• 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

Edward Campbell

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Mentor
Reaction score
1,086
Points
1,160
whiskey601 said:
My money is on the following:
-the CSC project will be killed off as legacy Harper era tomfoolery (which it turned out to be anyway).
-a study will be commenced to determine if we even need a surface fleet with anything more than very light armament, and restrict the vessel to Canadian littoral waters for "surveillance";
- the MCDV's will fill the above role for the next 5 (hundred) years;
...

The Cyclones and Auroras will be our main maritime assets for patrolling the coasts and if necessary, dropping the odd practice torpedo.

Time will tell, but I have a feeling absolutely NOTHING will be built other than the AOPS.


I hear ya' .... but:

    1. There are a couple of important ministers from Atlantic Canada who will remind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that they, Atlantic Canadians, gave him a majority; and

                 
BrisonScott_Lib.jpg
 
dominic-leblanc.jpg

                  (Important ministers from Atlantic Canada:
                    both infinitely better qualified to be PM, but ...)


    2. There is still a right wing in the Liberal Party, the so-called Manley Liberals, and it does care about foreign and defence policies. I'm sure PMJT is aware of the fact that his father, PMPT, faced a mini cabinet revolt in 1969/70,
        over foreign policy, and that his own ministers approached German Defence Minister, later Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to have a chat with PMPT about socialist policy vs practical politics.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
352
Points
880
NavyShooter said:
Ok,

I'll jump in on this one.

The missiles in our canisters get sent ashore, shipped to the US Depots, and back to us after major refurbishments.

There are locations in Canada (I had a tour on my QL6B course) where DND personnel do take the missiles out of the canisters, inspect, test, replace, and re-pack them.  I sailed with one of the former FC techs that now does that for a living.

The older the missile, the more likely it is to fail the routine checks, and the components are replaced/life-cycled on a specific schedule from what I recall.

So, the old RIM-7P's that we stripped off the ships when we upgraded to the RIM-162 ESSM got sent back to the US, they were stripped of useable parts, and what could be re-used, was.  *NOTE* this was pre-FELEX, I was on STJ when we refitted her for the ESSM in 2004.  The transition to the ESSM was not concurrent with the HCM project. 

The RIM-162's have a test/inspection cycle, as do the Harpoons.  Every missile comes with a log book (as does each torpedo, and HOTTORP).  (Separate from Ammo Data Cards.)

I know that which I speak of here....I was a Magazine Custodian until this past June on one of the Frigates.

So, the lifespan of the missiles is controlled, and monitored.  That's honestly not a big deal.

NS

NS, I certainly did not mean for people to think that the missiles were put in the launchers at acquisition and never touched until they "expired". Obviously there is maintenance that is done on an ongoing basis. But such maintenance cannot touch some of the elements, such as the actual solid fuel and all of its casing. The electronics, the sensors the programming, the ignition subsystems can and obviously are maintained. As you indicate yourself, however, the older the missile, the more often they fail their testing, and at some point they get sent back to the manufacturer for disposal and new ones are bought.

My point was exactly that this point where the majority of the missiles need replacement roughly corresponds to the expected service time of frigates and destroyers of 25 to 30 years. Thus, you cannot introduce the next class of warships in service expecting to be able to re-use the older class' missiles for the next 25-30 years again. Unless the older class of ship's missiles were recent replacements, you have to buy new ones anyway.

This is different than the more mechanical/electrical/hydraulic weapons systems, such as guns and torpedoes, which, if maintained properly and repaired when necessary, can go on almost in perpetuity (like the 40mm Boffins that are about to be removed from the MCDV after more than 70 years of service, though no one said they were not just going to be crated until "next use"  [:) ). So for instance, if it was decided that the main gun on the CSC was to be the Bofors 57mm, we could re-use the ones on the HAL's.

That was my point on missiles. I used it to counter the perception some people have that the Danish Stanflex concept is saving money because they are re-using the same missiles. They are not: They are re-using the launchers. As for the missiles themselves, in the Stanflex concept, they get acquired and replaced on an ongoing basis as they get to the end of heir life, so all you have done, is make them a separate item from the ship (and therefore probably accounted for somewhere else) and spread their acquisition cost over longer budgetary time frame than if you just purchased a new ship all inclusive of its brand new armament. As for re-using the launchers, well, someone else here chimed in on the fact that it may not be such a big savings after all considering the metal fatigue and other aging factors on the launchers that need fixing and maintenance. 
 
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
352
Points
880
I think some of the points below need adressing.

First of all, and this is not meant as a disrespectful comment against MKP, but simply as a warning to some in these fora who seem to take his (her?) point of view as fully knowledgeable of the Danish Navy, MKP is actually and by his (her?) own admission a lance-corporal in a Danish Army tank regiment. He (she) may well have valid information and knowledge, but the source is unstated.

My comments are in yellow in his (her) post below.

MikeKiloPapa said:
The rationale behind the Standard Flex concept and its continued usage is well documented AND available online, so i will refrain from posting a wall of text reciting its history. What i can say is that your conclusion is wrong ( StanFlex was and still is ,very much a cost saving measure....among other things. Its also much more than just containerized weapons and equipment)

I will not refrain. The Stanflex concept came about in the early 1980's because the Danish Navy could not afford to replace its 22 attack crafts, mine hunters and coastal patrol vessels that were becoming obsolete on a one-for-one basis. So they came up with the "single class" hull Flyvefisken class and the Stanflex concept. The modules covered mine warfare, basic ASW, main gun and missiles modules for AAW (Sea-Sparrows in Mk 56) or Harpoon ASuW. The ship could be configured for one form or warfare or the other but no more than one at a time. Overall, it was a budget constraint that imposed the solution on the Danish Navy, but it still ended up with less ships and as a result, as a lesser simultaneous capability to carry missions.

Does it save money with the Iver Huitfeldt? Re-using any weapons system usually saves money. However, you could re-use guns, for instance, wether they are in Stanflex containers or mounted on board the usual way (We did resell the Otto Melara 5 inch guns of the IRO's and they have been re-used by the acquirer). The same goes for the missile launchers, but as per my recent past post above, the missiles themselves have to be changed from time to time no matter what. So it saved money, but only to the extent that re-using weapons system already in your inventory does, and not necessarily because it is Stanflex.

IMHO, Stanflex was, and is, a Danish solution to a Danish situation, and more power to them if it provides them with their defence needs in a way that satisfies them, but it may not be the solution for all. Stan flex has been discussed at length - incensed then discredited, then incensed again, by all sort of people since it came out in the 1980's. However, since that time, just in the "western" world, Australia, Canada, the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, France, the UK, Spain, Japan, South Korea and, yes, Denmark's neighbour Norway have all developed and introduced new frigates and destroyers into service. Not a single one of them adopted a Stanflex concept. Perhaps there is a reason. My personal view is that, maybe Stanflex doesn't save you money as much as it lets you spread out the outlay of money.


We have plenty financial capability, but not the will to spend it on Defence. Not unlike Canada i suppose ;-) ...
All of which has absolutely nothing to do with StanFlex however.

For the reasons I indicated above, Stanflex was developed specifically because Denmark did not have the financial capability to replace its fleet of smaller vessels. With the Iver Huitfeldt, it does not even give them flexibility, since (other than mid-life refits) there is no intent on changing the weapons suite as they go, except for maintenance. Once the guns and launchers are in place, they will remain and constitute the weapons suite of the ship - period)

Actually none of them are yet. We wont get long range Standards (SM-2 or 6) til next year at the earliest. The mk56 ESSM launchers are operational aboard all 3 frigates however so they have basic AAW capability at least.

I thought Iver herself was full up, but OK, I'm probably wrong on this one. However, about six months ago, Niels Juel came over to exercise with the US Navy. She carried her Harpoon launchers and her Mk 56 launchers, had her Mk41 launcher installed but they were all empty of missiles.

That is incorrect ! ..electronics and combat systems software is in place, but integration of SM-2/6 into the mk41 will likely take place sometime in 2017.

That is exactly my point: When you integrate the SM-2 and SM-6, upgrading and reprogramming of the combat system for AAW must occur, then lots of testing before operational. You may do that internally within your Navy since it happens step by step and after commissioning, but in ours and most others, all combat suites (weapons and combat systems are built, installed and integrated from the start and by the contractor. Thus, you hide your cost in you annual Navy budget, but the value, which other navies have to pay in their shipbuilding budget, must count against the actual cost of the ship. I note here that you yourself mention in one of your post that your country does some creative accounting and cost hiding.

Pardon my french , but bollocks ! Where do you get your info from ?  Regardless i would suggest you get some better sources .

The 4 year plan is not about AAW but the upcoming BMD upgrade which is scheduled for completion in the 2019-20 timeframe.

BS!...you would have to cram the mk41s full of SM-3s to get near 900 million USD.

Let me use your own numbers below: You say 330MUS$ in 2010, plus 100MUS$ for the BMD update I take as current $, then you put the non included weapons systems, including missiles at about 250MUS$. I can tell you you are off on that last one (but note that you only buy SM-2's when your Navy will have SM-2 and SM-6). Using current most recent price for missiles and a mix of 12 SM-6 to 20 SM-2's in the Mk-41, the missiles alone [all - harpoons, at 1.2M$; ESSm at 1.4M$ -for 48 which is the real final capability -; SM-2 if you stick to block IIIA at 1M$ and SM-6 at 4.5M$ - all these prices are based on the latest sales of those missiles]  (no integration work and none of the guns and other items you mention) will set you back 162M$US. But even then, I will accept your 250M$ figure.

Now, assuming this last 250M$ and the 100M$ BMD as today values, but correcting the 330M$ to bring it in 2015 dollars (using RAND corporation accepted inflation rate for naval systems of 11%/year) it becomes 540M$. Add the $350 already in current dollars and you get $890 Millions: Thus my about 900 millions. And note that I did not try to include your hidden costs within the Navy general budget by doing work yourself that is in fact contractor work in our own countries.
 

As delivered from the shipyard(OSS) the huitfeldts was $165M USD each in 2010 dollars. That cost is indisputable.
The AAW suite from Thales Netherlands came in at ~$110M USD in same year dollars.  Also indisputable
The Atlas Sonar,Star Safire mk III FLIR, surface and navigational radars,ESM system,link&communications systems,the combat system and the MK41 launchers etc makes up the remainder of the price quoted officially at ~$325-330M USD (2010)
What isnt included is :
2x76mm Oto Melara SR
1x35 mm Millenium CIWS
2xMk56  VLS with 24 ESSM
2xMk141 Harpoon launchers with 16 Harpoon block II missiles.
SM-2 missiles.
2xCEROS 200 Fire control directors
Most of the outfitting and integration of these sensors,weapons and military electronics was carried out by RDN technical personel or civilian subcontractors. As such that work was not accounted for in the acquisitions project but with funds taken from another budget (the navy's operating budget)

All that adds up to another 200-250 million USD on top of the official purchase price.
But even with the $100M USD BMD upgrade (radar and CMS) you are well short of the $900 million you claim.

Riiight.....But no
Quebec GDP  : ~360 billion CAD
Denmark GDP : ~420 billion CAD
And Quebec has a population almost 50% larger than Denmarks (8,2 vs 5,6 million)

Here is my sources: The World Bank (data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD).

I am using their figures for 2013 (last available) in US$. Denmark = 342bUS$. I then use their figure for Canada and apportion Quebec's GDP by referring to Statscan figures for provincial/territorial GDPs for that same year, which gives us 344bUS$ for that same year.


Its actually more like 6 years ....and name me 1 navy (other than the US) that goes from commission to FOC in 3 years ?

Actually, from commission to FOC in about 1 years: France, UK, Canada, Spain, Italy, just to name those I know of in the last 15 years.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
E.R. Campbell said:
I hear ya' .... but:

    1. There are a couple of important ministers from Atlantic Canada who will remind Prime Minister Justin Trudeau that they, Atlantic Canadians, gave him a majority; and

                 
BrisonScott_Lib.jpg
 
dominic-leblanc.jpg

                  (Important ministers from Atlantic Canada:
                    both infinitely better qualified to be PM, but ...)


    2. There is still a right wing in the Liberal Party, the so-called Manley Liberals, and it does care about foreign and defence policies. I'm sure PMJT is aware of the fact that his father, PMPT, faced a mini cabinet revolt in 1969/70,
        over foreign policy, and that his own ministers approached German Defence Minister, later Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to have a chat with PMPT about socialist policy vs practical politics.

The CSC will go through hell or high water, and it will always be called an overbudget over time failure no matter how well it is run.  There is no accounting for defence tech inflation. It's quite frankly insane how expensive equipment is increasing year over year.
 

Oldgateboatdriver

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
352
Points
880
Just look at the figure for inflation in naval systems I quote above, Underway. The RAND Corporation pins it at 11% a year.

That means that the price of system (which includes a whole ship) doubles every seven years. Which also means it quadruples in 14 years. Fourteen years is not an unusual number of years for a naval construction project to go from start of the development phase to completion of the first ship in class.

And I agree: It's crazy.
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Anything to be said for decoupling the (relatively) unchanging stuff - hulls, hotel services, engines, etc. - from the constantly evolving, when it comes to procurement?

Contract the yards to produce x hulls at size y with wells and reinforcements for equipment z, on a properly long-term basis? Not an in-service "flex" system like the Danes, but something that will keep the heavy-metal side of things active independent of what, exactly, we can afford to bolt on to the relatively cheap part? Would require some canny decision making regarding types of systems (Aegis-esque panels? Tall mast with rotating radar? Both? - etc.).

Barring a complete drawing-in of the RCN, "we" will have long-range blue water vessels with helo(es), shorter-haul coastal defence (MCM, etc.) vessels without hangars, and armed ice-capable or ice-breaking vessels (and subs, but can't imagine those being designed as anything but a single system) to make up the fighting fleet.

Would, if we're going to be running around after drug smugglers and what-not, a "constabulary duties" vessel be worth looking at?
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
quadrapiper said:
....

Barring a complete drawing-in of the RCN, "we" will have long-range blue water vessels with helo(es), shorter-haul coastal defence (MCM, etc.) vessels without hangars, and armed ice-capable or ice-breaking vessels (and subs, but can't imagine those being designed as anything but a single system) to make up the fighting fleet.

...

In the Canadian context I don't see the purpose in a vessel without a helicopter capability.  Ships don't move fast.  We will never have enough of them to be everywhere.  And it is farther from Halifax to Tuktoyuktuk by sea than it is from Halifax to London.

On the other hand ships make great operating bases for helicopters and permit the government to get all sorts of resources by way of those helicopters to the 70% of the land mass that doesn't have access by roads and to 100% of the 7.1 million square kilometers that is Canada'a ocean estate - equivalent to the inaccessible land mass.

And for that matter they should have room for a couple of long range high speed interceptors like the CB-90.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,422
Points
1,060
Building a half-priced ship that can do almost nothing(cough*LCS cough*), is worse than building a more expensive one that is quite flexible. Now if you can save a few dollars and build more hulls that we can man and still have 80% of the high priced ship, then we can talk. However when the government says you can only have x number hulls or you can X number of PY's to man ships, then you better maximize that ability.
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Chris Pook said:
In the Canadian context I don't see the purpose in a vessel without a helicopter capability.  Ships don't move fast.  We will never have enough of them to be everywhere.  And it is farther from Halifax to Tuktoyuktuk by sea than it is from Halifax to London.

On the other hand ships make great operating bases for helicopters and permit the government to get all sorts of resources by way of those helicopters to the 70% of the land mass that doesn't have access by roads and to 100% of the 7.1 million square kilometers that is Canada'a ocean estate - equivalent to the inaccessible land mass.

And for that matter they should have room for a couple of long range high speed interceptors like the CB-90.
Good point - had seen comments that suggested properly basing a helicopter off a ship was something of a dividing line for tonnage. I seem to recall seeing "folding" hangars (possibly as a test) - worthwhile for smaller vessels, to keep the helicopter-related real estate down?
 

quadrapiper

Sr. Member
Reaction score
72
Points
330
Colin P said:
Building a half-priced ship that can do almost nothing(cough*LCS cough*), is worse than building a more expensive one that is quite flexible. Now if you can save a few dollars and build more hulls that we can man and still have 80% of the high priced ship, then we can talk. However when the government says you can only have x number hulls or you can X number of PY's to man ships, then you better maximize that ability.
Was that in response to my comment about "constabulary" vessels? Had an idea that a robust, simple class with no special fittings (Z-drives, etc.) might make more sense than putting miles on something more complex and specialized.

Might also provide a platform suitable for a "training and..." approach - the PCTs will wear out eventually.

Really, I'll be happy if the RCN gets a one-for-one replacement for the frigates, and a PY/training/recruiting arrangement that ensures everything not in the ditch is properly manned.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,422
Points
1,060
My wording is bad, it was to support your comments that spending a whack of money on a hull that can't do much is a waste.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
Irving Shipbuilding’s $26-billion warship procurement deal under review, senior source says
John Ivison | February 11, 2016 5:57 PM ET

Irving co-chief executive James D. Irving is understood to have met Dominic LeBlanc, the government’s Atlantic Canada regional minister, and Navdeep Bains, the economic development minister, in Moncton Thursday to discuss the situation. “There is a degree of nervousness” on the Irving side, said one industry source.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/irving-shipbuilding-26-billion-warship-procurement-deal-under-review-source-says

Liberal house leader Dominic LeBlanc subject to ethics ‘screen’ involving powerful Irving family
Glen McGregor, Ottawa Citizen | February 11, 2016 5:29 PM ET

Federal ethics commissioner Mary Dawson has told Liberal house leader Dominic LeBlanc he must avoid participating in any decisions involving the powerful Irving family of New Brunswick.

LeBlanc, a key political lieutenant to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, cited his friendship with James D. “Jim” Irving as a potential conflict-of-interest in an undertaking filed with Dawson last month.

His chief of staff, Vince MacNeil, must “screen” him from any dealings with Irving’s company, J.D. Irving Ltd., and its affiliates and subsidiaries. 

This will “ensure that I will abstain from any participation in any discussions or decision-making processes and any communication with government officials in relation to any matter or issue forming part of the subject matter of the conflict of interest screen,” LeBlanc promised in the written declaration.

LeBlanc refers to Irving as “my friend,” though he is believed to be closer to Irving’s son, Jamie, who runs the family’s chain of newspapers.

Irving is the president and chief executive officer of J.D. Irving Limited, part of the Irving family conglomerate that has interests in numerous industrial sectors, including shipbuilding.

Through Irving Shipbuilding, the company is also the beneficiary of substantial government contracts to build new vessels for the Royal Canadian Navy at its shipyard in Halifax.

The Irvings are involved in the proposed Energy East pipeline, which would bring oil from Western Canada to New Brunswick for refining. though this part of the family enterprise is separate and operates independently from the company controlled by Jim Irving. The government has promised a new approvals process to consider whether green-lighting the pipeline.

The ethics screen set up for LeBlanc covers “J.D. Irving Limited, its subsidiaries, affiliates, associates, divisions and or any legal form of business in which he or his companies may have a private interest.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/liberal-house-leader-dominic-leblanc-subject-to-ethics-screen-involving-powerful-irving-family

 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
Some Industry Information on all of the NSPS pre-qualified bidders Combat system integrators.  This article is on the warship designers.  These articles are a little out of date, as the CSI and WD is now combined, leading to companies pairing up to bid together.  What I don't know is if Irving is still in charge of the selection process.  Without a SOR I'm concerned that we are just handing the new warship design/selection over to Irving and we will probably get what we get.  Or has that changed.

**note: placed this here because its not NSS specific but CSC specific**
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
I'm assuming that the change to an almost off the shelf foreign design now renders this competition null and void?  Or will they simply keep the warship designs they already prequalified?!
 

Trumpeter42

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
60
jmt18325 said:
I'm assuming that the change to an almost off the shelf foreign design now renders this competition null and void?  Or will they simply keep the warship designs they already prequalified?!

I suspect that the WD firm list will remain the same. One of the key criteria for the WD is the personnel requirement, which I read somewhere that they're looking for a ship with close to 100 complement... Half of the Halifax Class. It's not a coincidence that the hulls in the pre-qualified list are all in this ballpark. The WD firms in the list will either bid with their own CSI or partner to get it.
 

Underway

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
2,849
Points
1,040
Trumpeter42 said:
I suspect that the WD firm list will remain the same. One of the key criteria for the WD is the personnel requirement, which I read somewhere that they're looking for a ship with close to 100 complement... Half of the Halifax Class. It's not a coincidence that the hulls in the pre-qualified list are all in this ballpark. The WD firms in the list will either bid with their own CSI or partner to get it.

The WD and CSI have to be a team.  There will be no separate competition for each.  There will be one competition for both together.  Also an off-the-shelf modified design is official as of the announcement today, (well it was official before but its really official now...).

I also would not expect crew sizes to be as low as 100, more likely closer to 180.  With the doctrine, distances, environment etc... that Canada operates with we will probably have more crew than the Euro navies normally sail with.
 
Top