Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 391669 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 140
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1275 on: October 19, 2018, 16:59:52 »
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. 

Offline RDBZ

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 80
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1276 on: October 19, 2018, 17:03:39 »
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.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,891
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1277 on: October 19, 2018, 17:35:36 »
How hard can it be to delete a missile vls and insert a hair salon and some non-pronoun heads?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,169
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1278 on: October 19, 2018, 17:59:18 »
They could identify parts that won't be altered and start on them

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,104
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,027
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1279 on: October 19, 2018, 17:59:46 »
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.
"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 JMCanada

  • New Member
  • **
  • 1,540
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 49
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1280 on: October 19, 2018, 19:07:34 »
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.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2018, 19:15:33 by JMCanada »

Offline STONEY

  • Member
  • ****
  • 6,890
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 194
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1281 on: October 19, 2018, 21:42:47 »
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

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 203,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,559
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1282 on: October 19, 2018, 23:14:17 »
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
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 137,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,568
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1283 on: October 19, 2018, 23:40:26 »
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.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 213,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,554
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1284 on: October 20, 2018, 08:20:08 »
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...
« Last Edit: October 20, 2018, 08:32:59 by Eye In The Sky »
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline Eye In The Sky

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 213,105
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,554
    • VP INTERNATIONAL
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1285 on: October 20, 2018, 08:31:45 »
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? 
Everything happens for a reason.

Sometimes the reason is you're stupid and make bad decisions.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 142,000
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,208
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1286 on: October 20, 2018, 09:35:16 »
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.

Offline Dolphin_Hunter

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 14,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,301
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1287 on: October 20, 2018, 12:30:20 »
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.   


Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 140
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1288 on: October 20, 2018, 12:59:31 »
What would some examples of possible/probable minor and/or major modifications be?
Major: combat system and hull.
Quote
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
« Last Edit: October 20, 2018, 14:39:23 by Uzlu »

Offline LoboCanada

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,860
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 125
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1289 on: October 30, 2018, 16:49:37 »
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?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,169
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1290 on: October 30, 2018, 16:54:16 »
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.

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 154
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1291 on: October 30, 2018, 20:36:42 »
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.

Offline Fred Herriot

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 252
  • New Recruit
    • http://NA
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1292 on: October 30, 2018, 21:04:51 »
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
Non Nobis Sed Patriae
Servire Armatis

Offline NavyShooter

    Boaty McBoatface!

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 182,421
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,974
  • Death from a Bar.....one shot, one Tequilla
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1293 on: October 30, 2018, 22:14:59 »
But....that's only 12....we need more than that...
Insert disclaimer statement here....

:panzer:

Offline ringo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,995
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 154
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1294 on: October 31, 2018, 01:13:58 »
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.

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 57,104
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,027
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1295 on: October 31, 2018, 07:03:03 »
I'd put dollars to donuts that they name the AA variants IRO, ATH, and ALG... maybe even a HUR....
"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 Czech_pivo

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 206
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1296 on: October 31, 2018, 08:29:27 »
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.

Offline kratz

    Laughter drives the sun.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 259,328
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,235
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1297 on: October 31, 2018, 09:32:17 »
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.
Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 21,340
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 679
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1298 on: October 31, 2018, 09:55:26 »
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.

Offline YZT580

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 23,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 689
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1299 on: October 31, 2018, 13:43:06 »
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.