Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Underway]

I've been wondering the same thing. Is the expansion of ISI a mandatory requirement to start production, or can blocks be started in the existing facility? There does not seem to be much information in the public domain about that expansion in Halifax, other than the $463Mil price tag. That price seems in the same ballpark, however, as the BAE expansion in the link provided by @suffolkowner, and there is a strong relationship between BAE and ISI, so we can probably extrapolate similar capabilities.

Most of the build is going to be in the current barn. The issue is the final assembly area isn't big enough to accomodate the multiple blocks added together to create the finished ship. So they need to infil the harbour, make the jetty area bigger and this will allow for proper assembly and then launch.

Lots of runway to get that finished before even the first block rolls out of the hall.

 

[Navy_Pete]

I’m sure that some complain about costs given:

US Navy contracts shipbuilders for nine new Arleigh Burke destroyers

The nine future flight III Arleigh Burke-class destroyers comprise enhanced capabilities, including Missile Defence Radar and Combat System.

www.naval-technology.com

15B for 10 AB DD’s however there is a big difference between building another 10 of something you built 60’ish of already, as well as how we cost things down here.

From what I understand most of the weapon systems and ammunition is costed separately because it is provided to the builder as GSM (or GFX or whatever term you want to use).

Also don't have the costs for things like IP rights for maintenance, tech manuals etc etc, which is costing us a lot as well, plus initial training, infrastructure, support equipment, sparing and all the rest of the things we bundle in (including 30% arisings).

I think the DND costing model TBS makes us use is intended to make the sticker shock as massive as possible to help justify program cuts. The CCG ships don't get the same scrutiny, even though they have similar project inflation, and I think our Polar Icebreaker will have a bigger project sticker cost then what they give for the Constellation class..

 

[KevinB]

From what I understand most of the weapon systems and ammunition is costed separately because it is provided to the builder as GSM (or GFX or whatever term you want to use).

Also don't have the costs for things like IP rights for maintenance, tech manuals etc etc, which is costing us a lot as well, plus initial training, infrastructure, support equipment, sparing and all the rest of the things we bundle in (including 30% arisings).

I think the DND costing model TBS makes us use is intended to make the sticker shock as massive as possible to help justify program cuts. The CCG ships don't get the same scrutiny, even though they have similar project inflation, and I think our Polar Icebreaker will have a bigger project sticker cost then what they give for the Constellation class..

We use GFM (Government Furnish Material) and GFE -- GFM is generally consumed (ammunition etc) in testing or manufacture - while GFE remains on the property books for the item.

With 73 AB's built, the next 10 more contracted and another 10-20 planned after that, it's hard (impossible) to give an apples to apples comparison even if they where costed the same.

Honestly while I don't know much about the Navy, and Ships/Boats, I don't think the price tag of the CSC is that silly at all when one considers what Canada will get out of it.

 

[KevinB]

I still don’t understand how the CAF can use the costing model it does though.

What you wrap up in costing models is mind boggling.

To me there should be a cost for
1) Ship, CSC
- I can accept (partially) that the combat systems, weapons etc going into the ship are part of that, especially new systems.

I can’t understand how one would put crew costs into the ship. Considering the CAF budget has a cutout for salary.

I disagree with putting NSS coating into the ship - as those costs are Defense Infrastructure, and should be separate (same concept as the F-35 shouldn’t be coated with northern run way upgrades).
Those items needed to be done regardless of platform simply as a cost of being a Nation.

Project Staff; again salaries are already costed - they were being paid regardless of what program they are on, it’s simply part of National Defense to have those staffs.

O&M. Most countries have a dedicated Operations and Maintenance budget - it goes to ensure that one’s military is functioning. O&M isn’t used for new equipment (it’s illegal down here to use O&M to field new equipment). Fuel, parts, ammunition etc falls under this, generally if the Government requires more Operational usage than forecast, it will then allocate contingency funds (and this is where the USG often overspends)

National Defense isn’t a business, it shouldn’t be costed like a business, as how do you put a $ value on Gov directed missions?

It just seems that the way the CAF is forced to cost programs is designed to make giant political targets out of truly required resources for conducting the missions that are required of a Nation.

 

[Halifax Tar]

I still don’t understand how the CAF can use the costing model it does though.

You have to look at it through the lens of an anti-military and anti-military spending populace and bureaucracy.

Make it look as expensive as possible to try to and scuttle as much of it as possible. Pun intended.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

I still don’t understand how the CAF can use the costing model it does though.

What you wrap up in costing models is mind boggling.

To me there should be a cost for
1) Ship, CSC
- I can accept (partially) that the combat systems, weapons etc going into the ship are part of that, especially new systems.

I can’t understand how one would put crew costs into the ship. Considering the CAF budget has a cutout for salary.

I disagree with putting NSS coating into the ship - as those costs are Defense Infrastructure, and should be separate (same concept as the F-35 shouldn’t be coated with northern run way upgrades).
Those items needed to be done regardless of platform simply as a cost of being a Nation.

Project Staff; again salaries are already costed - they were being paid regardless of what program they are on, it’s simply part of National Defense to have those staffs.

O&M. Most countries have a dedicated Operations and Maintenance budget - it goes to ensure that one’s military is functioning. O&M isn’t used for new equipment (it’s illegal down here to use O&M to field new equipment). Fuel, parts, ammunition etc falls under this, generally if the Government requires more Operational usage than forecast, it will then allocate contingency funds (and this is where the USG often overspends)

National Defense isn’t a business, it shouldn’t be costed like a business, as how do you put a $ value on Gov directed missions?

It just seems that the way the CAF is forced to cost programs is designed to make giant political targets out of truly required resources for conducting the missions that are required of a Nation.

I can see a good case for costing personnel operating equipment.

All other things being equal, people are expensive to training, pay and house. If Ship A requires a crew of 250 and Ship B requires a crew of 175, that is significant and should be taken into account during the bid process. Same with fighters or tanks- you have to look at how many people are required to keep the thing operational.

As for costing a litre of fuel in 2050? Stupid…

 

[Kirkhill]

I still don’t understand how the CAF can use the costing model it does though.

What you wrap up in costing models is mind boggling.

To me there should be a cost for
1) Ship, CSC
- I can accept (partially) that the combat systems, weapons etc going into the ship are part of that, especially new systems.

I can’t understand how one would put crew costs into the ship. Considering the CAF budget has a cutout for salary.

I disagree with putting NSS coating into the ship - as those costs are Defense Infrastructure, and should be separate (same concept as the F-35 shouldn’t be coated with northern run way upgrades).
Those items needed to be done regardless of platform simply as a cost of being a Nation.

Project Staff; again salaries are already costed - they were being paid regardless of what program they are on, it’s simply part of National Defense to have those staffs.

O&M. Most countries have a dedicated Operations and Maintenance budget - it goes to ensure that one’s military is functioning. O&M isn’t used for new equipment (it’s illegal down here to use O&M to field new equipment). Fuel, parts, ammunition etc falls under this, generally if the Government requires more Operational usage than forecast, it will then allocate contingency funds (and this is where the USG often overspends)

National Defense isn’t a business, it shouldn’t be costed like a business, as how do you put a $ value on Gov directed missions?

It just seems that the way the CAF is forced to cost programs is designed to make giant political targets out of truly required resources for conducting the missions that are required of a Nation.

I think the whole game changes if the Operational Requirements were written on the basis of number of targets served and number of km2 surveyed.

I want the ship to be able to destroy X number of submarines, Y number of ships, and Z numbers of small craft and aircraft. What projectiles do I need? How many? And what types of launchers?

I want the ship to be able to detect anything above or below water to a distance of K kilometers and to be able to prosecute some or all of the contacts on their own or in company.

What do I have to do to float that many launchers and sensors and keep them at sea to maintain a permanent presence?

I've had a variant of this same conversation with the fishing industry. Front office are fishermen. Fishing is a means to pay for the ships they love so that they can spend time at sea. The factory that makes the money has to be squeezed into the ship.

Meanwhile the factory managers, given their druthers, would opt for one of two things:

A - buy the factory and build the ship around it
B - buy a ship with a large open space that allows for the factory to be constantly modified to suit changing market demands.

Next generation​

The T-600 is being used as the foundation of a larger and more refined UAS being developed by BAES FalconWorks and Malloy. The T-650 has a carbon fibre chassis and a maximum payload of 300kg. It is intended for a wide range of naval uses that include logistics, casualty evacuation, ASW, search & rescue, intelligence gathering, mine countermeasures and dropping of munitions for close air support of troops. A warship equipped with several T-650 would have a very flexible air system that could deliver a torpedo and do much more.

The UAS is attritable and can be launched when there is a much greater anti-air threat and the helicopter and its crew could not be risked.

The UAS can be launched and held at readiness

UAS have batteries that can be rapidly swapped out for new ones for fast return to action if needed

the UAS can be deployed on vessels of opportunity that lack the facilities to support a helicopter. The UAS has a very small footprint and does not require the ship to be modified. Designed to be folded into a compact case, most ships of OPV size and above could comfortably accommodate their storage. In combination with a containerised Towed Array Sonar, this could be rapidly fitted to provide a crude ASW capability across the fleet in an emergency.

The ethical and safety issues around weaponised autonomous uncrewed systems can be avoided to a large extent in this case as the UAS can be remotely piloted and torpedo released only under human command.

How much tailoring of the hull is absolutely necessary?
The hull, ultimately is just a self-propelled island where equipment and its attendants can stay dry.

The hull, bridge, plant and hotel are one cost.
The ordnance is a separate cost.
Ops, Maintenance and Consumables is a third cost.
Renovations are unknown and unknowable and should not be included in any realistic costing estimate.

The 10 year cost of maintaining an ability to destroy submarines, ships and aircraft (including UASs and missiles) is the only metric that should matter.

 

[KevinB]

I can see a good case for costing personnel operating equipment.

All other things being equal, people are expensive to training, pay and house. If Ship A requires a crew of 250 and Ship B requires a crew of 175, that is significant and should be taken into account during the bid process. Same with fighters or tanks- you have to look at how many people are required to keep the thing operational.

As for costing a litre of fuel in 2050? Stupid…

Fair point.
But the services have authorized strengths regardless of the equipment.
Those extra 75 pers from Ship A are still employed regardless if they are not required on Ship B.
The only real cost difference would be sailing allowances.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

I can see a good case for costing personnel operating equipment.

All other things being equal, people are expensive to training, pay and house. If Ship A requires a crew of 250 and Ship B requires a crew of 175, that is significant and should be taken into account during the bid process. Same with fighters or tanks- you have to look at how many people are required to keep the thing operational.

As for costing a litre of fuel in 2050? Stupid…

You can ascertain a baseline cost for doing the work that needs to be done and is being done currently. That costing is accounted for separably as a fixed cost regardless of who wins the contract. Then you are measuring the efficiency of the designs and actually comparing real cost differences.

 

[Spencer100]

You have to look at it through the lens of an anti-military and anti-military spending populace and bureaucracy.

Make it look as expensive as possible to try to and scuttle as much of it as possible. Pun intended.

Bingo! It's not a bug it's a feature!

It was done to limit purchasing. Less and less with every program.

 

[Seyek]

I still don’t understand how the CAF can use the costing model it does though.

What you wrap up in costing models is mind boggling.

To me there should be a cost for
1) Ship, CSC
- I can accept (partially) that the combat systems, weapons etc going into the ship are part of that, especially new systems.

I can’t understand how one would put crew costs into the ship. Considering the CAF budget has a cutout for salary.

I disagree with putting NSS coating into the ship - as those costs are Defense Infrastructure, and should be separate (same concept as the F-35 shouldn’t be coated with northern run way upgrades).
Those items needed to be done regardless of platform simply as a cost of being a Nation.

Project Staff; again salaries are already costed - they were being paid regardless of what program they are on, it’s simply part of National Defense to have those staffs.

O&M. Most countries have a dedicated Operations and Maintenance budget - it goes to ensure that one’s military is functioning. O&M isn’t used for new equipment (it’s illegal down here to use O&M to field new equipment). Fuel, parts, ammunition etc falls under this, generally if the Government requires more Operational usage than forecast, it will then allocate contingency funds (and this is where the USG often overspends)

National Defense isn’t a business, it shouldn’t be costed like a business, as how do you put a $ value on Gov directed missions?

It just seems that the way the CAF is forced to cost programs is designed to make giant political targets out of truly required resources for conducting the missions that are required of a Nation.

Is there a publicly available CAF/DND cost estimate available anywhere? The only thing I've seen is the $56-60 billion dollar figure on the canada.ca project page without any details.

The only other cost estimates I've seen are the PBOs, which specifically excludes crew, operations and maintenance outside of an initial set of ammunition and 2 years of spares. The crew, additional ammunition, O&M are all included in their $200+ billion life cycle cost estimate, but that doesn't have anything to do with the acquisition cost.

I'm only asking because throughout the thread I feel like I'm either misreading something or some people are conflating parts of the life cycle estimate with the acquisition estimate. Even DND's response to the 2021 PBO cost report didn't seem to substantially challenge their numbers, it just stated the difference was the inclusion of provincial taxes and the PBO's emphasis on increasing the costs as the weight increased.

About the infrastructure point, I'm a little mixed. We need to have much of the project staff on hand regardless, we need to maintain and improve infrastructure in general as you said. However infrastructure will be informed by whatever we end up buying. If we had ended up going with a fleet of OPVs instead of CSCs that would end up changing what our infrastructure requirements are, so I don't think it's unreasonable if the infrastructure is specifically related to the project at hand.

In the end I think the CAF/DND has done a bad job of providing clarity on costs. As everyone on this thread's pointed out there are differences in how different ships are costed by their respective governments, and I can't recall seeing any sort of statement, infographic or anything from our side that does a decent job explaining why costs are different, what's included or not included, or anything that would either explain the costing or offer a meaningful comparison. Presumably folks in decision making positions are able to get that, but it doesn't look good to the public to see the USN buying Burke's $1.5 billion while we're looking at triple that for a CSC, more like double if you consider currency exchange but I'm not even sure a lot of the public will think about that either when comparing.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I still don’t understand how the CAF can use the costing model it does though.

What you wrap up in costing models is mind boggling.

To me there should be a cost for
1) Ship, CSC
- I can accept (partially) that the combat systems, weapons etc going into the ship are part of that, especially new systems.

I can’t understand how one would put crew costs into the ship. Considering the CAF budget has a cutout for salary.

I disagree with putting NSS coating into the ship - as those costs are Defense Infrastructure, and should be separate (same concept as the F-35 shouldn’t be coated with northern run way upgrades).
Those items needed to be done regardless of platform simply as a cost of being a Nation.

Project Staff; again salaries are already costed - they were being paid regardless of what program they are on, it’s simply part of National Defense to have those staffs.

O&M. Most countries have a dedicated Operations and Maintenance budget - it goes to ensure that one’s military is functioning. O&M isn’t used for new equipment (it’s illegal down here to use O&M to field new equipment). Fuel, parts, ammunition etc falls under this, generally if the Government requires more Operational usage than forecast, it will then allocate contingency funds (and this is where the USG often overspends)

National Defense isn’t a business, it shouldn’t be costed like a business, as how do you put a $ value on Gov directed missions?

It just seems that the way the CAF is forced to cost programs is designed to make giant political targets out of truly required resources for conducting the missions that are required of a Nation.

Part of it goes back, no sh!t, to the refit of the Bonaventure in 1966 at Davie. DND (pre-Heller) and Public Works used contracting models that defied logic but were intended to to be "fair" (think 25% for Québec, but this was years before that became official Gov't of Canada policy).

Anyway, legend, as I heard it, has it that Davie was so frustrated with the complexity of the paperwork that it devised a shortcut: it put several tens of thousands of dollars worth of hardware, nuts bolts, washers, grommets and whatever on one cabinet and sent it through.

n. Cabinet, spare parts ... $ 20.00​

n. Cabinet, spare parts ... $ 20.00​

n. Cabinet, spare parts ... $37,458.95​

n. Cabinet, spare parts ... $ 20.00​

n. Cabinet, spare parts ... $ 20.00​

It wasn't noticed by Public Works or DND (not surprising) but the Auditor General picked it up some years later and it became fodder for more government "reforms" which, most likely, made things worse.

It's analogous to, and maybe a true as, the famous pre-WWII story about the handover of the Royal Navy dockyard in Singapore ...

n. Boats, gravy, Wardroom, white ... $ 4.00​

n. Boats, gravy, C&PO's Mess, blue ... $ 3.00​

n. Boats, tug, harbour, grey ... $57,984.95​

n. Boats, gravy etc, etc ... $ 2.00​

... but that's the story as I heard it, from a very, very senior officer back in the mid 1980s.

 

[Stoker]

Didn't I see someone saying something about the degaussing system on the CSC? Something about being a superconducting one that needs to be supercooled. Any word on who the manufacturer is? Would love to do some research on it.

 

[Underway]

Didn't I see someone saying something about the degaussing system on the CSC? Something about being a superconducting one that needs to be supercooled. Any word on who the manufacturer is? Would love to do some research on it.

It was from @Navy_Pete IIRC.

Some of the CSC odd things come from overly specific requirements. One was a sea surface tempurature measurement device that could measure the sea surface temp to X depth with X accuracy. This of course is to help the weather witch with their calculations. Problem was that no such device exists in the world that could do X along with X. This could have gone two ways. Develop and implement a new temp sensor OR find one that is good enough. They changed the contract to good enough and carried on.

But not all of those specifications get changed. Deguassing is a very specific requirement to do a very specific job vs currently existing threats. The RCN to its credit and detriment tries very hard to do data based decision making to deal with threats. This supercooled degaussing may be on the detriment side despite the excellent intentions if keeping sailors safe.

 

[Furniture]

It was from @Navy_Pete IIRC.

Some of the CSC odd things come from overly specific requirements. One was a sea surface tempurature measurement device that could measure the sea surface temp to X depth with X accuracy. This of course is to help the weather witch with their calculations. Problem was that no such device exists in the world that could do X along with X. This could have gone two ways. Develop and implement a new temp sensor OR find one that is good enough. They changed the contract to good enough and carried on.

But not all of those specifications get changed. Deguassing is a very specific requirement to do a very specific job vs currently existing threats. The RCN to its credit and detriment tries very hard to do data based decision making to deal with threats. This supercooled degaussing may be on the detriment side despite the excellent intentions if keeping sailors safe.

Interestingly, I was just in a meeting today where we were discussing a very closely related issue.

It turns out "expert" by posting message can lead to people misinterpreting WMO suggestions for lab accuracy as hard and fast requirements.

 

[suffolkowner]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/hunt-down-real-trouble-in-worldclass-frigate-build/news-story/4fde9aafe4d6f16bcdafaa587d5c05c2

"What is often missing from the commentary is that the Hunter has been designed to accommodate emerging technologies, or enhance the warfighting effectiveness should there be a greater threat to our strategic environment. Our engineers have already proven that the Hunter can accommodate greater than 96 vertical launch missile cells, if asked to do so."

I wonder how they square that with weight issues?

 

[Underway]

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/hunt-down-real-trouble-in-worldclass-frigate-build/news-story/4fde9aafe4d6f16bcdafaa587d5c05c2

"What is often missing from the commentary is that the Hunter has been designed to accommodate emerging technologies, or enhance the warfighting effectiveness should there be a greater threat to our strategic environment. Our engineers have already proven that the Hunter can accommodate greater than 96 vertical launch missile cells, if asked to do so."

I wonder how they square that with weight issues?

They cut the mission deck and put them there. Its possible, you just have to start removing other things.

 

[suffolkowner]

They cut the mission deck and put them there. Its possible, you just have to start removing other things.

Have you seen that mockup? I didnt see the how mentioned in the article

Also potential CAMM growth options?

https://twitter.com/x/status/1717273193122083304

 

[Lumber]

So, at a recent briefing on CSC they said that they (the project) and the Navy writ large recognize that 24 VLS cells is NOT enough, but that there is no more room, so if we want more cells, something has to go...

The ship is 8000 tons and is expected to be up to 9000 tons by end of life (when new and emerging systems come on line). It has bunks for only 210 officers and crew, and has only 1 Gas Turbine engine.

Conversely, the Arleigh Burke Flight I and II weight around 8300 tons, have 4 x Gas Turbine engines, and bunking 300+officers and crew, yet they can fit in 90 VLS cells...

So what is it that's aboard a CSC that is taking up all that extra room that we can, right now, put on more cells?

 

[Kirkhill]

So, at a recent briefing on CSC they said that they (the project) and the Navy writ large recognize that 24 VLS cells is NOT enough, but that there is no more room, so if we want more cells, something has to go...

The ship is 8000 tons and is expected to be up to 9000 tons by end of life (when new and emerging systems come on line). It has bunks for only 210 officers and crew, and has only 1 Gas Turbine engine.

Conversely, the Arleigh Burke Flight I and II weight around 8300 tons, have 4 x Gas Turbine engines, and bunking 300+officers and crew, yet they can fit in 90 VLS cells...

So what is it that's aboard a CSC that is taking up all that extra room that we can, right now, put on more cells?