• 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

And with apologies to Little Orphan Annie "Tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow, tomorrow..........."

Multibillion-dollar naval warship project hits another delay

LEE BERTHIAUME, THE CANADIAN PRESS  05.26.2017

OTTAWA — Hopes that the multibillion-dollar effort to replace the navy's warship fleet would move along quickly have taken a hit amid word the massive shipbuilding project has suffered another delay.

The federal government launched a competition last fall asking some of the world's largest defence and shipbuilding firms to design a potential replacement for the navy's 12 frigates and three destroyers.

Companies were given until the end of April to submit their designs, after which one would be selected and constructed by Halifax-based Irving Shipbuilding.

Government officials warned at the time that there was little room for delays or other hang-ups.

But the federal public procurement department, which already extended the submission deadline by two months in February, says the companies have now been given even more time to enter their designs.

How much time?

"A new submission deadline will be communicated to the bidders shortly," Public Services and Procurement Canada spokesman Pierre-Alain Bujold said in an email.


Officials say the latest extension was needed to finish answering the approximately 560 questions that participating firms have asked the department about the bidding process since the competition started.

But this latest delay in what is the largest military procurement project in Canadian history, with a value of up to $40 billion, is cause for concern, given past assertions about the need for speed.

The navy recently retired all its destroyers, meaning fewer ships to patrol Canada's coasts and operate overseas, as well as a shortage of air-defence capabilities, until the new vessels arrive in the mid-2020s.

But more importantly, government officials said in October that they wanted Irving Shipbuilding in Halifax to begin work on the new warships as soon as it finishes the last of five new Arctic patrol ships in 2019.

Officials have said a gap, which currently sits at about two years as work on the warships isn't expected to start until 2021, would cost tax dollars as workers and equipment sit idle and material costs go up.

"From a program perspective, we have not a lot of flexibility," Patrick Finn, the head of military procurement at the Department of National Defence, said in October.

"Right now, schedule is very important for us. There are some risks emerging that we need to deal with."

Irving president Kevin McCoy has also since warned of "significant layoffs" at the Halifax shipyard, unless the gap is closed or the government provides it with more work.

Bujold said minimizing the gap remains a high priority for the government and Irving and that "the extent and impact of the gap will continue to be analyzed and potential mitigation actions examined."

Irving spokesman Sean Lewis echoed that assessment, saying in a statement that the company was working with the government "towards minimizing any disruption to the workforce" because of the gap.

"It is important that we take time to listen to the short-listed bidders and respond to their questions," Lewis added. "This will ensure they are able to submit a thorough and well-informed response."

Irving was selected in 2010 to construct between six and eight Arctic patrol vessels for $2.3 billion and 15 warships, known in defence circles as Canadian surface combatants, for $26 billion.

Both projects have since been amended due to scheduling and cost issues. Irving is now committed to building five Arctic ships, though it may add a sixth.

Meanwhile, the Liberal government has said it will not discuss a price or how many warships it will buy until more information is available, after documents pegged the cost at closer to $40 billion.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/naval+warship+project+hits+another+delay/13399362/story.html

Meanwhile we have this suggestion

http://navy.ca/forums/threads/17282/post-1490083.html#msg1490083

I think we should ask Davie to provide a Turn key CSC alternative bid and see what they come up with.

But I think we are seeing some pushback on that front

The Globe and CTV seem to have decided Davie are not nice.

BARRIE MCKENNA
Quebec’s Davie shipyard: the boondoggle that keeps taking

Quebec seeks probe of Davie shipyard as part of contract review
STEVEN CHASE, DANIEL LEBLANC AND ROBERT FIFE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, May 25, 2017 10:10PM EDT
Last updated Friday, May 26, 2017 7:16AM EDT

Together with Fife's previous "Tale of Two Shipyards"  and the CDR battle this is all starting to look really interesting.

Is it too much to hope that some light may penetrate stygian depths?  And we might discover that even with a paltry 20 BCAD per annum we might be able to buy appropriate quantities of suitable kit in a timely fashion.

Heading for another beer.  Anyone want pizza? 








 
This solution seems insanely simple.

Ask Irving what kind of ship or ships they can build over a 2-4 year period. Evaluate those designs against current market demand. Pay Irving to build however many of those vessels they can between the end of AOPS and whenever CSC starts. We have no use for these ships, so sell them on the open market to whomever needs them (hence the market research).

We may take a loss on this, but that loss is basically a premium laid to keep Irving and it's employees working. This sounds like another shitty bailout for Irving, but in the long run, keeping those employees working ensure they continue to build experience in shipbuilding, that we don't lose them together to other industries, it ensures Irving is 100% ready to hit the ground running when CSC does start, and it's good for the local economy.

Why is this so complicated?

Lots of places use ferries; just build some f*kkin ferries.
 
I find it interesting that Irving is saying there would be layoffs after the bust if the government doesn't get the ball rolling and give them more work. Is it impossible for them to have more work outside of government contracts though? If so then their stance makes sense. If not... They need to build up a larger customer base and increase their capacity.
 
serger989 said:
I find it interesting that Irving is saying there would be layoffs after the bust if the government doesn't get the ball rolling and give them more work. Is it impossible for them to have more work outside of government contracts though? If so then their stance makes sense. If not... They need to build up a larger customer base and increase their capacity.

Its all part of the game, plead poverty and all the layoffs if they don't get work.
 
KINGSTON  was laid down in December 94, and SUMMERSIDE hit the water in September 98. Basically 4 years to build the class when ISL was a crappy yard (allegedly) as compared to the ultra modern technology now at their disposal.

By 2019 (beginning of the alleged 2 year gap), SUMMERSIDE will have been in commission for 20 years, and KINGSTON for 22 years.

Two possibilities I can see: Use the gap to do major mid-life and upgrades on the MCDVs so they can go on for another 20 years. Or, in the next six months, come up with specifications for some sort of coastal defence vessel - keep it simple and let the designers come up with propositions (my preference would be around 1000t., 60 to 70 meters l.o.a., capable of 25 kts., no helicopter) that would become the next generation of vessels capable of providing gainful employment for reservists and keep their skill levels high without interfering too much in the operations of the main surface fleet), hold a design competition - these are simple vessels and a design can be developed, then reviewed and selected in a maximum of 18 months, to then let the contract to Irving to build them between 2019 and 2021, or up to whenever the gap is closed.

Then, if this second option: sell the MCDVs to other less fortunate navies, as there are always some looking for these kind of vessels.

As they say at Kayak: Problem Solved!
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
KINGSTON  was laid down in December 94, and SUMMERSIDE hit the water in September 98. Basically 4 years to build the class when ISL was a crappy yard (allegedly) as compared to the ultra modern technology now at their disposal.

By 2019 (beginning of the alleged 2 year gap), SUMMERSIDE will have been in commission for 20 years, and KINGSTON for 22 years.

Two possibilities I can see: Use the gap to do major mid-life and upgrades on the MCDVs so they can go on for another 20 years. Or, in the next six months, come up with specifications for some sort of coastal defence vessel - keep it simple and let the designers come up with propositions (my preference would be around 1000t., 60 to 70 meters l.o.a., capable of 25 kts., no helicopter) that would become the next generation of vessels capable of providing gainful employment for reservists and keep their skill levels high without interfering too much in the operations of the main surface fleet), hold a design competition - these are simple vessels and a design can be developed, then reviewed and selected in a maximum of 18 months, to then let the contract to Irving to build them between 2019 and 2021, or up to whenever the gap is closed.

Then, if this second option: sell the MCDVs to other less fortunate navies, as there are always some looking for these kind of vessels.

As they say at Kayak: Problem Solved!

The Kingston Class were built to commercial standards and not all the ship was built as HSL, the bows were constructed separately in Georgetown PEI, floated up on a barge and mated with the superstructure thus the relative fast build time for 12 ships. The Class is still being looked at retention post 2019, most likely scenario some may be paid off however the rumblings I have heard is major items being refitted during their 60M docking. The intent is to use the Kingston Class to develop crews for the AOPS as I understand it.
Naval reservists are employed across across all classes of RCN ships. With the addition of AOPS, there is no immediate need of a coastal defence vessel.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
KINGSTON  was laid down in December 94, and SUMMERSIDE hit the water in September 98. Basically 4 years to build the class when ISL was a crappy yard (allegedly) as compared to the ultra modern technology now at their disposal.

By 2019 (beginning of the alleged 2 year gap), SUMMERSIDE will have been in commission for 20 years, and KINGSTON for 22 years.

Two possibilities I can see: Use the gap to do major mid-life and upgrades on the MCDVs so they can go on for another 20 years. Or, in the next six months, come up with specifications for some sort of coastal defence vessel - keep it simple and let the designers come up with propositions (my preference would be around 1000t., 60 to 70 meters l.o.a., capable of 25 kts., no helicopter) that would become the next generation of vessels capable of providing gainful employment for reservists and keep their skill levels high without interfering too much in the operations of the main surface fleet), hold a design competition - these are simple vessels and a design can be developed, then reviewed and selected in a maximum of 18 months, to then let the contract to Irving to build them between 2019 and 2021, or up to whenever the gap is closed.

Then, if this second option: sell the MCDVs to other less fortunate navies, as there are always some looking for these kind of vessels.

As they say at Kayak: Problem Solved!

How about as above but with a flat spot but no hangar?
 
And up rivers that bigger ones can't.

I have this fantasy exercise of an RCN unit leaving from the Lakehead and ending up in Yellowknife.
 
Chris Pook said:
And up rivers that bigger ones can't.

I have this fantasy exercise of an RCN unit leaving from the Lakehead and ending up in Yellowknife.

5433260155_47a689f04f_b.jpg
 
Chris Pook said:
And up rivers that bigger ones can't.

I have this fantasy exercise of an RCN unit leaving from the Lakehead and ending up in Yellowknife.

Well we are having RCN river craft going from Yellowknife to Hudson's bay this summer.
 
In the arctic, nothing outruns the mosquitoes!

All kidding aside, the RCN does not have "river" crafts per se. Moreover, you have to get the crafts up there to start with.

So what we are talking about is RHiBs, including possibly the protection ones used in Halifax and Esquimalt that have an enclosed small cabin, as those type of crafts are the only ones that we have that will fit inside a Herc or a C-17 for delivery to Yellowknife.

Even if it is the enclosed cabin ones, a trip from Yellowknife to the Arctic along the whole length of the MacKenzie river rates as Adventure Training, as far as I am concerned.

And for a Lake head to Yellowknife transit, I would not want to use the Brazilian river patrol vessels, like the RAPOSO TAVARES whose picture Colin provided. That thing has barge like flat bottom and it would keel over in any type of storm on the Great lakes, in the gulf of Saint-Lawrence or along the coast of  Labrador.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
In the arctic, nothing outruns the mosquitoes!

All kidding aside, the RCN does not have "river" crafts per se. Moreover, you have to get the crafts up there to start with.

So what we are talking about is RHiBs, including possibly the protection ones used in Halifax and Esquimalt that have an enclosed small cabin, as those type of crafts are the only ones that we have that will fit inside a Herc or a C-17 for delivery to Yellowknife.

Even if it is the enclosed cabin ones, a trip from Yellowknife to the Arctic along the whole length of the MacKenzie river rates as Adventure Training, as far as I am concerned.

And for a Lake head to Yellowknife transit, I would not want to use the Brazilian river patrol vessels, like the RAPOSO TAVARES whose picture Colin provided. That thing has barge like flat bottom and it would keel over in any type of storm on the Great lakes, in the gulf of Saint-Lawrence or along the coast of  Labrador.

We actually did it in Whalers in the 70's.

18700132_10155572633587345_6779336165245862057_n_zps6hhohd8q.jpg


RAdm John F. Newton,
Commander Maritime Forces Atlantic ~

As sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy, we take pride in our inheritance of skill in patrol of the North Atlantic and vast Pacific Ocean. Recent experiences in operations that ranged from the Black Sea, to the Gulf of Guinea, and deep into Indo-Asia-Pacific have reasserted our global “deployability”.

In a new undertaking, 20 hand-picked sailors will gain experiential learning in a bold and completely new task. They will set sail on a once-in-a-lifetime voyage of Canada’s longest waterway, the Mackenzie River.

In celebration of Canada’s 150th anniversary, four force protection cutters will join Operation Nunakput 17. The flotilla will follow the waters that drain into a great watershed of northwestern Canada, from Great Slave Lake to the Beaufort Sea. On a voyage extending 4,000 kilometres to the sea and back, sailors of the Royal Canadian Navy will witness their land and peoples in a manner that very few have experienced.

How to apply

Over the next few weeks, the MARLANT Formation Chief, CPO1 Pierre Auger, will lead a selection process for the Nunakput boat crews. Personnel interested in obtaining more information should contact Chief Auger directly at Pierre.Auger@forces.gc.ca. Those wishing to participate are to make their interest known through their unit chain of command.

Operation Nunakput

Operation Nunakput is a sovereignty operation conducted annually under the command of Joint Task Force North. The mission is undertaken jointly with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and Provincial Government partners in order to ensure maximum sovereignty expression in the sparsely populated North.

Military participants include the 1st Canadian Ranger Patrol Group and five of their Patrols along the Mackenzie River. In the air, 440 Transport Squadron will sustain the mission using the venerable Canadian bush plane, the CC-138 Twin Otter. Canadian Army personnel will support the mission with Ranger Instructors and logistics.

After successfully testing the feasibility of force protection cutters during Nunakput 16, four of these high powered jet boats have been prepared for the 2017 mission.

Each cutter will be crewed by four sailors, male and female, selected from the two coastal Formations, national headquarters and Naval Reserve. The first group will execute the down-bound transit from Yellowknife, the second the up-bound leg. Inuvik, on the shores of the Arctic Ocean, will be the crew change and turnaround point. Each group will spend about seven days on the Mackenzie River, and between two and three days total in transit to and from the mission. The overall mission window is July 4 to 20.

Nights will be spent camping out in the great Canadian Boreal Forest. Field craft and small boat operating skills will be learned from Rangers. Engaging with fellow citizens living in remote communities will ensure that the mission is both a memorable experience and key learning opportunity as the navy prepares to take delivery of the Arctic Offshore Patrol Vessels.

Indeed, the skills learned on Nunakput are formative requirements for those who will routinely voyage north in HMCS Harry DeWolf and the other ships of the class.

This will be an epic adventure, an important learning moment, and thrilling Canada 150 celebration. The mission commander is Lt(N) Jeff Horne, the second in command, Chief Petty Officer Second Class Currie.
 
Time for me to drop a buck on a lottery.  Fantasy meets reality.

The variant exercise could see a flotilla of boats leave the Lakehead, transit to Quebec City, be taken aboard a pair of deWolfs, delivered to the mouth of the Mackenzie and then Navigate upstream to Yellowknife..... or, since you are doing boats see if you can make it to Peace River or Athabaska.

Yep.  It would just be adventure training - in the same sense that most of the Arctic Sovereignty exercises are adventure training.  The point is it is done because it can be done because we own the place.

And the Press coverage wouldn't be bad either.
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
In the arctic, nothing outruns the mosquitoes!

All kidding aside, the RCN does not have "river" crafts per se. Moreover, you have to get the crafts up there to start with.

So what we are talking about is RHiBs, including possibly the protection ones used in Halifax and Esquimalt that have an enclosed small cabin, as those type of crafts are the only ones that we have that will fit inside a Herc or a C-17 for delivery to Yellowknife.

Even if it is the enclosed cabin ones, a trip from Yellowknife to the Arctic along the whole length of the MacKenzie river rates as Adventure Training, as far as I am concerned.

And for a Lake head to Yellowknife transit, I would not want to use the Brazilian river patrol vessels, like the RAPOSO TAVARES whose picture Colin provided. That thing has barge like flat bottom and it would keel over in any type of storm on the Great lakes, in the gulf of Saint-Lawrence or along the coast of  Labrador.

Believe it or not as far as I am aware the CCG sailed all their rivercraft up to Western Arctic from Vancouver

dfo-photo-801-multimedia-eng.jpg
 
PBO report just out:

The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants
1 June 2017

Get the report
The Cost of Canada’s Surface Combatants.pdf
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/web/default/files/Documents/Reports/2017/CSC%20Costing/CSC_EN.pdf

Summary

The objective of this report is to provide a cost estimate of the CSC program. This estimate includes costs resulting from development, production, spare parts, ammunition, training, government program management and upgrades to existing facilities. It does not include costs associated with the operation, maintenance and mid-life refurbishment of the ships [emphasis added], other than the spare parts that will be purchased when the ships are built.

There are two primary cost drivers for surface combatants: the ship’s weight and the combat system. The weight of surface combatants has been increasing, while their combat systems have become more and more complex, both factors driving up their cost.

Assumptions which the PBO used for it estimation were:

    Contract awarded in 2018
    Construction starts in 2021
    15th ship delivered in 2041
    CSC based on an existing design with 5,400 tons used as the reference lightship weight [emphasis added]

Total program cost in FY2017 dollars is estimated to be $39.94 billion or $61.82 billion in then-year dollars. The original budget for the CSC was $26.2 billion (from 2008 and under review) [emphasis added] and it is estimated to buy six ships...
http://www.pbo-dpb.gc.ca/en/blog/news/CSC_costing

Gentlemen and gentlewomen, start your abaci.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Back
Top