Author Topic: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ  (Read 443789 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1575 on: June 22, 2019, 16:38:34 »
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.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 146,710
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,336
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1576 on: June 22, 2019, 17:22:45 »
I would like to highlight how remarkable it is that at least part of our defenc policy (shipbuilding) is bi-partisan.

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 210,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,032
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1577 on: June 22, 2019, 18:43:01 »
That sometimes happens when GDP is in play (and not Gross Foreign Production...) :nod:

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1578 on: June 30, 2019, 14:00:37 »
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.
Quote
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.

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 28,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 810
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1579 on: June 30, 2019, 16:00:09 »
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.

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1580 on: June 30, 2019, 16:34:11 »
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.

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1581 on: July 05, 2019, 13:44:52 »
More on size of Fincantieri FREMM frigate bid for FFG(X):

Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 38,370
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,074
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1582 on: July 05, 2019, 17:38:24 »
Is that a Canadian LPD also alongside the jetty?

[dock with kayaks]
+60
Living the lean life

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 107,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,702
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1583 on: July 06, 2019, 07:07:34 »
HMS Defender
 
« Last Edit: July 06, 2019, 07:10:12 by tomahawk6 »

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 210,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,032
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1584 on: July 07, 2019, 16:10:07 »
HMS Defender
 


Isn’t an RN DDG about twice as big (9000tons) as what the USN wants for FF(X)?

Online MarkOttawa

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 72,550
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,509
  • Two birthdays
    • The 3Ds Blog
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1585 on: July 07, 2019, 16:31:01 »
RN, RAN and RCN Type 26 frigates and USN:
Quote
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
Ça explique, mais ça n'excuse pas.

Online tomahawk6

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 107,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,702
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1586 on: July 11, 2019, 18:33:38 »
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

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1587 on: July 11, 2019, 19:05:14 »
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.

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1588 on: July 11, 2019, 19:10:40 »
And lastly are not the Chilean T23 get the Lockheed Canada combat system in refit? Similar to the RNZN Anzc's

Offline Uzlu

  • Member
  • ****
  • 2,920
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 180
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1589 on: July 11, 2019, 20:05:42 »
And lastly are not the Chilean T23 get the Lockheed Canada combat system in refit?
Yes.

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 484,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,373
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1590 on: July 12, 2019, 05:25:04 »
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. 


It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Online FSTO

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 49,230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,779
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1591 on: July 12, 2019, 06:10:34 »
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

Offline E.R. Campbell

  • Retired, years ago
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 484,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,373
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1592 on: July 12, 2019, 09:12:03 »
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.
It is ill that men should kill one another in seditions, tumults and wars; but it is worse to bring nations to such misery, weakness and baseness
as to have neither strength nor courage to contend for anything; to have nothing left worth defending and to give the name of peace to desolation.
Algernon Sidney in Discourses Concerning Government, (1698)
----------
Like what you see/read here on Army.ca?  Subscribe, and help keep it "on the air!"

Offline Spencer100

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 10,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 395
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1593 on: July 12, 2019, 09:30:56 »
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
« Last Edit: July 12, 2019, 11:41:55 by Spencer100 »

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 255
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1594 on: July 12, 2019, 10:32:25 »

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 28,125
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 810
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1595 on: July 12, 2019, 12:28:35 »
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.

Offline Czech_pivo

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 4,435
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 255
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1596 on: July 12, 2019, 13:58:17 »
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.

Offline RDBZ

  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • 2,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 89
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1597 on: July 12, 2019, 17:44:53 »

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.

Offline Karel Doorman

  • Member
  • ****
  • 7,350
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 196
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1598 on: July 13, 2019, 13:23:35 »
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. :whistle:
Karel Doorman(Battle of the Java Sea)

"I'm attacking,follow me"

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 210,660
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,032
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ
« Reply #1599 on: July 13, 2019, 16:48:58 »
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. :whistle:

People said that about the P-8 Poseidon, too.