• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
656
Points
1,010
No chance. Design work still needs to be finished. There are too many risks to the project to head to build early. Better to take your time and set up for success with as thorough and complete design as possible.
 

suffolkowner

Sr. Member
Reaction score
97
Points
280
No chance. Design work still needs to be finished. There are too many risks to the project to head to build early. Better to take your time and set up for success with as thorough and complete design as possible.
So
Frédérick Rolette 2021
Robert Hampton Gray 2022
CCGAOPS1 2023
CCGAOPS2 2024

CSC1 2025?
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
53
Points
560
Dave Perry moderates CGAI podcast on CSC program with current ADM (Mat) and Alan Williams:

In this new episode of Defence Deconstructed, David Perry is joined by Troy Crosby and Alan Williams to explore the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) project in details.

Defence Deconstructed is brought to you by Irving Shipbuilding. A strategic partner of the federal government’s National Shipbuilding Strategy, providing skilled, well-paying jobs that support Canada’s economic recovery.

Defence Deconstructed is also brought to you by Boeing
https://soundcloud.com/user-609485369%2Fdefence-deconstructed-deep-dive-on-the-canadian-surface-combatant
Rather different perspectives.

Mark
Ottawa
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,444
Points
1,040
Interesting podcast. Williams sounds a bit shrill to me. He may have some valid points as to the beginnings of this project and a few other issues, but some of the counterpoints he brings just don't tie together and his suggested way ahead doesn't sound like it will make matters better for the Navy.

I think we're too far down the rabbit hole on this one to turn around now.

🍻
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
574
Points
890
I agree.

Is there a design out there that we could select that may end up being a bit cheaper? Perhaps, at first anyway. Sure as heck not now.

But we are also getting a pretty badass ship (on paper anyway, since none are in service. Which is odd since that was one of the main requirements - but screw it)

Lots of missiles. Extremely versatile in the type of operations it performs. Brings us into the fold of modern warfare capabilities in so many ways we don’t have now. Makes us the 2nd largest AEGIS fleet outside of the USN. Allows us to be a capable partner in BMD without having to wait for morons to debate it for years.

I’m excited for the Canadian Type-26 to hit the water! Genuinely :)
 

Gorgo

Full Member
Reaction score
15
Points
230
Personally, so am I. I just wish that the government would do something about getting more shipyards involved so we could get hulls into the water faster; not just the Type 26s but the AOPS, the JSS and everything else.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
656
Points
1,010
Personally, so am I. I just wish that the government would do something about getting more shipyards involved so we could get hulls into the water faster; not just the Type 26s but the AOPS, the JSS and everything else.
I understand the feeling but short-term pain for long-term gain here.

Brining both Vancouver Shipyards and Irving up from basically zero to where they are now was (and continues to be) a huge challenge for them, the government, and the PMO's. Also, the RCN can only handle accepting so many ships at a time and needs to build out the infrastructure to do so. An example is A and B jetty revitalization, ammo jetty replacement on the West Coast, and NJ jetty on the East Coast.

The other issue is the sustainability of the yards. A consistent build schedule will keep the shipyards building. It's interesting to note that as of right now the RCN has as many yards building ships for the RCN as the US does for their surface fleet.
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
574
Points
890
Personally, so am I. I just wish that the government would do something about getting more shipyards involved so we could get hulls into the water faster; not just the Type 26s but the AOPS, the JSS and everything else.
There needs to be a balance between getting ships to the fleet, and stable work for a decade or two on each coast.

If we throw all of our resources at the projects, we could probably get them in the water a bit faster. And yes that would be beneficial in some ways.

But then what? We’d have a fleet of fancy new ships and be pretty awesome. But without the stable work, the yards would atrophy and the skills would disappear. And we would have to do this all over again in 20-30 years.

I very much hear you! But, long term gain here
 

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
277
Points
910
I understand the feeling but short-term pain for long-term gain here.

Brining both Vancouver Shipyards and Irving up from basically zero to where they are now was (and continues to be) a huge challenge for them, the government, and the PMO's. Also, the RCN can only handle accepting so many ships at a time and needs to build out the infrastructure to do so. An example is A and B jetty revitalization, ammo jetty replacement on the West Coast, and NJ jetty on the East Coast.

The other issue is the sustainability of the yards. A consistent build schedule will keep the shipyards building. It's interesting to note that as of right now the RCN has as many yards building ships for the RCN as the US does for their surface fleet.

I agree with Underway. Let's all remember that the AIM of this process had little to do with warships or the RCN. It was, still is, all about restoring and maintaining a useful, effective, profitable shipbuilding Industry in Canada. The team of DMs who thought this up advocated a long, relatively slow, process of building ships, one-after-another, in batches of three or four, each batch being a slight upgrade from the first. The reason we are building for the RCN and the Coast Guard is that international trade law (the WTO/GATT and all that really, really important stuff (unlike the defence of Canada) allows us to subsidize projects for national security reasons. We could not put this kind of taxpayers' money in to Davie, Irving and Seaspan if they were building commercial ships ~ other countries would be allowed to impose huge sanctions on Canadian trade in retaliation.

In a perfect world ~ as seen by those senior bureaucrats ~ the RCN would get one new major combatant a year for three years, then a year long gap, then three more in batch two, and so on until 15 major warships had been built. Then the first would go into mid-life refit. Ditto for a bunch of Coast Guard ships and so on. Meanwhile the companies (Davie, Irving and Seaspan ~ would be using their government funded upgrades to compete for and win business on the global, commercial (and government) market.
 

Uzlu

Full Member
Reaction score
77
Points
280
There needs to be a balance between getting ships to the fleet, and stable work for a decade or two on each coast.
Twenty years of continuous shipbuilding for Irving and Seaspan is not good enough. The government of Canada and all the major political parties should already have a plan for long-term shipbuilding—e.g., twenty-five-year plans for Irving, Seaspan, and Davie and another group of three twenty-five-year plans to immediately follow the first group.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
504
Points
1,040
Twenty years of continuous shipbuilding for Irving and Seaspan is not good enough. The government of Canada and all the major political parties should already have a plan for long-term shipbuilding—e.g., twenty-five-year plans for Irving, Seaspan, and Davie and another group of three twenty-five-year plans to immediately follow the first group.
For context, took about 12 years of slow lobbying to get the current NSS plan approved (with a big push for the last 3-4 years). We almost have to start as the CSCs are cutting steel to get approval to keep going with NSS in time to have more ship projects approved in time to do all the design etc required (and might have already missed the window).

I think everyone involved in getting NSS approved is now retired so need a new champion to keep that going, but don't think anyone is interested in picking up that gauntlet, given the general lack of political support for anything between now and the next election.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,527
Points
910
I agree with Underway. Let's all remember that the AIM of this process had little to do with warships or the RCN. It was, still is, all about restoring and maintaining a useful, effective, profitable shipbuilding Industry in Canada. The team of DMs who thought this up advocated a long, relatively slow, process of building ships, one-after-another, in batches of three or four, each batch being a slight upgrade from the first. The reason we are building for the RCN and the Coast Guard is that international trade law (the WTO/GATT and all that really, really important stuff (unlike the defence of Canada) allows us to subsidize projects for national security reasons. We could not put this kind of taxpayers' money in to Davie, Irving and Seaspan if they were building commercial ships ~ other countries would be allowed to impose huge sanctions on Canadian trade in retaliation.

In a perfect world ~ as seen by those senior bureaucrats ~ the RCN would get one new major combatant a year for three years, then a year long gap, then three more in batch two, and so on until 15 major warships had been built. Then the first would go into mid-life refit. Ditto for a bunch of Coast Guard ships and so on. Meanwhile the companies (Davie, Irving and Seaspan ~ would be using their government funded upgrades to compete for and win business on the global, commercial (and government) market.
I would argue against the mid-life refit part. Once a warship gets past 20-25 years, the maintenance curve goes through the roof.

replace them at that point with new build and either deconstruct the old hull or sell it on the secondary market.
 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
504
Points
1,040
I would argue against the mid-life refit part. Once a warship gets past 20-25 years, the maintenance curve goes through the roof.

replace them at that point with new build and either deconstruct the old hull or sell it on the secondary market.
With the project lifespan we could almost just slow down the drumbeat of delivery and have them keep building new blocks of CSCs.

FELEX was really only about the sexy combat systems and didn't do any baseline mechanical systems; it's killing us on the primary and auxiliary mechanical systems, and we have thousands of obsolete items that are trying to be processed for replacement, with very little LCMM/procurement resources.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
1,527
Points
910
With the project lifespan we could almost just slow down the drumbeat of delivery and have them keep building new blocks of CSCs.

FELEX was really only about the sexy combat systems and didn't do any baseline mechanical systems; it's killing us on the primary and auxiliary mechanical systems, and we have thousands of obsolete items that are trying to be processed for replacement, with very little LCMM/procurement resources.
I know. Boy, do I know.
 
Top