREMM or Hobart or DZP showed up in Halifax and someone dropped the keys and said "it's yours", we would get a platform with which we could do 95% of the things that are being asked of it (once they change all the signs to english).
> 
> Sure, we would have to modify our training systems and maintenance systems to support such a new platform, but guess what? We're already going to have to do that with the CSC, and in my unrealistic recommendation in paragraph 1, we would still have all the years it would take to build the ships to get all the supporting infrastructure in order.
> 
> Let's make COTS actual COTS.


Only about half the costs is for getting a ship keys in hand; spares, ammo, training, infrastructure, TDP etc are all things that get added in as well.

The downside with a european built ship using European built parts is that there may be no actual suppliers in Canada, so in service can be a big challenge. That costs a few times more than build so isn't insubstatial.


----------



## dapaterson

Navy_Pete said:


> Only about half the costs is for getting a ship keys in hand; spares, ammo, training, infrastructure, TDP etc are all things that get added in as well.
> 
> The downside with a european built ship using European built parts is that there may be no actual suppliers in Canada, so in service can be a big challenge. That costs a few times more than build so isn't insubstatial.


Only a problem if you're planning to maintain the ship to continue meeting SOLAS.


----------



## Navy_Pete

dapaterson said:


> Only a problem if you're planning to maintain the ship to continue meeting SOLAS.


The beauty of a warship is a lot exceeds SOLAS, so more stuff can break before you aren't meeting the same standard as a fishing ship. That protects the worst habits of the RCN to run things hard and put it away salt encrusted.


----------



## KevinB

Lumber said:


> Here's my question/thought experiment:
> 
> What if you just completely ignored the entire Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process and instead simply said "we're buying Arleigh-Burkes [or some other major surface combatant], sight-unseen" from the Americans/whoever (but built in Canada)".
> 
> I've worked with and studied the capabilities of just about every other class of major warship in NATO, and I can tell you that ANY one of them could perform literally _every _task/mission that I've ever performed or known a CPF and their crew to have ever performed. Sure, it might not _exactly_ fit the statement of requirements, but consider how much quicker we could get the platforms in the water, and how much time and effort you would save within DND and PWGSC by not going through the massive rigmarole of the Needs Analysis/SOR/RFP/Bid/Tender process.
> 
> I know this is wholey unrealistic, but I just _know _that if one day an FREMM or Hobart or DZP showed up in Halifax and someone dropped the keys and said "it's yours", we would get a platform with which we could do 95% of the things that are being asked of it (once they change all the signs to english).
> 
> Sure, we would have to modify our training systems and maintenance systems to support such a new platform, but guess what? We're already going to have to do that with the CSC, and in my unrealistic recommendation in paragraph 1, we would still have all the years it would take to build the ships to get all the supporting infrastructure in order.
> 
> Let's make COTS actual COTS.


It's not COTS - but MOTS (Military Off the Shelf).
   I'm not sure that a SSJNA would work for something life an AB, but I'd love to see the creative writing for it


----------



## Navy_Pete

KevinB said:


> It's not COTS - but MOTS (Military Off the Shelf).
> I'm not sure that a SSJNA would work for something life an AB, but I'd love to see the creative writing for it


Each ship actually has it's own NSN, and there is hilariously an NSN for a 'human brain' which is some kind of training aid or something.

Have put in supply demands for both that have been denied due to no spares in stock.


----------



## dimsum

Navy_Pete said:


> Each ship actually has it's own NSN, and there is hilariously an NSN for a 'human brain' which is some kind of training aid or something.
> 
> Have put in supply demands for both that have been denied due to no spares in stock.


----------



## MJP

Navy_Pete said:


> Each ship actually has it's own NSN, and there is hilariously an NSN for a 'human brain' which is some kind of training aid or something.
> 
> Have put in supply demands for both that have been denied due to no spares in stock.


Nerd tangent - All capital assets (as do non capital) have NSNs to track financials and other weird things but I am sure you knew that, mostly for other folks.

As for ordering human brain...it isn't that there isn't stock in the system, it is just a 4L item so you probably didn't give the proper fin coding so your LPO section could buy it for you 

Canadian Government Cataloguing System has been cleaned up in recent years but there was essentially no control before so lots of dodgy (and funny stuff made it on there (Light saber anyone?)


----------



## NavyShooter

Navy_Pete said:


> Each ship actually has it's own NSN, and there is hilariously an NSN for a 'human brain' which is some kind of training aid or something.
> 
> Have put in supply demands for both that have been denied due to no spares in stock.


I will ask you to go to CGCS at your next opportunity and put in the following under Item Name:

LIGHTSA*

Tell me what appears.


----------



## Underway

MTShaw said:


> It also includes jetty recapitalization at Esqimalt.


Don't forget the new ammo jetty.  Also part of the CSC project.


----------



## Navy_Pete

NavyShooter said:


> I will ask you to go to CGCS at your next opportunity and put in the following under Item Name:
> 
> LIGHTSA*
> 
> Tell me what appears.


That's another one of my favourites. The one story I heard is someone did that to bring it into the country without paying import duties.


----------



## Halifax Tar

NavyShooter said:


> I will ask you to go to CGCS at your next opportunity and put in the following under Item Name:
> 
> LIGHTSA*
> 
> Tell me what appears.



I was in Afghanistan with the guy who did that.  

That's not all he did either  

There is more than one Easter egg in the CGCS.


----------



## MTShaw

FSTO said:


> Here is the report:
> 
> 
> 
> https://distribution-a617274656661637473.pbo-dpb.ca/747dfffc97de30adc19e38143f28b6e8334a0f7510c5c3a94c465a41c66cf504
> 
> 
> 
> CSC life cycle cost estimates, by phase ($ billions)
> Cost Development                                 4.3
> Acquisition                                           80.2
> Operations and Sustainment             219.8
> Disposal 1.7 Grand Total                    306.0
> 
> Sources: Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.
> 
> Life cycle phases Development: all activities leading up to the purchase or construction of a given weapon system, such as options analysis, studies, and research and development.
> 
> Acquisition: all activities associated with the purchase or construction of the system and its integration into service and full operational capability.
> 
> Operations and Sustainment: all activities relating to the usage, support, and maintenance of the system, including mid-life upgrades (IMO we should not do this) and technology insertion. This is the red herring, it is money spent no matter what type of ship we buy.
> 
> Disposal: activities associated with the withdrawal of the system from service at the end of its useful life


A personal thank you for the information and the link. Make me less amateurish on the costing of the CSC. 

The weird thing is that is only ~ 5 billion a year. 2% seems like a dream.


----------



## Kirkhill

MJP said:


> Nerd tangent - All capital assets (as do non capital) have NSNs to track financials and other weird things but I am sure you knew that, mostly for other folks.
> 
> As for ordering human brain...it isn't that there isn't stock in the system, it is just a 4L item so you probably didn't give the proper fin coding so your LPO section could buy it for you
> 
> Canadian Government Cataloguing System has been cleaned up in recent years but there was essentially no control before so lots of dodgy (and funny stuff made it on there (Light saber anyone?)




How does the NSN SKU relate to the UPC system?


----------



## MTShaw

MTShaw said:


> A personal thank you for the information and the link. Make me less amateurish on the costing of the CSC.
> 
> The weird thing is that is only ~ 5 billion a year. 2% seems like a dream.


I hate to quote myself is but to acknowledge. i was falling in for the average that people like me fall for.

If you look at Figure 2-1 it shows small shoulders with for development and disposal with the huge centre. 

I’m not certain how to read the entire document, though I know my first reaction was certainly wrong.

This program will end in 1949 but I bet there is a new acquisition that will follow CSC program. My impression though is that program’s streams never cross.


----------



## dimsum

MTShaw said:


> This program will end in 1949 but I bet there is a new acquisition that will follow CSC program. My impression though is that program’s streams never cross.


I know we're using old equipment but that's a bit much


----------



## MJP

Kirkhill said:


> How does the NSN SKU relate to the UPC system?


Same concept, where every number/group means something


----------



## Kirkhill

MJP said:


> Same concept, where every number/group means something
> 
> View attachment 74525



Seen - 

Is NSN a subset of the UPC system?


----------



## MJP

Kirkhill said:


> Seen -
> 
> Is NSN a subset of the UPC system?


Not that I am aware of. They use the same principles but nothing I have seen has ever said NATO leaned into incorporating UPC aspects into the NSNs.  I haven't come across an item where the unique identifier in the NSN(last 7) corresponds to that item's UPC code.  There may be some out there but given my understanding of how we create NSNs that isn't a consideration.


----------



## Kirkhill

Thanks.  Just curious.


----------



## MTShaw

Sorry everyone. Fatigue and aphasia makes nonsense.


----------



## calculus

Latest infographic from the RCN:



			https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/rcn-mrc/documents/ships/csc-factsheet-2022-2.pdf


----------



## MTShaw

calculus said:


> Latest infographic from the RCN:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/rcn-mrc/documents/ships/csc-factsheet-2022-2.pdf


Is there a difference between “Combat Management System - LMC CMS 330 with AEGIS on the previous infographic”?



And “Combat Management System – LMC CTI with AEGIS” on the present infographic?


----------



## calculus

I was wondering the same. Has CMS330 evolved to something different? "LMC CTI"? I can't imagine what CTI might stand for. I have found nothing at the LMC CSC website.


----------



## MTShaw

calculus said:


> I was wondering the same. Has CMS330 evolved to something different? "LMC CTI"? I can't imagine what CTI might stand for. I have found nothing at the LMC CSC website.


Perhaps CMS 330 is becoming more like Aegis with a Canadian GUI. I say this because of Canada’s renewed interest in missile defense In both politics and military circles. Given Aegis prowess in missile defence..

Political pressure with NORAD









						Canada weighs whether to rejoin U.S. ballistic missile defence of North America
					

Canada opted out of the program in 2005, in part because of its links to U.S. president George W. Bush's administration




					nationalpost.com
				




Navy/Lockheed Aegis.









						Canada’s multibillion-dollar combat ship plan nears key decision
					

Officials in Ottawa have taken their time in reviewing the Canadian Surface Combatant design because the one ship class must do it all.




					www.defensenews.com
				




The missile defence role was implied with SPY-7 but it only became “public” very recently from what I can see and have read.


----------



## Underway

I don't have the answer for the CTI acronym but it looks like a replacement for CMS 330 as that's the system is being rebuilt to accomodate Aegis somehow.

There is a scale.  On one side is a full CMS 330 ship. On the other a full Aegis ship.  Somewhere between those two will be the CSC full combat management system.  The Aussies already did this with their CMS in the Hobarts, where it uses some Aegis stuff combined with the 9LV system (from Saab).

Where that ends up for Canada is still a bit unknown ATT.  CMS interface with Aegis programing?  CMS underwater warfare with Aegis air defence?  Different servers, Aegis software in a CMS server, vice versa?  I know Canada is liasing with Australia on how they accomplished this and what their lessons learned are though.


There is a better view of this thing and I still don't know what it is.


----------



## MTShaw

Underway said:


> I don't have the answer for the CTI acronym but it looks like a replacement for CMS 330 as that the system is being rebuilt to accomodate Aegis somehow.
> 
> There is a scale.  On one side is a full CMS 330 ship. On the other a full Aegis ship.  Somewhere between those two will be the CSC full combat management system.  The Aussies already did this with their CMS in the Hobarts, where it uses some Aegis stuff combined with the 9LV system (from Saab).
> 
> Where that ends up for Canada is still a bit unknown ATT.  CMS interface with Aegis programing?  CMS underwater warfare with Aegis air defence?  Different servers, Aegis software in a CMS server, vice versa?  I know Canada is liasing with Australia on how they accomplished this and what their lessons learned are though.
> 
> 
> There is a better view of this thing and I still don't know what it is.
> View attachment 74752


Thank you for your info about the CMS.

My thinking is that is either a huge lifeboat or something like this:









						US Navy Destroyers And Royal Navy Ships Use These Big Blow-Up Anti-Ship Missile Decoys
					

They are a low-cost addition to ships' layered defenses used to counter anti-ship missiles and the Royal Navy want to invest in improved models.




					www.thedrive.com


----------



## Underway

That's in Canadian parlance an SOPD (but we also call it a DLF) and we have them on the frigates.  I honestly can't remember what the acronym stands for (Ships Off-board Passive Decoy I think but I'm really not confident in that).

It doesn't look like the current launch system and isn't where the UK are putting theirs on the Type 26 (see image below), but it could be a different type.  They are usually placed near the bow so that they have plenty of time to inflate before the ship sails past them.  I've always wanted to unpack one and draw a "natural 20" on the top with a permanent marker.  But since they come packed from the company that's pretty much a non-starter.


----------



## RDBZ

Underway said:


> I don't have the answer for the CTI acronym but it looks like a replacement for CMS 330 as that's the system is being rebuilt to accomodate Aegis somehow.
> 
> There is a scale.  On one side is a full CMS 330 ship. On the other a full Aegis ship.  Somewhere between those two will be the CSC full combat management system.  *The Aussies already did this with their CMS in the Hobarts, where it uses some Aegis stuff combined with the 9LV system (from Saab).*
> 
> Where that ends up for Canada is still a bit unknown ATT.  CMS interface with Aegis programing?  CMS underwater warfare with Aegis air defence?  Different servers, Aegis software in a CMS server, vice versa?  I know Canada is liasing with Australia on how they accomplished this and what their lessons learned are though.
> 
> 
> There is a better view of this thing and I still don't know what it is.
> View attachment 74752


The RAN Hobart class are "full Aegis" ships.  The additional systems are for functionality not included in AEGIS, similar to use of AN/SQQ-89 by the USN.


----------



## Underway

RDBZ said:


> The RAN Hobart class are "full Aegis" ships.  The additional systems are for functionality not included in AEGIS, similar to use of AN/SQQ-89 by the USN.


AEGIS is supposed to be all domain CMS for all warfare systems.  AFAIK, AN/SQQ-89 is supposed to be fully integrated into AEGIS as part of the ASW portion of the system. Like CMS 330, AEGIS covers ASW, AAW, ASuW, EW, ESM etc... and if it doesn't its not "full AEGIS" by my definition.  Your definition may differ from mine as may your inside info on the system.

This is what I mean by a scale between CMS and AEGIS.  What parts are done by what software/system.  

Anyway you slice it though, Australia already has experience in combining 9LV with AEGIS.  See details below from the Saab website.



> Saab Australia’s ‘9LV’ CMS, has been the Royal Australian Navy’s combat system of choice for over three decades.  9LV is the core of the combat capability on board the current Anzac Class frigates and Canberra Class Landing Helicopter Docks and will soon enter into service with the Supply Class AOR and Arafura Class OPVs. The Tactical Interface for the new Hunter Class frigates and the upgraded Hobart Class warships is also being developed by Saab Australia. 9LV will be in the service of the Royal Australian Navy for the foreseeable future based on the expected life of these platforms.


9LV striking performance for the modern navy | Saab


----------



## MTShaw

I was looking today for what type and MW the electric motor for the type 26 rating had. The electric motor is rated at 3.4MW. 









						GE: World Leader in Naval Electric Drive Power and Propulsion | GE Power Conversion
					

BUSAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA - October 21, 2019 – GE’s gas turbine and electric drive power and propulsion systems are proven to meet the most demanding needs of world navies.




					www.gepowerconversion.com
				




This got me to the MTU M53 20v 4000 on the Type 26’s wiki page.  






						Type 26 frigate - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




It no longer exists on MTU’s site and has been replacement by M73 20v 4000 when the M53 20v 4000 is googled 



			https://www.mtu-solutions.com/content/dam/mtu/products/yacht/main-propulsion/mtu-series-4000/3232801_Marine_spec_20V4000M73-L_1B.pdf/_jcr_content/renditions/original./3232801_Marine_spec_20V4000M73-L_1B.pdf


----------



## MTShaw

The point i forgot to make is that the power goes from 3000 to 3200-3600 KW


----------



## Underway

More power is good, hopefully there isn't to much of an engineering change between the versions.


----------



## calculus

MTShaw said:


> I was looking today for what type and MW the electric motor for the type 26 rating had. The electric motor is rated at 3.4MW.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GE: World Leader in Naval Electric Drive Power and Propulsion | GE Power Conversion
> 
> 
> BUSAN, REPUBLIC OF KOREA - October 21, 2019 – GE’s gas turbine and electric drive power and propulsion systems are proven to meet the most demanding needs of world navies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.gepowerconversion.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This got me to the MTU M53 20v 4000 on the Type 26’s wiki page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type 26 frigate - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It no longer exists on MTU’s site and has been replacement by M73 20v 4000 when the M53 20v 4000 is googled
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.mtu-solutions.com/content/dam/mtu/products/yacht/main-propulsion/mtu-series-4000/3232801_Marine_spec_20V4000M73-L_1B.pdf/_jcr_content/renditions/original./3232801_Marine_spec_20V4000M73-L_1B.pdf



Interesting stuff @MTShaw.  The increase in power, while good, would only affect the lower end of the speed envelope, presumably, as the DGs are used to drive the electric motors only. Top speed is still limited by the output of the MT30. Given the CSC and the Australian ship appear to be considerably heavier than their English cousin, that extra power might not actually translate into extra speed at all. 

This is still the best description of the T26 power arrangement I have come across: Powering the stealthy submarine hunter – Type 26 frigate propulsion system in focus | Navy Lookout


----------



## Good2Golf

calculus said:


> Interesting stuff @MTShaw.  The increase in power, while good, would only affect the lower end of the speed envelope, presumably, as the DGs are used to drive the electric motors only. Top speed is still limited by the output of the MT30. Given the CSC and the Australian ship appear to be considerably heavier than their English cousin, that extra power might not actually translate into extra speed at all.
> 
> This is still the best description of the T26 power arrangement I have come across: Powering the stealthy submarine hunter – Type 26 frigate propulsion system in focus | Navy Lookout


Good read, thanks.  An interesting *snip from the article… 🤔


> The output power of the MT30 has been conservatively limited to 36MW but it has the potential to uprated by a further 10% which could be used to offset future displacement increases with the addition of new equipment.


----------



## Nvlgzr

Janes is reporting that BAE has been awarded a batch 2 contract for type 26…..4.2 billion Pounds for 5 ships. About 1/5th the cost Irving & Lockmart are hosing Canadians for.


----------



## dapaterson

What is included, what is not, what is GFE... while I agree that the cost numbers are dramatically different, the basis for comparison has to be the same.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

dapaterson said:


> What is included, what is not, what is GFE... while I agree that the cost numbers are dramatically different, the basis for comparison has to be the same.


Agreed. And our second batch prices may come in dramatically different, too.


----------



## suffolkowner

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1592625086296920067
Be interesting if our learning curve can be quicker having the Brits and Aussies to follow as well as the builds continuing from the AOPS. Also maybe the final assembly inside right from the beginning? Will it benefit Irving is maybe the real question?


----------



## NavyShooter

The only curve that matters to Irving is their profit margin...expect the price to slide higher, while the quality remains marginal at best.


----------



## Navy_Pete

suffolkowner said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1592625086296920067
> Be interesting if our learning curve can be quicker having the Brits and Aussies to follow as well as the builds continuing from the AOPS. Also maybe the final assembly inside right from the beginning? Will it benefit Irving is maybe the real question?


IF you look at the PBO 2019 cost estimate report, it includes a sample learning curve.  It's pretty significant, and tracking that way for AOPs.

There is a loss everytime you go to a new ship design (so the NC package is a nightmare) and a natural plateau, but the difference between the first ship and the 3rd or 4th ship of 30% less hours on production is common. It's a log curve though, so flattens out after a bit, and at a certain point improvements are negligible without equipment upgrades (which usually also involve process changes).

The improvements are all cumulative though, so the performance drop off between new classes is smoother the more established the yard is.

There is a lot of work and expertise that goes into it; if you want to read more would recommend the report below from FMI. They are also heavily involved in NSS and getting that set up to hopefully build in that same kind of natural improvement over time.

https://www.nsrp.org/wp-content/upl...al_Industrial_Benchmarking-mid-tier_yards.pdf

It's all heavily reliant on contract strucuture though; if we're stupid enough to go with cost+, instead of fixed price, there is a financial disincentive be more efficient.


----------



## Nvlgzr

SeaKingTacco said:


> Agreed. And our second batch prices may come in dramatically different, too.


Yes, our second batch prices will come in dramatically different. Much higher. Just look to the AOPS, the second batch will be hulls 7 & 8 for the Coast Guard. They are expected to billed for about $200 million more per hull, despite not including a CMS, milcomms or weapons. The Irving contracts and financial statements are closed to the public by design. The government stupidly signs non competitive contracts and then seems to minimize oversight  of the project.

Our only saving grace for now is that Irving / Lockmart are contracted to build 3 CSC’s, not 15.


----------



## Spencer100

Back to the RN.  Does His Majesty's Government get a rebate or royalty from BAE for the foreign sales of the T26 design?  The British taxpayers paid for the design.  Or did they forego any IP royalty to help British industry? And there will British content on both RCN and RAN ships even will some substitutions of equipment. 

Would that account for some of the lower cost on the second Batch?

OT...I had read that one of the selling points of the Cyclone was that Canada would get royalties from Sikorsky if it received other orders.  Canada paid the full freight of the fly by wire system etc. At the time it was short listed for Germany.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> Back to the RN.  Does His Majesty's Government get a rebate or royalty from BAE for the foreign sales of the T26 design?  The British taxpayers paid for the design.  Or did they forego any IP royalty to help British industry? And there will British content on both RCN and RAN ships even will some substitutions of equipment.
> 
> Would that account for some of the lower cost on the second Batch?
> 
> OT...I had read that one of the selling points of the Cyclone was that Canada would get royalties from Sikorsky if it received other orders.  Canada paid the full freight of the fly by wire system etc. At the time it was short listed for Germany.


BAE remains heavily involved in the design, gets royalties etc so lot of direct tax returns from people working.

Some other countries might look at having them actually built in the UK, or even just building it to the UK design and use the same kit, so obvious benefits there during build, and also makes it cheaper to support for everyone as there is a bigger user base, and you can share lessons learned, repairs, upgrades etc.

But status quo of not licensing the T26 at all means they get absolutely nothing, so pretty much any returns (even indirect ones are gravy). It also keeps the designers in the UK busy and still at BAE, which is huge as well for long term sustainabilty (Case in point, CPFs; we invested a lot, got good ships, the project team learned a lot about modular building... then we shuttered the project, and a lot of them got hired on to BAE).

We are working with the RN on a bunch of stuff anyway, so lot of intangible gains from the boffins talking at this point.


----------



## Underway

There are also parts of the UK and Aussie ships that are build in Canada.  Rolls Royce Canada is building the mission bay handling system and its a beast so I'm told.  Ultra Electronics is building the sonars for all the ships and some parts for those are made in Dartmouth, as is some of the electronic sonar decoys for all the ships.

It's going to make for an interesting situation. I'm looking forward to the day where an RCN ship sailing in company with a RN or RAN ship can MATREQ parts and vice versa.


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:


> BAE remains heavily involved in the design, gets royalties etc so lot of direct tax returns from people working.
> 
> Some other countries might look at having them actually built in the UK, or even just building it to the UK design and use the same kit, so obvious benefits there during build, and also makes it cheaper to support for everyone as there is a bigger user base, and you can share lessons learned, repairs, upgrades etc.
> 
> But status quo of not licensing the T26 at all means they get absolutely nothing, so pretty much any returns (even indirect ones are gravy). It also keeps the designers in the UK busy and still at BAE, which is huge as well for long term sustainabilty (Case in point, CPFs; we invested a lot, got good ships, the project team learned a lot about modular building... then we shuttered the project, and a lot of them got hired on to BAE).
> 
> We are working with the RN on a bunch of stuff anyway, so lot of intangible gains from the boffins talking at this point.


Yes all that understand all of that.  I was just wondering if BAE is paying back the British Government itself or did they say we BAE need to be competitive and cant return money to the taxpayer and win the foreign contracts too.  And the British government just be happy with all the side benefits you list.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> Yes all that understand all of that.  I was just wondering if BAE is paying back the British Government itself or did they say we BAE need to be competitive and cant return money to the taxpayer and win the foreign contracts too.  And the British government just be happy with all the side benefits you list.


I think the UK government (particularly with the type 31 design) is actively encouraging export. I'm sure they'd prefer it built in UK yards, but are realistic enough that they understand a lot of other countries have their own national shipbuilding programs (the UK also has an NSS).

They have their own internal build programs to keep their yards busy, but even if they just export the design it's a great way to keep the engineering team busy and up to speed. The bulk of the work for them comes at the initial design stages, but the input for them drops way down after that, so it lets them load level the design/engineers over the long term.

I'm sure that some of the countries will use a lot of UK equipment though, and whatever the build costs are you will pay 3-4 times the cost on maintenance and operations so still huge opportunites for UK companies over the long term if foreign built ships use their kit.


----------



## Spencer100

Navy_Pete said:


> I think the UK government (particularly with the type 31 design) is actively encouraging export. I'm sure they'd prefer it built in UK yards, but are realistic enough that they understand a lot of other countries have their own national shipbuilding programs (the UK also has an NSS).
> 
> They have their own internal build programs to keep their yards busy, but even if they just export the design it's a great way to keep the engineering team busy and up to speed. The bulk of the work for them comes at the initial design stages, but the input for them drops way down after that, so it lets them load level the design/engineers over the long term.
> 
> I'm sure that some of the countries will use a lot of UK equipment though, and whatever the build costs are you will pay 3-4 times the cost on maintenance and operations so still huge opportunites for UK companies over the long term if foreign built ships use their kit.


Yes. Yes.  The question is still is BAE paying back the British taxpayer for the IP.  The British gov paid BAE for the IP.  BAE sold that IP plus some of their own to Irving/Lockheed and Canada is paying for it.  That is my question. They may not be paying back the British treasury for all the reason you list.  But I thought maybe that is reason for some of cost down for the batch two ships.

In the USA FMS sales put some of the money goes to the US government to pay back some of the R&D money the US spent developing the weapon system etc. This is on top of the cost of system from the manufacturer.  Example is M1777 purchased by Canada. Another famous example was the waving by the US government of R&D costs of the CF18 when Canada purchased the aircraft.  We got a great deal!


----------



## KevinB

Spencer100 said:


> Yes. Yes.  The question is still is BAE paying back the British taxpayer for the IP.  The British gov paid BAE for the IP.  BAE sold that IP plus some of their own to Irving/Lockheed and Canada is paying for it.  That is my question. They may not be paying back the British treasury for all the reason you list.  But I thought maybe that is reason for some of cost down for the batch two ships.
> 
> In the USA FMS sales put some of the money goes to the US government to pay back some of the R&D money the US spent developing the weapon system etc. This is on top of the cost of system from the manufacturer.  Example is M1777 purchased by Canada. Another famous example was the waving by the US government of R&D costs of the CF18 when Canada purchased the aircraft.  We got a great deal!


That’s not exactly true as to how we do FMS. 
   I’m on my phone and don’t want to write an essay - but FMS pricing isn’t variable on R&D returns.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Spencer100 said:


> Yes. Yes.  The question is still is BAE paying back the British taxpayer for the IP.  The British gov paid BAE for the IP.  BAE sold that IP plus some of their own to Irving/Lockheed and Canada is paying for it.  That is my question. They may not be paying back the British treasury for all the reason you list.  But I thought maybe that is reason for some of cost down for the batch two ships.
> 
> In the USA FMS sales put some of the money goes to the US government to pay back some of the R&D money the US spent developing the weapon system etc. This is on top of the cost of system from the manufacturer.  Example is M1777 purchased by Canada. Another famous example was the waving by the US government of R&D costs of the CF18 when Canada purchased the aircraft.  We got a great deal!


I have no idea; but presumably BAE is paying taxes, so whatever Canada is paying BAE for IP the UK government will get a slice anyway.

The potential costs for rebuilding an engineering design team can be in the billions though (due to delays) so I don't know that the UK cares. Having an experienced, in country design team and capable ship yards means their NSS is a lot more under their control, so the only thing stopping them from beingentirely self sufficient is the supply chain for things like steel, electronics etc.


----------



## GR66

Maybe not strictly CSC related, but with the size of our maritime domain and only having 15 CSCs planned (and only 18 x CP-140's) the the UK's Project CHARYBDIS which is looking to explore unmanned ASW technologies to supplement existing manned platforms seems like the type of program that Canada should partner with.  

We have some pretty solid industry players in Canada that could do well in this field and if we were to go with the P-8 as an Aurora replacement then the RN/RCN/RAN would have common platforms from which some of these unmanned capabilities could be launched.


----------



## Underway

GR66 said:


> Maybe not strictly CSC related, but with the size of our maritime domain and only having 15 CSCs planned (and only 18 x CP-140's) the the UK's Project CHARYBDIS which is looking to explore unmanned ASW technologies to supplement existing manned platforms seems like the type of program that Canada should partner with.
> 
> We have some pretty solid industry players in Canada that could do well in this field and if we were to go with the P-8 as an Aurora replacement then the RN/RCN/RAN would have common platforms from which some of these unmanned capabilities could be launched.


No disagreement here.  Its going to be the way of the future, where uncrewed vessels will be operating as sensor platforms for the other ships, expanding the RMP.  Surface and air platforms are just the beginning, ASW is going to be the tougher one but likely a good wave of the future.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> No disagreement here.  Its going to be the way of the future, where uncrewed vessels will be operating as sensor platforms for the other ships, expanding the RMP.  Surface and air platforms are just the beginning, ASW is going to be the tougher one but likely a good wave of the future.


I can see autonomous underwater vehicles patrolling stretches of ocean passively listening for certain types of propeller noises. The mothership could be a modified oil rig supply vessel with a A frame on the back for retrieval/deployment and covered hanger for refit and recharging of the UAV's.


----------



## OceanBonfire

> The Department of National Defence plans to build its $65-million warship testing facility, but there's growing opposition from worried people in the community. They wonder if the project is safe and if they'll still be able to  use the coastal area. Colleen Jones has the story.





			https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2122272835861


----------



## Furniture

OceanBonfire said:


> https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2122272835861


Tell them that the CAF will move the ship building to Montreal, and build the testing facility up near Souris PEI, or Gaspe, QC... Then watch as they scream for the site and ship building to be done around Halifax.


----------



## lenaitch

Furniture said:


> Tell them that the CAF will move the ship building to Montreal, and build the testing facility up near Souris PEI, or Gaspe, QC... Then watch as they scream for the site and ship building to be done around Halifax.


Some wouldn't care because 'warship bad'.  The fun question is always 'then where?  You suggest.'


----------



## Underway

Answers, no it will not be safe withing 300+m of the radar when its radiating, and no you won't be able to use the coastal area because of security and fences etc...

It's DND property that they are letting you use right now, when the building goes up security won't let you in.  Deal with it.


----------



## Good2Golf

Underway said:


> Answers, no it will not be safe withing 300+m of the radar when its radiating, and no you won't be able to use the coastal area because of security and fences etc...
> 
> It's DND property that they are letting you use right now, when the building goes up security won't let you in.  Deal with it.


Yeah but…we know it won’t end that way. 

I figure, Mr. Darren Fisher, the local MP for Dartmouth-Cole Harbour, gets told he either helps them see the light, or DND pivots as much money as it can out of an unfriendly location.


----------



## Stoker

I live in the area which includes many military. There is a small group of residents and non-residents who are against this project and are trying their best to have it killed. They think DND tried to have the project approved under the radar and actually think weapons are being tested there. These people are against all sorts of development.  They seem to think that they have a right to the DND land. I looked at the clip and it's exaggerated the level of support they have in the community. Many in the community are for the project just not very vocal.
Check out their facebook page, its public and gives you a idea of their thinking.









						Protect Hartlen Point | Facebook
					

A community-led movement to protect the thriving ecosystem of Hartlen Point and surrounding community of Eastern Passage.  👇👇CLICK TO SIGN THE PETITION www.change.org/protecthartlenpoint.




					www.facebook.com


----------



## lenaitch

I guess if you say "hazardous weapon testing" enough times it sticks.


----------



## Stoker

It appears now that the group has the Lobster fishermen convinced which is a huge group in Eastern Passage that DND will block off the lobster grounds off Hartlen point and that the emissions will harm them.


----------



## MTShaw

Stoker said:


> It appears now that the group has the Lobster fishermen convinced which is a huge group in Eastern Passage that DND will block off the lobster grounds off Hartlen point and that the emissions will harm them.


Tell them to stop using their microwaves and cordless home phones. Stomp on the idiots with “no it wont hurt you hippy and this is a National Defence matter.“


----------



## lenaitch

Stoker said:


> It appears now that the group has the Lobster fishermen convinced which is a huge group in Eastern Passage that DND will block off the lobster grounds off Hartlen point and that the emissions will harm them.


Aren't NOTMARs (Notices to Mariners) a thing anymore?  I'm guessing significant radiation emissions will only be an occasional event.  According to DFO, the Lobster season for that area is mid-April to mid-June.  Surely something could be worked out.  The government/DND needs to get ahead of this instead of allowing opponents to gain momentum.


----------



## Underway

lenaitch said:


> Aren't NOTMARs (Notices to Mariners) a thing anymore?  I'm guessing significant radiation emissions will only be an occasional event.  According to DFO, the Lobster season for that area is mid-April to mid-June.  Surely something could be worked out.  The government/DND needs to get ahead of this instead of allowing opponents to gain momentum.


If you aren't using the Fire Control then its RADHAZ safe.  And you can put in a blanking sector. There is also elevation so if you radiate into the air then its fine.

I wouldn't be worried about NOTMAR's at all. I would be shocked if a lobster boat can get that close to the shore facility.


----------



## suffolkowner

A guide to the Type 26 Frigate | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com
				




updated overview of the UK's version


----------



## Kirkhill

Stoker said:


> It appears now that the group has the Lobster fishermen convinced which is a huge group in Eastern Passage that DND will block off the lobster grounds off Hartlen point and that the emissions will harm them.



Tell them the emissions will create giant mutant lobsters.


----------



## Weinie

Kirkhill said:


> Tell them the emissions will create giant mutant lobsters.


Lobster tastes like shit anyway. Giant mutant lobsters will taste like giant mutant shit.


----------



## MJP

Weinie said:


> Lobster tastes like shit anyway. Giant mutant lobsters will taste like giant mutant shit.


Have never understood the love for lobster.... It tastes ok but I would rather have a choice of other seafood before going to lobster.

Works out ok at lobster day at the mess as I get more steak.


----------



## Good2Golf

Weinie said:


> Lobster tastes like shit anyway. Giant mutant lobsters will taste like giant mutant shit.


I hear them described as a “rolling compost toilet.”  

I’m with @MJP, I’ll take the 🥩!


----------



## KevinB

Heretics.


----------



## dimsum

KevinB said:


> Heretics.


Or…

More for us!  😏


----------



## Good2Golf

dimsum said:


> Or…
> 
> More for us!  😏


At least on beef the tasty stuff is pretty far from the anus, not wrapped around it… 😆


----------



## suffolkowner

what is the secret to good lobster or scallops. Ive had lots of good over the years but lots where it was liking chewing rubber


----------



## Halifax Tar

suffolkowner said:


> what is the secret to good lobster or scallops. Ive had lots of good over the years but lots where it was liking chewing rubber



The secret is to leave them in the ocean.


----------



## suffolkowner

Halifax Tar said:


> The secret is to leave them in the ocean.


the truth is I dont eat any beef but filet or hamburger when I go out either because its hard to screw them up. When you are used to your own beef it can be hard to accept the crap they serve elsewhere


----------



## KevinB

suffolkowner said:


> what is the secret to good lobster or scallops. Ive had lots of good over the years but lots where it was liking chewing rubber


Fresh ones cooked properly.  
   Cook them too long and you get rubber.


----------



## suffolkowner

KevinB said:


> Fresh ones cooked properly.
> Cook them too long and you get rubber.


thats what I wondered. Is it the same with alligator do you think?


----------



## Dana381

suffolkowner said:


> thats what I wondered. Is it the same with alligator do you think?


Ice them as soon as they are out of the pot. The shell traps the heat in and they continue to cook!
I meant to quote your previous post, not all there today!


----------



## Furniture

MJP said:


> Have never understood the love for lobster.... It tastes ok but I would rather have a choice of other seafood before going to lobster.
> 
> Works out ok at lobster day at the mess as I get more steak.


My father was a commercial lobster fisherman, his philosophy on lobster was pretty simple; "I sell the lobster so I can eat steak".


----------



## lenaitch

suffolkowner said:


> what is the secret to good lobster or scallops. Ive had lots of good over the years but lots where it was liking chewing rubber



Fresh
Fresh
Fresh

I'm not a huge fan of shellfish either with the exception of scallops, but once you've had it essentially off the pier, the stuff that is available to us in Central Canada simply can't compare.  Fresh water fish is the same.  In n/w Ontario I could get a Walleye meal basically off the town dock (or even better, a shore lunch), but the stuff available at the stores is not the same.  We do have a small Metis commercial fishery here so their stuff is pretty close.


----------



## Good2Golf

Furniture said:


> My father was a commercial lobster fisherman, his philosophy on lobster was pretty simple; "I sell the lobster so I can eat steak".


----------



## suffolkowner

seems sort of similar with halibut. Ive almost never found halibut in the maritimes. Haddock yes and Cod yes but hardly ever any Halibut


----------



## Furniture

suffolkowner said:


> seems sort of similar with halibut. Ive almost never found halibut in the maritimes. Haddock yes and Cod yes but hardly ever any Halibut


The commercial groundfish industry was decimated in the 90s, NL Cod got all the attention in the media, but it was all over the Atlantic region that things were closed.  Some fisheries came back, some didn't.

When I was young my father was gone from Monday to Saturday as long as the Northumberland Strait was free of ice, after the groundfish seasons closed, he was home a lot more often.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

One day this will be us


----------



## NavyShooter

(At least you didn't say "One day SOON this will be us.")


----------



## GR66




----------



## Colin Parkinson

I guessing some of these are for other navies?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Ya I see a Type 23 and ANZAC (RNZN ?).


----------



## Lumber

Colin Parkinson said:


> I guessing some of these are for other navies?
> 
> View attachment 75381


Yes. Second from the top is the Chilean Type 23 and third from the bottom is the New Zealand ANZAC, both of whom have been fitted out by Lockheed Martin Canada with CMS 330.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:


> Yes. Second from the top is the Chilean Type 23 and third from the bottom is the New Zealand ANZAC, both of whom have been fitted out by Lockheed Martin Canada with CMS 330.



Smart minds and all that


----------



## Lumber

Halifax Tar said:


> Smart minds and all that


That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me


----------



## Halifax Tar

Lumber said:


> That's the nicest thing you've ever said about me



Hoisted on board, Sir.  I will work to be more pleasant  lol


----------



## dimsum

What does “ahead of ready” mean?


----------



## Lumber

dimsum said:


> What does “ahead of ready” mean?


I think they're playing on the RCN motto of Ready Aye Ready? Or since there's non Canadian there, maybe it's just a awkward slogan that literally just means they are more than ready?


----------



## Swampbuggy

Colin Parkinson said:


> I guessing some of these are for other navies?
> 
> View attachment 75381


Weird colour on the CPF…


----------



## Spencer100

Swampbuggy said:


> Weird colour on the CPF…


The sizing is way off too.   T26 size comparative to CPF a big difference.  The Anzac's are smaller than the T22 and the CFP.

I'm sure put this was put together by a marketing intern very quickly.


----------



## calculus

Interesting article on the next steps for the T26 before the RN commissions first-of-class HMS Glasgow.









						In focus: delivering the Type 26 Frigates | Navy Lookout
					






					www.navylookout.com


----------



## Czech_pivo

calculus said:


> Interesting article on the next steps for the T26 before the RN commissions first-of-class HMS Glasgow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In focus: delivering the Type 26 Frigates | Navy Lookout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navylookout.com


'Assuming there are no further delays, it will be more than 11 years from the time the first steel was cut for HMS Glasgow until she achieves Initial Operating Capability – a performance that compares poorly with first-of-class warships constructed by other major nations.'

Any takers on the following bet:  CSC goes 'over/under' on this 11yr timeline?


----------



## Lumber

Czech_pivo said:


> 'Assuming there are no further delays, it will be more than 11 years from the time the first steel was cut for HMS Glasgow until she achieves Initial Operating Capability – a performance that compares poorly with first-of-class warships constructed by other major nations.'
> 
> Any takers on the following bet:  CSC goes 'over/under' on this 11yr timeline?


Ooof. That's though. 

First, the end date: when will Canada define "IOC"? Capable of routine domestic ops (i.e NR2)? Capable of route, non-kinetic international ops (i.e. NR1)? Or capable of full-spectrum international ops (i.e. HR)? 

Second, the start date: with respect to cutting steel, it was shared here somewhere that as soon as the steel cutting shop has time, they will cut the first few pieces of steel and then put them in a holding bay for future use, potentially sitting there for months and years. Is that really a fair starting point?


----------



## Navy_Pete

Lumber said:


> Ooof. That's though.
> 
> First, the end date: when will Canada define "IOC"? Capable of routine domestic ops (i.e NR2)? Capable of route, non-kinetic international ops (i.e. NR1)? Or capable of full-spectrum international ops (i.e. HR)?
> 
> Second, the start date: with respect to cutting steel, it was shared here somewhere that as soon as the steel cutting shop has time, they will cut the first few pieces of steel and then put them in a holding bay for future use, potentially sitting there for months and years. Is that really a fair starting point?


I don't even know if the first cut pieces ever even make it into the ship; there is usually some test modules to check distortion etc that will get scrapped (or is even just for PR).

That's one of the issues with reporting it as 'construction has started' when really you are just welding some steel together to see what happens and adjusting how much heat etc you use for different thicknesses and weld geometries.


----------



## dapaterson

IOC will be as defined in the project documentation.  Don't have them handily in front of me right now ...


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:


> Ooof. That's though.
> 
> First, the end date: when will Canada define "IOC"? Capable of routine domestic ops (i.e NR2)? Capable of route, non-kinetic international ops (i.e. NR1)? Or capable of full-spectrum international ops (i.e. HR)?
> 
> Second, the start date: with respect to cutting steel, it was shared here somewhere that as soon as the steel cutting shop has time, they will cut the first few pieces of steel and then put them in a holding bay for future use, potentially sitting there for months and years. Is that really a fair starting point?


IOC is full spectrum Ops IIRC.  Everything works on the ship as advertized for the most part.  

I think 11 years is probably close to the mark.  7 years to build and 4 years to fix up issues and get to the missile defence Ex phase.

I suspect the first CSC will be doing lots of operations before that though, just not High Readyness ones.


----------



## NavyShooter

I'll observe that it was not until 1997 that CHA did the first multiple missile firing on Halifax Class.  (We fired 4 - one decided to spin in...in an 'unplanned' fashion.)


----------



## Navy_Pete

NavyShooter said:


> I'll observe that it was not until 1997 that CHA did the first multiple missile firing on Halifax Class.  (We fired 4 - one decided to spin in...in an 'unplanned' fashion.)


Had that happen with an SM2 during a missile ex; made for an interesting XO pipe and woke us up in FSB (directly aft of the missile bank)!


----------



## Underway

Interesting side note on missile shoots, RCN is transitioning out of ESSM Block 1 to Block 2 this coming summer.  Should be fun to see how the active mode compares to the semi-active.  I'm legit excited to see what happens.


----------



## Lumber

Underway said:


> Interesting side note on missile shoots, RCN is transitioning out of ESSM Block 1 to Block 2 this coming summer.  Should be fun to see how the active mode compares to the semi-active.  I'm legit excited to see what happens.


It should certainly increases the number of simultaneous engagements that a CPF can execute, though with only 16 missiles, they're still going to run out pretty fast.

On a side note, the Kiwis went with active-guidance PDSMs recently, and as a result, got rid of their fire control radars. Now, we can't do that because our gun still requires it, but it's interesting how significant an effect that switching to active-guided missiles can have.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Missile shoots are surprisingly kind of boring when everything goes to plan. You prep for months, do all kinds of drills, and then it's over in a fraction of a second (and most never even get to see cool video of the launch/strike).

The most exciting part of the last one I did was all the DGs deciding to crap out on us with fuel leaks etc as the target was inbound, and we were crashing non-essential equipment and juggling the load to stop from blacking out.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Missile shoots are surprisingly kind of boring when everything goes to plan. You prep for months, do all kinds of drills, and then it's over in a fraction of a second (and most never even get to see cool video of the launch/strike).
> 
> The most exciting part of the last one I did was all the DGs deciding to crap out on us with fuel leaks etc as the target was inbound, and we were crashing non-essential equipment and juggling the load to stop from blacking out.



Missile shoots only excite the Navy because the vast majority of it has never actually engaged in combat and done the job for real.  Cool guys don't look at explosions.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> Missile shoots only excite the Navy because the vast majority of it has never actually engaged in combat and done the job for real.  Cool guys don't look at explosions.


Given the state of our ships, and the relative priority given to QoL items over basic capabilities or maintenance, as well as general non-compliance to safety standards, that's probably a good thing. We've eroded the recoverability of the CPFs significantly, and people are more worried if little Jimmy can grow a cool goatee or pretend to be a Viking then if they can respond to a fire.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Navy_Pete said:


> Given the state of our ships, and the relative priority given to QoL items over basic capabilities or maintenance, as well as general non-compliance to safety standards, that's probably a good thing. We've eroded the recoverability of the CPFs significantly, and people are more worried if little Jimmy can grow a cool goatee or pretend to be a Viking then if they can respond to a fire.



You'll get no argument from me.  We will have some bloody lessons to learn the next time our triremes engage again. 

I'm looking at our training and W&SB.  We do not train hard enough, nor do we stress the W&SB enough.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

W&SB ?


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin Parkinson said:


> W&SB ?



Watch and Station Bill

Its what directs every member of the crew to what what role they fill in the various occurrences at sea and sets the watch rotation.

The ships ability to float, fight and move 100% depends on it.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Halifax Tar said:


> Watch and Station Bill
> 
> Its what directs every member of the crew to what what role they fill in the various occurrences at sea and sets the watch rotation.


Thanks, I thought that would be an absolute given as everyone needs to know where and what to do.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Colin Parkinson said:


> Thanks, I thought that would be an absolute given as everyone needs to know where and what to do.



Each Chief of Department (CPO2) is responsible to ensure their department's W&SB is filled and all assigned roles are covered.


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> Given the state of our ships, and the relative priority given to QoL items over basic capabilities or maintenance, as well as general non-compliance to safety standards, that's probably a good thing. We've eroded the recoverability of the CPFs significantly, and people are more worried if little Jimmy can grow a cool goatee or pretend to be a Viking then if they can respond to a fire.


We had our ERA’s party at the Esquimalt C&POs last Friday.  The number of serving members who show up in uniform keeps dropping as more and more Martechs have no relation to prior training standards, certification boards etc or ever being referred to as an artificer.  Now, i’m not one for linking dress/deportment with one’s ability to perform under duress as a stoker, but If the state of half of those who showed up is indicative of the professional attitude in the branch today, it’s no surprise that the branch is in the state it is.  As to cool goatee/pretend Viking, one of those who showed up (a LCDR) was well on his way with a ZZ Top beard and stud earrings as well as carrying 40 lbs of extra weight above his belt.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Grimey said:


> We had our ERA’s party at the Esquimalt C&POs last Friday.  The number of serving members who show up in uniform keeps dropping as more and more Martechs have no relation to prior training standards, certification boards etc or ever being referred to as an artificer.  Now, i’m not one for linking dress/deportment with one’s ability to perform under duress as a stoker, but If the state of half of those who showed up is indicative of the professional attitude in the branch today, it’s no surprise that the branch is in the state it is.  As to cool goatee/pretend Viking, one of those who showed up (a LCDR) was well on his way with a ZZ Top beard and stud earrings as well as carrying 40 lbs of extra weight above his belt.



CERAs and ERAs are a thing of the past.


----------



## Grimey

Halifax Tar said:


> CERAs and ERAs are a thing of the past.


They are.  From the horror stories I’m hearing from peers who are still serving, so is technical aptitude.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Grimey said:


> They are.  From the horror stories I’m hearing from peers who are still serving, so is technical aptitude.



I am not in the Engineering branch, but a close relative as the Stokers and Storesmen are always hand in hand.  Anyways, from the outside it defiantly looks like the amalgamation of the trades in the Eng Br is not going as planned.


----------



## Grimey

Halifax Tar said:


> I am not in the Engineering branch, but a close relative as the Stokers and Storesmen are always hand in hand.  Anyways, from the outside it defiantly looks like the amalgamation of the trades in the Eng Br is not going as planned.


There’s talk of certain aspects of amalgamation being rolled back, but the train has been rolling down the single set of rails for so long that the remaining brain trust is flummoxed as to a COA.


----------



## Halifax Tar

Grimey said:


> There’s talk of certain aspects of amalgamation being rolled back, but the train has been rolling down the single set of rails for so long that the remaining brain trust is flummoxed as to a COA.



A lot of knowledge has already and continues to walk away.  No doubt rolling back will come with its own challenges now.


----------



## NavyShooter

Interestingly, a POC at NFS(P) reached out to me earlier in the year and asked if I still had copies of old lesson plans for the NET(A) training courses....because....y'know....I keep everything.  And strangely, yes I did have them.  An interesting discussion ensued about training standards and such.  

The old CANTASS dry end course was a 6 week task in Ottawa at CDC for the Factory course, which was condensed to a 22 day training syllabus for the old QL5 level.  

That didn't include the ~3 week training for the NWT's on the wet end in NAD.

The W Eng training for both wet and dry ends was chopped to 12 days total for both.  With little exposure to the real gear and a focus on Computer Based simulation training.

So....yeah....there's a long road to hew to get back to where the Navy once was in terms of training and expertise.  

(This is just one example of many...the 6 month CIWS course that was chopped to less than 6 weeks...etc.)


----------



## Lumber

Colin Parkinson said:


> Thanks, I thought that would be an absolute given as everyone needs to know where and what to do.





NavyShooter said:


> Interestingly, a POC at NFS(P) reached out to me earlier in the year and asked if I still had copies of old lesson plans for the NET(A) training courses....because....y'know....I keep everything.  And strangely, yes I did have them.  An interesting discussion ensued about training standards and such.
> 
> The old CANTASS dry end course was a 6 week task in Ottawa at CDC for the Factory course, which was condensed to a 22 day training syllabus for the old QL5 level.
> 
> That didn't include the ~3 week training for the NWT's on the wet end in NAD.
> 
> The W Eng training for both wet and dry ends was chopped to 12 days total for both.  With little exposure to the real gear and a focus on Computer Based simulation training.
> 
> So....yeah....there's a long road to hew to get back to where the Navy once was in terms of training and expertise.
> 
> (This is just one example of many...the 6 month CIWS course that was chopped to less than 6 weeks...etc.)


The air force won't let ships band their torpedoes anymore... well, technically they will "let" ships, but they always seem to redo it. Why? Because the Weng Techs either get very little or no training on banding torpedoes, so the air force always has to redo it (because they _do _get training on it).


----------



## Navy_Pete

Grimey said:


> They are.  From the horror stories I’m hearing from peers who are still serving, so is technical aptitude.


That happens when you cut training, reduce the numbers on a ship so people struggle to do maintenance, and then get promoted a lot faster than previously so they spend less time as maintainers or working supervisors.

If the Navy wants everyone to be sailors first, and most sailors are working 745-1545 alongside, the Navy shouldn't do surprised pikachu faces when martechs also don't want to come in early or stay late to do extra work, and be able to do things like exercise during the work day like everyone else. This is an entirely self inflicted wound where the operators wanted to break up the 'stoker mafia' and broke the MSE department structure that was keeping the duct tape and bondo in place to get things working anyway.

Most ships would simply not sail if we had to get class certifications with actual authority to stop sailing (it's a voluntary compliance that we can ignore with a 'risk assessment'), but combat ships should really meet basic SOLAS before deploying, let alone actual combatant requirements.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Halifax Tar said:


> A lot of knowledge has already and continues to walk away.  No doubt rolling back will come with its own challenges now.


That's the problem; the legacy HTs are retiring or moving on, and it will be another 7-10 years to get a 'structures' specialization back in place. A lot of what was experience based is gone forever, and we don't even have things like the periodic engineering letters to write down those lessons learned.


----------



## Lumber

Colin Parkinson said:


> Thanks, I thought that would be an absolute given as everyone needs to know where and what to do.


It's a lot more complicated than you think. 

There are multiple different W&S bills, and a lot of positions aren't necessarily tied to a qualification. For example, "Rescue stations" is an event where we launch one of our boats to rescue someone who's fallen over the side. One of the required positions for this is "stern-fast", which is a person who's job it is to hold a rope tied to the back of the zodiac to keep it from swinging around as the crane lifts it over the side. No real qualification is required for this, and by convention the role has been given to the sensors division (NESOPs). So, the Ops Chief and the Snr NESOP have to pick someone from the sensors division and add their name to the watch and station bill for that evolution. 

Now, if you're on watch, it's pretty simple, you tend to stay on watch, but if you are off watch when something happens (like a fire), there might be multiple places that you could go. If there was a fire, there are 4 x "section bases" aboard ship (places with damage control gear where people congregate and form teams to fight fires and floods). We also have (usually) 6-8 bridge watch keepers (BWKs) aboard (to maintain a 1-in-4 watch rotation on the bridge). At any one time, we only need 2 BWKs on the bridge, so if we go to emergency stations, the W&S bill tells those off-watch BWKs which section base to go to (and we will change it from time to time to balance out the total number or number of people with specific quals at each section base).


----------



## Grimey

Navy_Pete said:


> This is an entirely self inflicted wound where the operators wanted to break up the 'stoker mafia' and broke the MSE department structure that was keeping the duct tape and bondo in place to get things working anyway.


There’s argument to be had that the ‘stoker mafia’ disappeared when the last fire was pulled on a Y-100 plant and the MSE dept ceased being more than a third of the crew, and I don’t think the mafia ever made it past the water front.  If a name is mentioned as to who put in the last kick to the head, it’s Ron Lloyd.


----------



## dapaterson




----------



## Navy_Pete

Grimey said:


> There’s argument to be had that the ‘stoker mafia’ disappeared when the last fire was pulled on a Y-100 plant and the MSE dept ceased being more than a third of the crew, and I don’t think the mafia ever made it past the water front.  If a name is mentioned as to who put in the last kick to the head, it’s Ron Lloyd.


It definitely went out with the 280s, and never really was a thing on the CPFs.

But at the same token, the Moustache club shouldn't expect to be able to run the ships the same way and be able to fix the same things they used to (especially when some items aren't designed to be repaired). They seem to want the whole wedding cake for the price of a no-name bag of cookies and have 20 people do the same job as 60, then wonder why things aren't as good as they used to be and people are quitting.


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:


> It should certainly increases the number of simultaneous engagements that a CPF can execute, though with only 16 missiles, they're still going to run out pretty fast.
> 
> On a side note, the Kiwis went with active-guidance PDSMs recently, and as a result, got rid of their fire control radars. Now, we can't do that because our gun still requires it, but it's interesting how significant an effect that switching to active-guided missiles can have.


Second batch of CSC are rumoured to be looking at nixing the X band fire control as well.

It's not just simultaneous engagements.  Active missiles improve a number of variables important for ship AAW defence.  Some significantly so.  The ESSM 2 is as big a jump in capability as Sea Sparrow was to ESSM.

My personal favourite is the ship doesn't need to even see the target with its own sensors to engage. It just needs a good linked track from another sensor/platform to make the engagement, plot an intercept point and then fire/forget away.



Lumber said:


> The air force won't let ships band their torpedoes anymore... well, technically they will "let" ships, but they always seem to redo it. Why? Because the Weng Techs either get very little or no training on banding torpedoes, so the air force always has to redo it (because they _do _get training on it).


Air Safety.  Nothing touches the helicopter that the helo techs haven't touched themselves.  Sonar techs get training on banding, but since that rule came into effect they don't get much experience anymore.



Grimey said:


> There’s talk of certain aspects of amalgamation being rolled back, but the train has been rolling down the single set of rails for so long that the remaining brain trust is flummoxed as to a COA.



It's not talk.  There are significant changes coming.


----------



## Rainbow1910

Underway said:


> It's not talk. There are significant changes coming.


I think it will likely be far too late considering what I've heard about the MarTech trade from current and past service members, described as "apocalyptically bad" in basically all aspects.


----------



## Grimey

Rainbow1910 said:


> I think it will likely be far too late considering what I've heard about the MarTech trade from current and past service members, described as "apocalyptically bad" in basically all aspects.


I‘ve heard the same.  Those having released just five years ago wouldn’t recognize the trade.  Out west there Is an astonishingly small number of legacy guys left.

My old CERA (and by old I mean a paltry five years older than me 😀) is convinced that the rot set in when machinery was placed within acoustic enclosures.  What he really meant was the MWM 602 doors and how much an embuggerance they were to remove.  Those on here who have done the same will know exactly what I mean.  Not sure if things have changed with the Cat replacements.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> Second batch of CSC are rumoured to be looking at nixing the X band fire control as well.
> 
> It's not just simultaneous engagements.  Active missiles improve a number of variables important for ship AAW defence.  Some significantly so.  The ESSM 2 is as big a jump in capability as Sea Sparrow was to ESSM.
> 
> My personal favourite is the ship doesn't need to even see the target with its own sensors to engage. It just needs a good linked track from another sensor/platform to make the engagement, plot an intercept point and then fire/forget away.
> 
> 
> Air Safety.  Nothing touches the helicopter that the helo techs haven't touched themselves.  Sonar techs get training on banding, but since that rule came into effect they don't get much experience anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not talk.  There are significant changes coming.



The W Engs not banding any more torpedoes has nothing to do with “air safety” (I think you meant airworthiness).

NWTs did it all the time for HELAIRDETs- they were better at it than our random AVN Tech, who got a course on the side and was the load chief, part time. Now each det has an AWS tech dedicated to the task. However, if a W Eng is trained to the same standard and follows the CFTO, there is zero reason to not accept a weapon from them.

In summary- the RCN cut training and competence in that area and the RCAF increased it, so naturally the Navy has offloaded the task on us.


----------



## NavyShooter

Doing WUPS on MON in 2014/15, we did a specific class on torpedo banding at NAD - it was required for all our Armament and SONAR techs.  I went along as their supervisor.  It was eye opening to me how such a simple process with clear direct detailed instructions could get messed up by folks that 'knew what they were doing'.

It was the same 'I knew what I was doing' group that turned the lock pin on the torpedo bridge crane into a shear pin because they used it to stop a rotating crane, rather than stopping the rotation and then locking it. 

Interestingly, the only person on the ship who, on a Friday afternoon before weapons certs on a Monday that was capable of spinning a lathe and making a replacement lock pin was me.  Not a single stoker had the ability to make it - not a single former NWT either.  The stokers didn't even have a set of calipers I could use to measure the damaged one - I had to grab a set of chart dividers from the NAVO on the bridge to use as a measuring tool.

(When I was duty on Sunday, I brought in my own Starrett calipers and tools to make another one that was a bit more accurate, but I had a functional replacement spun out in just under 2 hours on Friday afternoon. 

The thing is, the skillset to spin a piece of metal on a lathe used to be a LS/S1 level skill - on Gatineau, we had a very average (ok, maybe below average) LS who was sent to spin out a new set of shear pins for the 3"70 while the rest of the NWT's stripped out the broken bits and re-aligned everything after a jam happened.  

The skills that used to reside in an average LS, now reside at the PO1 rank level or higher...and it's getting very thin at that rank level due to releases of experienced/skilled people.

NS


----------



## dapaterson

Don't worry, DHL will get you those parts within 24 hours... Assuming you're not mid Atlantic and they're in stock and you CoC supports your high priority request .


----------



## Halifax Tar

dapaterson said:


> Don't worry, DHL will get you those parts within 24 hours... Assuming you're not mid Atlantic and they're in stock and you CoC supports your high priority request .



And the various levels customs and brokerages don't lose it or hold it up for exorbitant amount of time.

But hey Just on time is awesome!  Down with warehousing!


----------



## Kirkhill

One of the original design selection requirements was that Canada would buy a hull that was already floating and in operation.  

It seems that it will abide by that requirement.

The first batch of 3 Type 26s will be in the water and the second batch will be just starting to cut steel, meaning the revised and stabilized design will be decided, before Canada starts cutting steel on its hulls.




calculus said:


> Interesting article on the next steps for the T26 before the RN commissions first-of-class HMS Glasgow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In focus: delivering the Type 26 Frigates | Navy Lookout
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.navylookout.com









> Once the design review is complete, production for the CSC should begin in 2024, with deliveries expected to begin in the early 2030s, and full operational capability achieved by 2031 or 2032, Copeland added.











						Canada’s multibillion-dollar combat ship plan nears key decision
					

Officials in Ottawa have taken their time in reviewing the Canadian Surface Combatant design because the one ship class must do it all.




					www.defensenews.com


----------



## Underway

SeaKingTacco said:


> The W Engs not banding any more torpedoes has nothing to do with “air safety” (I think you meant airworthiness).
> 
> NWTs did it all the time for HELAIRDETs- they were better at it than our random AVN Tech, who got a course on the side and was the load chief, part time. Now each det has an AWS tech dedicated to the task. However, if a W Eng is trained to the same standard and follows the CFTO, there is zero reason to not accept a weapon from them.
> 
> In summary- the RCN cut training and competence in that area and the RCAF increased it, so naturally the Navy has offloaded the task on us.


Airworthiness... roger.  

 There aren't NWT's anymore so there's that.  The Sonar techs offered last I sailed with an Airdet and were told don't bother we got our own guy to do that.  So perhaps this is a bit of telephone game/rumor milling going on here.


----------



## Grimey

NavyShooter said:


> Doing WUPS on MON in 2014/15, we did a specific class on torpedo banding at NAD - it was required for all our Armament and SONAR techs.  I went along as their supervisor.  It was eye opening to me how such a simple process with clear direct detailed instructions could get messed up by folks that 'knew what they were doing'.
> 
> It was the same 'I knew what I was doing' group that turned the lock pin on the torpedo bridge crane into a shear pin because they used it to stop a rotating crane, rather than stopping the rotation and then locking it.
> 
> Interestingly, the only person on the ship who, on a Friday afternoon before weapons certs on a Monday that was capable of spinning a lathe and making a replacement lock pin was me.  Not a single stoker had the ability to make it - not a single former NWT either.  The stokers didn't even have a set of calipers I could use to measure the damaged one - I had to grab a set of chart dividers from the NAVO on the bridge to use as a measuring tool.
> 
> (When I was duty on Sunday, I brought in my own Starrett calipers and tools to make another one that was a bit more accurate, but I had a functional replacement spun out in just under 2 hours on Friday afternoon.
> 
> The thing is, the skillset to spin a piece of metal on a lathe used to be a LS/S1 level skill - on Gatineau, we had a very average (ok, maybe below average) LS who was sent to spin out a new set of shear pins for the 3"70 while the rest of the NWT's stripped out the broken bits and re-aligned everything after a jam happened.
> 
> The skills that used to reside in an average LS, now reside at the PO1 rank level or higher...and it's getting very thin at that rank level due to releases of experienced/skilled people.
> 
> NS


That raises a good question as to whether the QL5 MarTech course or whatever it’s referred to now is enough of a foundation piece for the machinist specialist course.  At one point, the entry requirement was, IIRC, 85% on the QL5 fitting/machine shop phase.  So the guys ( not sure if a gal has ever had the course) were adept at machining or really enjoyed it.  Preferably both.

I’m assuming the specialist course is still run on either coast.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Underway said:


> Airworthiness... roger.
> 
> There aren't NWT's anymore so there's that.  The Sonar techs offered last I sailed with an Airdet and were told don't bother we got our own guy to do that.  So perhaps this is a bit of telephone game/rumor milling going on here.


The AWS is not super busy on a Det. It is one less thing the CSE Dept has to do.


----------



## Stoker

Grimey said:


> That raises a good question as to whether the QL5 MarTech course or whatever it’s referred to now is enough of a foundation piece for the machinist specialist course.  At one point, the entry requirement was, IIRC, 85% on the QL5 fitting/machine shop phase.  So the guys ( not sure if a gal has ever had the course) were adept at machining or really enjoyed it.  Preferably both.
> 
> I’m assuming the specialist course is still run on either coast.


Yes it is, in fact I have one of my pers on it in Jan.


----------



## NavyShooter

And...yes, there have been females (or at least people who identify as such) that have passed the machinist specialist course.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

I am shocked that most of the engineers can't run a small lathe. Most marine engineers I have met pride themselves on their abilty to make and repair small components. With the advent of CNC, 3D printing, etc a small machine shop aboard should be able to produce many of the small components and for small parts that wear and break often, you could stock a small supply of raw materiel and drawings, so you can maintain your own stock.


----------



## MTShaw

I was reviewing the most recent PDF press release/graphic thing, on top of the change of the CMS, I just noticed that the Naval Fire Support Missile has changed from Tomahawk to ?.LRASM?



			https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/rcn-mrc/documents/ships/csc-factsheet-2022-2.pdf
		


I have to much time on my hands today.


----------



## Lumber

MTShaw said:


> I was reviewing the most recent PDF press release/graphic thing, on top of the change of the CMS, I just noticed that the Naval Fire Support Missile has changed from Tomahawk to ?.LRASM?
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/rcn-mrc/documents/ships/csc-factsheet-2022-2.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I have to much time on my hands today.


LRASM is an anti-ship missile. Tomahawk has been replaced in the graphic with "Naval Fire Support Missile", which could mean Tomahawk, an alternative to Tomahawk such as the French MdCN "Storm Shadow" missile, or perhaps it'll just carry more NSMs and with some being used in the land attack role, similar to how the Harpoon can be.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Colin Parkinson said:


> I am shocked that most of the engineers can't run a small lathe. Most marine engineers I have met pride themselves on their abilty to make and repair small components. With the advent of CNC, 3D printing, etc a small machine shop aboard should be able to produce many of the small components and for small parts that wear and break often, you could stock a small supply of raw materiel and drawings, so you can maintain your own stock.



A lot can, but weirdly had a red seal machinist that wasn't allowed to use a lathe because he was a HT (prior to full martech implementation) but didn't have the RCN safety course. It's a perishable skill though so that's why we got extra stock and encouraged folks to make random things in their spare time (when we didn't have parts they could fix).

Usually sounds like a BS excuse to buy stuff for departure gifts but usually came in handy when stuff broke, but they can only do so much with how broken things get. Some real wizards with the pipe repair wrap though.


----------



## MTShaw

Lumber said:


> LRASM is an anti-ship missile. Tomahawk has been replaced in the graphic with "Naval Fire Support Missile", which could mean Tomahawk, an alternative to Tomahawk such as the French MdCN "Storm Shadow" missile, or perhaps it'll just carry more NSMs and with some being used in the land attack role, similar to how the Harpoon can be.


I was wondering if the AGM-158C still has the capabilitit’s of the AGM-158B plus the ASuW capabilities. The Tomahawk V is also dual use cruise missile. I often don’t wonder clearly. 

The space for more NSM launchers is a a premium. Many more antenna’s to locate/relocate.


----------



## Lumber

MTShaw said:


> I was wondering if the AGM-158C still has the capabilitit’s of the AGM-158B plus the ASuW capabilities. The Tomahawk V is also dual use cruise missile. I often don’t wonder clearly.
> 
> The space for more NSM launchers is a a premium. Many more antenna’s to locate/relocate.


Both the LRASM and NSM have been trialed and successfully launch from a Mk41 VLS, so you wouldn't have to move any sensors around, you'd just put them in whatever VLS cells you were originally planning on putting Tomahawks (at the expensive of much more valuable, IMO, SM-2s)


----------



## MTShaw

Lumber said:


> Both the LRASM and NSM have been trialed and successfully launch from a Mk41 VLS, so you wouldn't have to move any sensors around, you'd just put them in whatever VLS cells you were originally planning on putting Tomahawks (at the expensive of much more valuable, IMO, SM-2s)


I did not know that the NSM was MK41 compatible. There is something satisfying about the 1000lb warhead of the also stealthy LRASM

If the current government’s intentions of joining the ABM family are true then we’d need the SM-6 at least. 

I also think we are getting our arms twisted.


----------



## Spencer100

MTShaw said:


> I did not know that the NSM was MK41 compatible. There is something satisfying about the 1000lb warhead of the also stealthy LRASM
> 
> If the current government’s intentions of joining the ABM family are true then we’d need the SM-6 at least.
> 
> I also think we are getting our arms twisted.


Arms being twisted....US navy Admiral to RCN Admiral....we think you guys should have ABM capability....RCN Admiral thinking we need a ship built this century.


----------



## Lumber

MTShaw said:


> I did not know that the NSM was MK41 compatible. There is something satisfying about the 1000lb warhead of the also stealthy LRASM
> 
> If the current government’s intentions of joining the ABM family are true then we’d need the SM-6 at least.
> 
> I also think we are getting our arms twisted.


Actually I could be wrong on this. It's the "JSM" that they fired from a Mk41. I just assumed NSM was just the Kongsberg name for the ship-launched JSM, but it turns out their frames are slightly different. So, a JSM can be fired from a VLS, but the NSM has not been tested to do so.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

NavyShooter said:


> And...yes, there have been females (or at least people who identify as such) that have passed the machinist specialist course.


I have met some pretty damm fine female machinists, in fact those that are interested in that work are generally very, very good at it and very creative.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Best ACS techs (who are the RCAF version of machinists) I have ever met are all female. That may be a small sample size,  but still…


----------



## Underway

Lumber said:


> Actually I could be wrong on this. It's the "JSM" that they fired from a Mk41. I just assumed NSM was just the Kongsberg name for the ship-launched JSM, but it turns out their frames are slightly different. So, a JSM can be fired from a VLS, but the NSM has not been tested to do so.


They are working on an vertlaunch NSM but it needs a booster because of the vertical vs angled launch requires more fuel basically.  AFAIK the land attack missiles are way down the line for CSC ordinance priority.  Its all about the ESSM2, SM2 family and CAMM.  NSM is basically a bolt on system and no one seems worried that's going to work properly.


----------



## Lumber

Yes, land attack rightly should be lowest priority. Canada is far too risk averse to actually get into that game, IMO.


----------



## NavyShooter

Based on my experience in Libya - I wholeheartedly concur.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Good primer on the Type 26 with a good look at the propulsion system.


----------



## Underway

Excellent find. I was just about to post that myself.

Few things I didn't know.  Stabilizing fins, a composite mast and a few details regarding the weapons plans that I was unsure about.

Now you really know why the Aussie and Canadian ships are so much heavier.  Guaranteed no composite mast and I'll go one step further.  I will put a pitcher of beer on the table to say that ISI haven't considered different thickness' of steel for all the internal compartments of the ship and built it all to one thickness all the way through.  Adds a lot of weight.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Underway said:


> I will put a pitcher of beer on the table to say that ISI haven't considered different thickness' of steel for all the internal compartments of the ship and built it all to one thickness all the way through.  Adds a lot of weight.


You think that such a solution would be self evident, but then we only amateurs at this ship building stuff, right?


----------



## Dana381

Underway said:


> Excellent find. I was just about to post that myself.
> 
> Few things I didn't know.  Stabilizing fins, a composite mast and a few details regarding the weapons plans that I was unsure about.
> 
> Now you really know why the Aussie and Canadian ships are so much heavier.  Guaranteed no composite mast and I'll go one step further.  I will put a pitcher of beer on the table to say that ISI haven't considered different thickness' of steel for all the internal compartments of the ship and built it all to one thickness all the way through.  Adds a lot of weight.



A plumber told me he only uses copper pipe on government buildings. Tha architect always specs copper on government buildings because it costs more and their fee is based on the total building cost. The more expensive the building the more the architect makes.


----------



## Underway

Colin Parkinson said:


> You think that such a solution would be self evident, but then we only amateurs at this ship building stuff, right?


Part of the problem is that ISI are new at this ship designing thing and BAE are old hats.  BAE checks all of ISI's work as they are the primary for the ship design.  There are some decisions made that I'm sure have BAE scratching or shaking their heads.

Cost, time all that is factored in.  Part of me wishes we took the  Type 26 exactly as is for our design, but that wasn't what the requirements said. So here we are.  It's going to be amazing when we get them in the water, just the cost will be mind blowing.


----------



## Navy_Pete

Underway said:


> Excellent find. I was just about to post that myself.
> 
> Few things I didn't know.  Stabilizing fins, a composite mast and a few details regarding the weapons plans that I was unsure about.
> 
> Now you really know why the Aussie and Canadian ships are so much heavier.  Guaranteed no composite mast and I'll go one step further.  I will put a pitcher of beer on the table to say that ISI haven't considered different thickness' of steel for all the internal compartments of the ship and built it all to one thickness all the way through.  Adds a lot of weight.


You'd lose that one!

Things like composite/non-steel masts are complicated, as you need to do a fair bit of design work to figure out if it's feasible and what the potential combat/through life impacts might be.

BAE is really good though, nice to work with people that have experience and know what they are doing.


----------



## Underway

Navy_Pete said:


> You'd lose that one!
> 
> Things like composite/non-steel masts are complicated, as you need to do a fair bit of design work to figure out if it's feasible and what the potential combat/through life impacts might be.
> 
> BAE is really good though, nice to work with people that have experience and know what they are doing.


I'm glad to hear that.  Some of the horror stories I've gotten from the Nav Arch side of the house regarding ISI are irritating.  Not that we didn't make our own errors in JSS.  But there are also some happy little accidents.  Like 12mm steel hull makes for decent ballistic protection around the magazines against small arms from range.  Wasn't part of the plan just worked out well that way.


----------

