Canadian Surface Combatant RFQ

[Cloud Cover]

Back to the CSC program. It seems that Canadian firms are obtaining contracts with the Type 26 program in the UK, this news from BAE itself.  If the Type 26 is a design contender, this certainly helps...
http://www.baesystems.com/en-ca/article/canadian-firms-win-contracts-to-support-uk-type-26-program

Canadian firms win contracts to support UK Type 26 program
Ottawa-based engineering firm WR Davis is the first Canadian company to secure a manufacturing contract to provide key equipment to the UK’s Type 26 Global Combat Ship program.
BAE Systems, the designer and manufacturer of this next generation anti-submarine warfare ship, has awarded the C$12m contract to WR Davis Engineering Ltd for the Uptake and Downtake elements of the ship’s funnel and exhaust system for the first three Type 26 ships. These components are key elements of the engine and propulsion system in the new UK Royal Navy ships.

Tom Davis, Vice President of WR Davis Engineering Ltd, said: “We are delighted to participate in the prestigious UK Royal Navy Type 26 Global Combat Ship program for the supply of the complete Downtake, Uptake, and Infra-Red Suppression systems for the propulsion and ship service engines. This builds on our previous experience of supplying similar systems for the UK Royal Navy’s Type 45 destroyers and reinforces our position as a world leader in the design and supply of engine Downtakes and Uptakes, for naval warships.”

WR Davis is one of seven supply chain partners to have been awarded equipment manufacturing contracts with BAE Systems. The Canadian firm has already started performing system integration and detailed design work on the Type 26 program.

The manufacturing contracts follow on from a number of design contracts already placed for the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program, including Montreal-based L-3 MAPPS for major elements of the platform management system in support of its L-3 Marine Systems UK business and Rolls-Royce, based in Peterborough, Ontario, for the mission bay handling system.

BAE Systems’ Ric Elkington, based in Ottawa, said: “Canadian companies are playing a crucial role in the development of Type 26. This design is a next generation multi-mission frigate and is being considered for the Canadian Surface Combatant, to be built by Irving Shipbuilding Inc in Halifax, Nova Scotia. 

“The work already underway on Type 26 could eventually lead to over C$70m of work for Canadian industry, based on the construction of eight Type 26 ships for the UK Royal Navy.”

The UK Ministry of Defence awarded BAE Systems a C$886m contract in March 2016 to continue to progress the Type 26 Global Combat Ship program following the UK Government’s commitment in the Strategic Defence and Security Review to buy eight of the advanced anti-submarine warfare ships. This contract reinforced the UK Government’s investment in Type 26 ensuring continued momentum to further mature the detailed design work and to manufacture key equipment for the first three ships.

The Type 26 Global Combat Ship will be a world-class anti-submarine warfare ship and will in time replace the UK Royal Navy’s Type 23 frigates. Globally deployable, it will be capable of undertaking a wide range of roles from high intensity warfare to humanitarian assistance, either operating independently or as part of a task group.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

More on Italian PPA (much more than normal OPV):

Mark
Ottawa

No missile system?

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Actually, Colin, the "full" configuration includes 16 cells for Aster 15 and Aster 30 anti-air missiles and 8 cells for Ottoman or follow on surface to surface missiles.

The real question is how many "full" version can the Italian navy afford (so far, one for testing), and how successful will it be as a front line warship? This second question is the reason they have ordered one "full" version, so it can be put through its pace and decide if it is a proper front line warship.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Both Fincantiere and Naval Group (was DCNS) FREMMs in running for CSC:

France wants naval industry tie-up with Italy

France is keen to strengthen its naval industry and is pursuing cooperation with Italy in a bid to be a leader in building surface warships, according to France’s armed forces minister.

“I will also push for our defense industry,” Florence Parly said. “This is one of the catalysts for European defense and one of the motors for the French economy.”

The minister said she wanted to “give our defense industry the means to develop strongly,” particularly the naval sector. “That is why I am presently working on forming an alliance between the French and Italian naval industries in the area of surface warships with the ambition of building a world leader.”

Pauly was giving the closing speech Sept. 5 at a high-level defense conference at Toulon, southern France.

“This ambitious project was making progress, with the close cooperation of the companies concerned,” she said, adding that she would further address the subject in the next few weeks.

The French and Italian government have previously agreed that the two countries would reach an agreement by Sept. 27 in an attempt to resolve a dispute over the acquisition of STX, a French commercial shipyard, by Italian state-owned company Fincantieri.

The STX yard at Saint-Nazaire, western France, is the only one large enough in France to build an aircraft carrier, prompting concerns over national sovereignty.

Fincantieri, Naval Group and STX could cooperate and become a European leader to compete in the world market for commercial and military shipping, the French and Italian government said after an Aug. 1 ministerial meeting in Rome, where they sought to defuse the row over ownership of the STX yard.



Naval Group is in discussions with Fincantieri for cooperation on a surface warship, according to a spokesman for the French state-controlled shipbuilder. Naval Group has long had experience cooperating with Fincantieri, as the two worked together on the Horizon anti-submarine frigate and the FREMM multimission frigate, he noted.

The French company is also still in talks with the French government and Fincantieri on taking a stake in STX France, a commercial shipyard.

Naval Group may eventually hold 10-15 percent of STX if the French and Italian governments reach an accord on an acquisition by Fincantieri of the commercial yard...
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2017/09/06/france-wants-naval-industry-tie-up-with-italy/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

For pity's putrefying sake!

Deadline for warship designs pushed several more months

Federal procurement officials are playing down the impact of yet another delay in the competition to design new warships for the navy, saying the extra time will help produce a better result.

The design competition is the most recent — and arguably most sensitive — phase in the entire $60-billion plan to build 15 new warships, construction of which is expected to begin in 2021.

Defence companies were originally supposed to have submitted their proposed designs for the vessels in April, but the deadline has since been pushed back several times.

Lisa Campbell, head of military procurement at Public Services and Procurement Canada, said officials are now aiming to have the ship designs arrive in mid-November, though an exact date still hasn't been set.

The delay was necessary, she said, to ensure all the participating companies understood what was expected of them, which will ensure a level playing field and maximize the number of bids.

The comments underscore the confusion — and extremely high stakes — that have surrounded the design competition, which involves many of the world's largest defence and shipbuilding companies.

Campbell said the government is also changing the way it evaluates the proposed designs, and will tell companies if their submissions don't meet the government's requirements.

There have long been concerns, including within the Department of National Defence, that any delay in the design competition will push the whole project off schedule.

That could result in higher construction costs and affect the navy's ability to do its job. The navy is already operating with fewer ships after retiring its three destroyers without a replacement.

The government likely won't be able to select the winning design until 2018, Campbell acknowledged, "but we still anticipate ship construction in the early 2020s. So it hasn't changed our ship construction start date."

One of the main grumbles from industry over the past few months has been the amount of valuable intellectual property, or IP, they are being required to hand over to the government and Irving Shipbuilding.

The Halifax-based shipyard is running the design competition in co-operation with the federal government, and will be responsible for building the warships in the coming years.

Campbell defended the government's approach, however, saying officials want to ensure they have whatever information is needed to not only buy the warships, but to operate and maintain them for decades.

"In many ways, this is an IP procurement," she said.

"And it is hugely important to Canada. It's very, very important for us to treat intellectual property carefully because it means Canada will have control of choice and competition down the road."
http://www.timescolonist.com/deadline-for-warship-designs-pushed-several-more-months-1.22478799

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Underway]

For pity's putrefying sake!

Mark
Ottawa

You were surprised by this?  There seems to be more work going into pre-bid compliance evaluation than was originally anticipated, however that also means less work for compliance evaluation on the other end of the process after bids are "officially in".  Might be a case of more work up front and less at the back (*both fingers crossed*).  At the end of the day late spring and early summer was the expected time for the competition winner to be announced.  I will be more concerned if those timelines slip.

 

[MilEME09]

Well this is interesting

https://youtu.be/UZ8VItho9rM

What could Davie be upto?

 

[Half Full]

Might be a case of more work up front and less at the back (*both fingers crossed*).

From the CBC article :http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/politics/warship-design-delay-1.4277967
"Campbell said that the navy's requirements for the kinds of warships it wants and the systems that will go into them has not changed."
This tells me  that the requirements haven't changed but that the problem lies elsewhere... And in this case I bet the issue lies with Irving.  They have too much power and control over this project... And i will bet a beer they are concerned that they can't build them the way the companies have told them the Mots designs need to be built.  Probably to high of a standard required!

 

[Kirkhill]

Not to mention Canada wanting the suppliers to teach Canada how to compete with them - at the same time the French and Italians are discovering that they can't maintain their own national yards.

 

[Underway]

Well this is interesting

https://youtu.be/UZ8VItho9rM

What could Davie be upto?

Davie has been pushing distributed block building for a while now.  If Canada were to implement distributed block build it reduces the impact inflation has on shipbuilding programs because the ships are built faster.  As an example the Harry DeWolfe is 70% finished.  Mainly it is missing a bow.  If the bow was made concurrent with the other two megablocks (at say Davie's shipyard?) then the Harry DeWolfe would be 90% finished right now and probably be ready to float end of Sept instead of end Jan. 

This could conceivably reduce the time for the ships by up to 50% if you had multiple yards working on multiple blocks, ship them to Irving for final assembly etc...

It would also spread the wealth out to multiple shipyards across the country.  In this model there would be a single prime contractor who would then subcontract out other parts to other shipyards.

Davie is basically angling for a piece of the CSC with this video while trying to look reasonable.  Irving could easily subcontract them to make the superstructure etc...  but they will only do that if the gov't forces them too.  It could also increase the amount of profit for Irving as the contract might be a fixed amount and therefore if they can find a way to build cheaper (ie: fight inflation) then more profit...

 

[MilEME09]

Davie has been pushing distributed block building for a while now.  If Canada were to implement distributed block build it reduces the impact inflation has on shipbuilding programs because the ships are built faster.  As an example the Harry DeWolfe is 70% finished.  Mainly it is missing a bow.  If the bow was made concurrent with the other two megablocks (at say Davie's shipyard?) then the Harry DeWolfe would be 90% finished right now and probably be ready to float end of Sept instead of end Jan. 

This could conceivably reduce the time for the ships by up to 50% if you had multiple yards working on multiple blocks, ship them to Irving for final assembly etc...

It would also spread the wealth out to multiple shipyards across the country.  In this model there would be a single prime contractor who would then subcontract out other parts to other shipyards.

Davie is basically angling for a piece of the CSC with this video while trying to look reasonable.  Irving could easily subcontract them to make the superstructure etc...  but they will only do that if the gov't forces them too.  It could also increase the amount of profit for Irving as the contract might be a fixed amount and therefore if they can find a way to build cheaper (ie: fight inflation) then more profit...

Well in my opinion the entire shipbuilding plan should be a national plan, controlled by the government, where we hand out the work to yard for certain parts of the program, as you stated say Davie and others build blocks, Irving assembles and finishes. The government would get ships faster, everyone get's work, and if we planned it right we could keep the yards busy constantly for decades to come.

 

[NavyShooter]

In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them. 

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS

 

[FSTO]

In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them. 

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS

:goodpost:

So true.

 

[Halifax Tar]

In my opinion, I will not see a CSC in the water within the remaining span of my career.

I have my doubts that we'll see steel cut in that time.

In my opinion and experience, the yard that is most likely to build them is incapable of providing a properly refurbished Frigate back to the navy without what I can only call "willful deliberate sabotage" and once the ships are back in the hands of the navy, there is still months of work left to do prior to seaworthiness.

The idea that our government could somehow manage this build better than industry is only possible because of what I feel to be the incompetence of the yard most likely to build them. 

Again, those are my opinions, based on my experience.

NS

:cdnsalute:  :goodpost:

The fact we continue to give that yard tax dollars, breaks and contracts boggles my mind. 

 

[jollyjacktar]

I'm more boggled that we don't make them properly fulfill the contract without penalty as we always let them slide on things.  They always get a hall pass.

 

[YZT580]

The maritimes voted liberal, almost unanimously.  Without them, Trudeau is the leader of the opposition.  La Belle Province not so certain.  Logically I would support Irving too, regardless of product. 

 

[MarkOttawa]

While agree that a high-low (largish OPVs? smaller frigates? corvettes?) mix of sorts for RCN surface warship fleet--A/OPS not real warship--is all that is affordable, we must keep in mind need to have sufficient ASW/anti-missile capability to contribute usefully to NATO vs resurgent Russian navy submarine/cruise missile threat:

Scale back warship plan: analyst

In June the federal government more than doubled the $26-billion budget to build 15 new Canadian Surface Combatant vessels — the first of which is expected to be delivered in 2026 — to $60 billion.

The U.K. revealed plans this week to buy five budget Type 31e general purpose frigates, on top of the eight type 26 global combat ships currently being constructed by BAE Systems, at a cost equivalent of about $400 million Canadian a piece. This is a fraction of what their Type 26 global combat ships — which are one of the designs in the running for Canada’s new fleet — will cost.

Ken Hansen, a retired navy commander and defence analyst, said Canada ought to follow countries like the U.K. and Denmark in scaling back on what he calls outrageous military-grade engineering standards as well as considering purchasing some vessels with more basic capabilities.

“(These standards are) driving defence procurement to ridiculously high extremes when in fact there is no imminent conflict that would justify that kind of expenditure,” he said.

“Historically . . . what we have always done is a high-low mix, and it makes no sense to be sending a really high capability ship off to low risk tasks,” he said.

According to Hansen, a large portion of shipbuilding costs are due to using extremely high engineering standards for systems and subsystems — things like water, power, heating and ventilation — that are commonly available, something that he said Denmark has managed to opt out of.

“They use Caterpillar diesel engines for diesel generators and they use stuff from their marine industry, the best industrial standard is good enough.”

Hansen said it was once thought that over engineering could improve survivability, but that’s no longer true with modern weaponry.

“Engineering standards will not save you for a torpedo hit or high-speed missile hit. The only thing that will absorb the destructive power of modern weaponry is size. So you’re better off to build it bigger and then use redundancy to get survivability, and that’s what the Danes do as well,” he said.

Instead of two diesel generators on a ship, Hansen said, the Danes will have four or six because because they’re a 10th of the cost of a military spec diesel generator.

“What’s driving the government to say ‘Oh we have to put all this extra money in the program,’ is that they’re allowing the navy to dictate this requirement when there’s no historical justification for it. If you do the analysis on the lethality of modern systems for it, there’s no justification for it there either,” he said...
http://thechronicleherald.ca/novascotia/1501098-scale-back-warship-plan-analyst

Related:

What Is the RCN For? Reprise
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/mark-collins-what-is-the-rcn-for-reprise/

USN “Admiral Warns: Russian Subs Waging Cold War-Style ‘Battle of the Atlantic’”–and RCN?
...
perhaps the national defence minister’s defence policy review should look very hard indeed at the minimum number of new Canadian Surface Combatants that will be needed to be seriously ready for real anti-submarine warfare–as opposed to say the essentially show-the-flag and alliance support expeditionary operations sometimes conducted by the RCN’s current frigates (which of course also are very ASW capable). Also how essential and affordable are the Navy’s few submarines for North Atlantic ASW and can we afford any substantial number of new ones down the road?..
https://cgai3ds.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/mark-collins-usn-admiral-warns-russian-subs-waging-cold-war-style-battle-of-the-atlantic-and-rcn/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[jollyjacktar]

They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.

 

[Underway]

They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.

Agreed.

The difference between the RCN and the Euro navies is that we can operate 24/7.  They operate 12 hours a day and then do basic bridge watch overnight.  Also because they've reduced manning so much they can't fight and do damage control at the same time.  Or if they take damage they have to "pull out of the line" to keep the ship alive.  RCN ships can always fight and damage control together (as does UK, US and I think Australia).  Civilian ship standards mean that when you do take damage it's often more severe and your ship is now a useless casualty.

The RCN and gov't want ships that have the highest chance of bringing home the sailors in it alive and well.  That is the highest priority for the CSC.  You can't do that with civi standards.

 

[Navy_Pete]

They keep trotting out Hansen,  he's not always on the mark.  Like now.

It drives me crazy to read his commentary.


According to Hansen, a large portion of shipbuilding costs are due to using extremely high engineering standards for systems and subsystems — things like water, power, heating and ventilation — that are commonly available, something that he said Denmark has managed to opt out of.

“They use Caterpillar diesel engines for diesel generators and they use stuff from their marine industry, the best industrial standard is good enough.”

http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/hewitt-equipment-limited-awarded-halifax-class-frigates-generator-replacement-contract-2028318.htm

Hey, so do we!

Hansen said it was once thought that over engineering could improve survivability, but that’s no longer true with modern weaponry.

“Engineering standards will not save you for a torpedo hit or high-speed missile hit. The only thing that will absorb the destructive power of modern weaponry is size. So you’re better off to build it bigger and then use redundancy to get survivability, and that’s what the Danes do as well,” he said.

The old milspec standards were adapted into commercial standards, and some industries have higher requirements than milspec.  What we do have is shock and vibration standards, but you take industrial equipment and shock mount it for that.  WE USE INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT YOU DAFT GASBAG!

Our requirements to have redundant equipment is no different than normal marine requirements for redundancy.

No one really expects a frigate sized ship to recover from a direct torpedo hit, but with the engineering standards will drastically improve your chances as the shock mounting will drastically reduce secondary and tertiary damage from the high speed contact. Industrial equipment not shock mounted will eat the entire force of the shock wave and fail.  I was on the last RCN ship to do shock testing; we found out right away what happened when something was installed that wasn't up to the milspec.

Instead of two diesel generators on a ship, Hansen said, the Danes will have four or six because because they’re a 10th of the cost of a military spec diesel generator.

“What’s driving the government to say ‘Oh we have to put all this extra money in the program,’ is that they’re allowing the navy to dictate this requirement when there’s no historical justification for it. If you do the analysis on the lethality of modern systems for it, there’s no justification for it there either,” he said...


Two separated generators is the bare minimum for any ship, and we also have four on every ship.  Jesus H, what is he even talking about?

You want to know what drives the cost of warships?  Look at the expensive weapons systems and sensor packages.  Aside from the material costs involved in stuff like using naval brass for piping and valves, and the relatively minimal cost for shock mountings, warships cost a lot because there are a few BILLION dollars of WAR FIGHTING gear on it.

God he makes me angry.  What kind of idiot would design a multipurpose ship that would only deal with known imminent threats when the build program is a twenty year program and the ships will run for 35+ years?