Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 165533 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AlexanderM

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 7,870
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 409
  • Resident George Constanza
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #575 on: October 13, 2017, 12:30:06 »
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.
« Last Edit: October 13, 2017, 15:05:42 by AlexanderM »

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 509
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #576 on: October 17, 2017, 19:55:33 »
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....
« Last Edit: October 17, 2017, 20:01:43 by Underway »

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 56,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,664
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #577 on: October 19, 2017, 14:17:59 »
How many ships will RCN get, at what cost, built by Irving?

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 56,380
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,664
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #578 on: October 21, 2017, 11:56:52 »
Good flipping intellectual property grief!

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 11,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,343
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #579 on: October 21, 2017, 13:49:50 »
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.
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
  • *
  • 186,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,879
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #580 on: October 21, 2017, 14:03:46 »
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.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 509
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #581 on: October 21, 2017, 15:42:56 »
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.

Offline Monsoon

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 770
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #582 on: October 22, 2017, 05:03:00 »
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.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 168,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,867
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #583 on: October 22, 2017, 09:43:27 »
...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

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 11,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,343
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #584 on: October 22, 2017, 11:55:41 »
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?
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Monsoon

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 21,910
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 770
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #585 on: October 23, 2017, 03:14:57 »
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?

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 186,170
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,879
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #586 on: November 01, 2017, 14:46:16 »
US Army on IP rights....

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/articles/2017/11/1/army-eyes-ownership-of-technical-data-rights

Quote
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?


"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Uzlu

  • Guest
  • *
  • 135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #587 on: November 06, 2017, 14:29:25 »
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?

Offline serger989

  • Guest
  • *
  • 500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 17
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #588 on: November 06, 2017, 23:36:24 »
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?

Offline Uzlu

  • Guest
  • *
  • 135
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #589 on: November 08, 2017, 17:12:03 »
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.

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 5,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 125
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #590 on: November 08, 2017, 17:26:12 »
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)
« Last Edit: November 08, 2017, 18:47:32 by Karel Doorman »
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 97,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,890
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #591 on: November 08, 2017, 18:08:42 »
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

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 11,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,343
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #592 on: November 08, 2017, 18:45:10 »
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. 
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 104,465
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,993
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #593 on: November 08, 2017, 20:53:40 »
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.

Offline Patski

  • Guest
  • *
  • 10
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #594 on: November 09, 2017, 12:23:16 »
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


Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,212
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #595 on: November 11, 2017, 14:56:40 »
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?

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 109,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,472
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #596 on: November 11, 2017, 16:28:03 »
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.

Offline Underway

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 9,895
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 509
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #597 on: November 11, 2017, 17:21:02 »
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.

Offline Cdn Blackshirt

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 11,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,343
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #598 on: November 11, 2017, 18:51:55 »
I thought I had read they bumped the bid submission date again to Nov 30, 2017 and was checking in on updates.

Anyone? 
IMPORTANT - 'Blackshirt' is a reference to Nebraska Cornhuskers Football and not naziism.   National Champions '70, '71, '94, '95 and '97.    Go Huskers!!!!

Offline kratz

    Happy 150th.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 224,938
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,766
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #599 on: November 11, 2017, 19:00:40 »
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:
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.