• 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

Serious question, did we not send staff over to the UK/Germany etc to see how they design, manufacture war ships? or id we dust the book off and figure we could do it. All the while throwing good money after bad money at the situation.
For the CSC I have seen mention of close cooperation with the Brits who are building their Type 26 right now. As for the AOP's I don't know. I do know Seaspan engaged some European help, but not sure on what.
 
CSC is asking JSS and AOPS what mistakes they made or challenges they had all the time. I know that for network systems JSS was invited to a number of the CSC planning briefings to point out some challenges and things that weren't quite working. The PM's talk on a regular basis and the PD staff also work together and share notes.

And there are a few Gov't specialists who work on all three programs in specific jobs (cyber/system security as an example).
The interface with BAE and the ongoing T26 build in the UK is completely different though, and is hugely beneficial. That just wasn't possible with the Berlin and Svalbard class because those are delivered and the project offices are shut down with the industry moving on to other things.

The LL were mostly some things Canada is doing that didn't work well, but in some cases was driven by funding/type of money as limiting factors for sparing and GSM/GFX vice what actually makes sense. AOPS and JSS are offloading a lot to the in service side for what is genuinely part of the project delivery, while CSC (currently) has that factored into their project and will be doing it internally with capitol funds/resources, if it's not part of the ISI scope.
 
Serious question, did we not send staff over to the UK/Germany etc to see how they design, manufacture war ships? or id we dust the book off and figure we could do it. All the while throwing good money after bad money at the situation.
The builder is responsible for the manufacture on their own. The gov't doesn't tell them what to do as the goal is to have industry free to come up with their own solutions to problems. Design for both ships was bought. In JSS case there were a number of changes required to meet certain standards or operational goals that the German design didn't account for. Also the Bundesmarine had recommendations for the RCN version from things they didn't like or didn't work on their ship. Example they only have loading bay doors on the port side. They recommended that we add a door to the stbd side as well to increase docking flexibility.

And yes there were staff visits to Germany and tours/inspections of the completed ship. There is at least one RCN Engineering Officer position in Glasgow as a posting with the Type 26 team, there might be others I'm unaware of.

For CSC as stated by others BAE is part of the team building the ship. As such there is direct access to the BAE team on various aspects of the design and build processes.
 

Canadian frigate AEGIS capability to be tested at US site​


The ants continue to push the peanut up the hill it seems.

Lockheed Martin has been awarded a near $64m (C$85m) contract for the establishment of the AEGIS Canadian Surface Combatant (CSC) land-based test site in New Jersey, USA, funded through Foreign Military Sales (FMS) from Canada.

 
I'm wondering if that's a misunderstanding - is the test site to be in NJ, or is NJ where the equipment will be built to be provided to a Canadian test site?
 
I'm wondering if that's a misunderstanding - is the test site to be in NJ, or is NJ where the equipment will be built to be provided to a Canadian test site?
I read that as the *fwd deployed element of CSC PMO to conduct integration activities at the OEM’s location. This has been done in previous major capital projects. I don’t think this is the follow-on operational test and support site that I understand will be on the East Coast (Halifax region). Could be wrong though, but a fully-kitted AEGIS-ashore operational test and evaluation and support facility would likely be a lot more than $64M.
 
Last edited:
I'm wondering if that's a misunderstanding - is the test site to be in NJ, or is NJ where the equipment will be built to be provided to a Canadian test site?
They are getting 4, one for the stone frigate that they are building and 3 for the first set of ships?
 
Updated info about the Hartlen Point Canadian Surface Combatant Land-Based Testing Facility.


Preliminary rendering of the site.

LBTF-Rendering-768x388.png


Proposed site plan.

LBTF-Site-Plan-Fall-2023.png
 
Updated info about the Hartlen Point Canadian Surface Combatant Land-Based Testing Facility.


Preliminary rendering of the site.

LBTF-Rendering-768x388.png


Proposed site plan.

LBTF-Site-Plan-Fall-2023.png

Which is getting a vocal and negative reaction from the local population and wildlife protection/environmental groups.
 
Which is getting a vocal and negative reaction from the local population and wildlife protection/environmental groups.
Reactions from the local population are the usual for Canadian opinions on the military, a shrug and off they go about their business for the most part. The people of Halifax and the surrounding area are no stranger to the military. More vocal special interest groups like bird watchers, walkers, environmental groups, etc are opposing it but the government has largely ignored their screaming after the consolation process was finished. In the end it is DND property that the government was allowing the public to use, they have no obligation for access once the proper process is followed regarding environmental consultation and such.

There is a fair few conspiracy weirdos as well going off about radio and radar emissions who've latched onto this at one point. A lot of entitled people in the end. This is prime real estate for this facility and it is one of the best locations for it, not that NIMBY's have ever cared about national defence.
 
Updated info about the Hartlen Point Canadian Surface Combatant Land-Based Testing Facility.


Preliminary rendering of the site.

LBTF-Rendering-768x388.png


Proposed site plan.

LBTF-Site-Plan-Fall-2023.png
Can't mess up the golf course! :)
 
Back
Top