Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 282010 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,197
Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« on: August 16, 2015, 13:19:57 »
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). 


Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,276
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1 on: August 16, 2015, 16:35:10 »
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

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,197
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #2 on: August 16, 2015, 16:57:37 »
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.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 180,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,276
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #3 on: August 16, 2015, 17:14:58 »
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

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #4 on: August 16, 2015, 20:13:56 »
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)
« Last Edit: August 16, 2015, 20:22:37 by Kirkhill »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 735
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #5 on: August 16, 2015, 20:40:36 »
Quote
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....

Offline jmt18325

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 21,740
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,197
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #6 on: August 16, 2015, 20:42:27 »
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.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #7 on: August 16, 2015, 20:55:09 »
Schmoozing?
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 735
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #8 on: August 24, 2015, 22:11:27 »
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....

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #9 on: August 30, 2015, 13:21:42 »
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  >:D

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).
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 735
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #10 on: September 05, 2015, 19:14:33 »
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  >:D

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...


Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #11 on: September 05, 2015, 21:05:26 »
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.  :)
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,885
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,525
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #12 on: September 08, 2015, 00:01:12 »
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

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 114,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,419
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #13 on: September 08, 2015, 10:08:46 »
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.

 

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #14 on: September 08, 2015, 11:27:45 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline GR66

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 50,015
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 567
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #15 on: September 08, 2015, 12:17:19 »
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?

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #16 on: September 08, 2015, 12:37:06 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 114,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,419
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #17 on: September 08, 2015, 12:38:42 »
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.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #18 on: September 08, 2015, 13:10:49 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 114,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,419
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #19 on: September 08, 2015, 14:40:47 »
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.   

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #20 on: September 08, 2015, 16:21:43 »
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?

"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 114,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,419
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #21 on: September 08, 2015, 16:34:32 »
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.

Online Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 191,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,123
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #22 on: September 08, 2015, 18:56:32 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 50,149
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,841
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #23 on: September 08, 2015, 19:21:16 »
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...  >:D
« Last Edit: September 09, 2015, 09:17:41 by Lumber »
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 121,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,350
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #24 on: September 09, 2015, 08:21:38 »
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.