Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 295957 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Baz

  • Donor
  • Full Member
  • *
  • 12,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 446
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #875 on: January 24, 2018, 07:43:48 »
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!

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 57
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #876 on: January 24, 2018, 08:19:31 »
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.
Quote
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

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,389
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #877 on: January 24, 2018, 11:21:16 »
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

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,150
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 119

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,558
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #879 on: January 24, 2018, 14:16:09 »
Odd to see a ship described as "weighing 7,000,000 kilograms." More impressive, I guess.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 62,085
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,990
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #880 on: January 24, 2018, 15:59:39 »
From Aussie[Fox News story above:

Quote
...
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MTShaw

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • New Member
  • *
  • 1,865
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 40
  • Dont believe everything you say.
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #881 on: January 24, 2018, 16:08:15 »
Odd to see a ship described as "weighing 7,000,000 kilograms." More impressive, I guess.

I prefer 7 Gigagrams

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 750
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #882 on: January 24, 2018, 20:53:39 »

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,389
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #883 on: January 26, 2018, 14:12:28 »
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]

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 750
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #884 on: January 26, 2018, 14:43:34 »
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.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 123,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,384
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #885 on: January 26, 2018, 15:22:00 »
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.
 

Offline calculus

  • Guest
  • *
  • 30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #886 on: January 26, 2018, 17:23:54 »
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?

Online Swampbuggy

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,490
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 64
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #887 on: January 27, 2018, 11:24:45 »
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?

Offline Uzlu

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 1,050
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 57
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #888 on: January 27, 2018, 11:47:13 »
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/index.php/topic,90990.msg1515323.html#msg1515323

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #889 on: January 27, 2018, 14:25:52 »
Just was look in general at renderings.

Is it just appearance or is BAE helicopter deck significantly larger than Alion or Navantia designs?
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 193,545
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,159
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #890 on: January 27, 2018, 14:36:07 »
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).
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 14:42:49 by Chris Pook »
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 750
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #891 on: January 27, 2018, 21:39:16 »
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.


Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,404
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #892 on: January 27, 2018, 23:16:28 »
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?
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 16,680
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 750
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #893 on: January 28, 2018, 09:33:51 »
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.

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 123,135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,384
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #894 on: January 28, 2018, 09:53:19 »
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.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,389
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #895 on: January 28, 2018, 11:41:59 »
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

Offline calculus

  • Guest
  • *
  • 30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #896 on: January 31, 2018, 06:07:44 »
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?

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 158
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #897 on: January 31, 2018, 11:59:08 »
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/
« Last Edit: January 31, 2018, 12:21:29 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline whiskey601

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,215
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,558
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #898 on: January 31, 2018, 22:16:50 »

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 158
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #899 on: February 01, 2018, 06:07:28 »
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.
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"