• 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

The Bread Guy

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
2,157
Points
1,260
This from the info-machine:
The Honourable Judy M. Foote, Minister of Public Services and Procurement, and the Honourable John McKay, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, representing the Honourable Harjit S. Sajjan, Minister of National Defence, today announced a streamlined and transparent procurement approach to deliver the Canadian Surface Combatant to the Royal Canadian Navy up to two years sooner than originally planned.

The refined procurement approach will allow Canada to competitively and transparently select an existing warship design to modify, rather than continuing with the previous approach of selecting a Warship Designer and a Combat Systems Integrator to custom design the Canadian Surface Combatant.

The government used input from industry and Steve Brunton, its shipbuilding expert advisor, to develop the streamlined procurement approach. Canada will continue to work closely with the industry and remains committed to generating middle-class jobs, economic benefits and industrial growth for the country through the National Shipbuilding Strategy ...
From the Backgrounder:
The Government of Canada recently endorsed a streamlined procurement approach for the Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC), simplifying the procurement process so construction can start sooner and can deliver ships up to two years faster.

This new approach stems from a review of the Royal Canadian Navy’s requirements that identified an opportunity to simplify procurement and design efforts, while maintaining all project objectives.

The review, conducted over summer and fall 2015, identified requirements that correspond more closely to existing warships. Rather than continuing with the previous approach, which consisted of selecting a Warship Designer and a Combat Systems Integrator to work together to custom design the CSC, the newly endorsed approach allows Canada to select and modify an existing warship design through a single competitive process.

A Request for Proposals to select a ship design will be released in summer 2016. While the opportunity for firms to pre-qualify will be reopened, the 12 firms that have already pre-qualified will not be required to reapply.

The government remains committed to leveraging economic benefits from shipbuilding by creating opportunities for Canadian content to be included in the vessels, while generating high-value investments in the marine and other sectors of Canada’s economy. The CSC procurement approach will create middle-class jobs for Canadians and opportunities for companies in Canada to showcase their world-class technologies and position themselves for further growth in global markets.

The National Shipbuilding Strategy’s long-term plan to renew the fleets of the Royal Canadian Navy and the Canadian Coast Guard is a priority for the government. Canada has selected two centres of excellence, Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax, Nova Scotia, to build its large combat vessels and Seaspan’s Vancouver Shipyards in Vancouver, British Columbia, to build its large non-combat vessels.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
Disingenuous of gov't--going to be foreign design for some time, just a question of how much foreign designs must be Canadianized (by the Combat Systems Integrator one assumes--the builders noted at the post weren't all going to come up with brand-new ship designs rather than refine existing ones!):

RCN’s Canadian Surface Combatant Will be Foreign Design
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/mark-collins-rcns-canadian-surface-combatant-will-be-foreign-design/

Seems as if the Combat Systems Integrator separate contract is simply being ditched; but does this mean that the winning ship designer (which apparently might even be a new one) then must choose from the pre-qualified CSI firms (and any others that may now qualify)? 

Mark
Ottawa
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
130
Points
710
And how much say will Irving have in selecting the winning designs (ship, combat systems)?

Mar
Ottawa
 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,560
Points
1,060
Hopefully none. They can shut up and build what we tell them to build, and be thankful for the money.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
PuckChaser said:
Hopefully none. They can shut up and build what we tell them to build, and be thankful for the money.

They're still designated as the prime contractor, so, probably quite a bit.
 

GK .Dundas

Sr. Member
Reaction score
299
Points
730
Oh to be king !
If it were up to me I would visit the nice people at Gibbs & Cox in NYC and ask what they would charge me to build their design that lost the RAN AWD competition. As I understand it it was the actual winner up until the politicians got involved.
It has every thing we need and want in a DDG . I suspect for that very reason it doesn't stand a chance .
 
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Anyone who really believes in real change from the new overlords is a bigger sucker than even PT Barnum could have dreamt of.
 

FSTO

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,227
Points
1,090
jollyjacktar said:
Anyone who really believes in real change from the new overlords is a bigger sucker than even PT Barnum could have dreamt of.

Yep. Nothing has changed. We as a military will continue to bumble along doing more with less. Our political masters are so clueless to the real amount of damage they are doing to us.
 

MilEME09

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,539
Points
1,090
FSTO said:
Yep. Nothing has changed. We as a military will continue to bumble along doing more with less. Our political masters are so clueless to the real amount of damage they are doing to us.

This will continue until someone, somewhere with half a clue about the military actually has the ability to do something and isn't just thinking how many of his friends can get contracts off the government for inflated rates.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
I see two legs of the triangle:  Faster and Cheaper.  So I suggest that does not mean Better.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
The Evolved Arleigh Burke was a nice design, but not for our needs.

I would suggest looking at the Canadian Military Journal • Vol. 16, No. 1, Winter 2015 "Off-the-Shelf or New Design? Considerations for the Canadian Surface Combatant Program" by David Rudd.
- the article specifically calls out the Absalon-/Iver Huitfeldt ships as the only platforms currently in existence that will meet the needs of the RCN under the current role set out for the navy and the apparent vision of the GoC in regards to the primary purposes of the military in general.
- the suggestion is " 6 of these and 4 of that" in terms of capabilities. 

I would agree that should these ships be acquired at all (and that remains highly doubtful), the numbers will result in a much smaller fleet but if done correctly could potentially end up with more expeditionary and utility capability with about the same capacity to generate naval forces for one substantial deployment at a time (i.e. a tanker and 2 or 3 CSC).  In my view, although the MEKO F125 as currently being built for the German navy is an excellent combat vessel, it's downfall in the RCN/CSC competition is exactly that: the MEKO design (along with the FREMM designs) have no other purpose other than naval warfare, something that the current government is not enthusiastic about. 

Cheers

 

PuckChaser

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
1,560
Points
1,060
FSTO said:
Yep. Nothing has changed. We as a military will continue to bumble along doing more with less. Our political masters are so clueless to the real amount of damage they are doing to us.

Problem is, the majority of members in the CAF are too proud and professional to let anything fail due to the shoddy support we receive from all parties.
 

jmt18325

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
360
They pretty much have to buy new ships of some kind.  That they're trying to do it faster is a good sign.
 

Cloud Cover

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
30
Points
530
Well, if the GoC really wanted a ship to defend just Canada, and chuck every other expeditionary mission over the side, they could go with just two of these ships, one for each coast. They probably wouldn't even have to leave the harbour, and for 26 Billion CAD, we could probably buy them.

HII Shows Off New BMD Ship Concept at Sea-Air-Space (Updated with video!): http://intercepts.defensenews.com/2013/04/hii-shows-off-new-bmd-ship-concept-at-sea-air-space/

"Using the basic LPD 17 hull designed for the U.S. Navy’s San Antonio-class amphibious transport dock ships — all of which are built by HII — the BMD ship incorporates an Aegis-type phased array radar atop the superstructure. The aft deck, devoid of much of the topside structure of the LPD 17, is ringed by 18 16-cell vertical launch system launchers, for a total of 288 missile cells. Like the existing Mark 41 and Mark 57 VLS launchers in the fleet, the ship’s VLS would presumably be able to launch a variety of weapons, including SM-2, SM-3 and SM-6 Standard missiles, Tomahawk cruise missiles, and other weapons."

https://youtu.be/VxJIizedUsU



It could accommodate up to 288 Mk41 VLS missile tubes and a radar with 1000 times the sensitivity of the SPY-1D radar of the Burke destroyers.:  http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-navys-plans-huge-ballistic-missile-defense-ship-14920

 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
whiskey601 said:
Well, if the GoC really wanted a ship to defend just Canada, and chuck every other expeditionary mission over the side, they could go with just two of these ships, one for each coast. They probably wouldn't even have to leave the harbour, and for 26 Billion CAD, we could probably buy them.

...

We could call them "HMCS Rainbow" and "HMCS Niobe".  Think of the happy Conservatives.  Think of the happy Liberals.  >:D
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,406
Points
1,060
Despite the great history connections with the RCN, the sailors of the modern HMCS Rainbow will curse you into the grave for that name...
 
J

jollyjacktar

Guest
Especially if the march past was "In the Navy" by the Village People.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Myth
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
3,180
Points
1,060
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Unicorn_(I72)

Better?
 
Top